War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[B. Kidd]

When Iran and Iraq was involved in their war of attrition, Henry Kissinger was asked whom he wanted to win. His answer was that he hoped they both lost.
This should be our attitude towards the Syrian civil war.

If so, then mumbling some crap about the "red line" was a piss-poor stupid-ass thing for Obumbler to have intoned.

And when we wish a pox on both their houses, there are a lot of perfectly innocent victims who will get swept up in the ensuing bloodshed.

Even worse, sooner or later, one of the two pox ridden combatants will likely prevail. And then, more bad shit will flow.

Syria has not attacked us. If bad shit flows later and they decide to, we'll deal with it then. In this situation, using military power in the name of 'American Exceptionalism' is a double-edged sword.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

152 to 6 against war with Syria on this poll here.

I hope we'll see some national polls this week.

Disappointingly, it looks like Congress means to vote in favor of this war. I really can't understand this, given the apparent opposition of the voters on both sides.

Maybe it's because Obama is black. If they're black, you're supposed to give them whatever they ask for. Even if they want a big war.

I can't see it, myself.

The only explanation I can see is the Judgments of God are on us. When the Lord wants to destroy a people, he takes away their wisdom and their judgment as to what's in their best interests.

We can do some things, like let our Congressmen know we oppose this war. Beyond that, we simply respond to what happens. Ultimately, we will face much wrath from the rest of the world for all the havoc we have unleashed on others for so many years.

Right now, we don't have to worry, because we could defeat or at least, repel most of the world with our air power that is many times greater than the rest of the world's combined. Without that advantage, we are up shit creek, and are we so sure that that advantage will outlast the outrage that is brewing across the world?

 

[Camp]

Voting to authorize the President's threat to lob missiles at Assad-related-military-targets is a horrible idea.

Voting against the President's request for such authorization is a horrible idea.

I seriously can't believe those are our only choices. Nor can i believe we need to settle for horrible ideas.

Why is a vote against authorizing an attack a bad idea?

It's a bad idea if you are a politician and your number one priority is to get re-elected. If you vote yes and things go bad, like a big ass war or a bunch of civilian casaulties, etc., you can say this was not what you agreed upon and the administration went further than they were supposed to or were incompetent, etc. If you vote no, and an attack of chemical or bio weapons is launced that inflicts huge casaultie, or worse, is made on Israel and drags the USA into war anyhow, the no vote will become a career ending vote. The no voters will be blamed for all the hell that follows. The only politicians that might survive are the one's who had overwhelming constituent support for the no vote. Provable overwhelming support.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

When Iran and Iraq was involved in their war of attrition, Henry Kissinger was asked whom he wanted to win. His answer was that he hoped they both lost.
This should be our attitude towards the Syrian civil war.

If so, then mumbling some crap about the "red line" was a piss-poor stupid-ass thing for Obumbler to have intoned.

And when we wish a pox on both their houses, there are a lot of perfectly innocent victims who will get swept up in the ensuing bloodshed.

Even worse, sooner or later, one of the two pox ridden combatants will likely prevail. And then, more bad shit will flow.

Syria has not attacked us. If bad shit flows later and they decide to, we'll deal with it then. In this situation, using military power in the name of 'American Exceptionalism' is a double-edged sword.

I didn't advocate for one position or the other.

What I am saying is that bad shit is likely to ensue no matter which course we now take.

And I said nothing at all about "American Exceptionalism."

There is much to the concept of American Exceptionalism. But it has nothing at all to do with coherent foreign policy.

Our present problem stems from the fact that this President doesn't even have a fuzzy first notion of what our foreign policy is or should be.

 

[U2Edge]

Where's your link establishing the fact Turkey and Saudi Arabia are planning to kill Muslims to defend the petrodollar?

The US needs to secure a UNSC resolution to go to war or demonstrate an imminent threat posed by Syria to the US homeland or risk another violation of international law.

The UK actually embraced democracy in this matter.
What's your problem with that?

Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.

The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.

No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.

Had the technology been available in 1812 to lob 300 cruise missiles into Syria, international law would not have stood in the way. That isn't the case in 2013 unless you can point out the imminent threat Assad poses to the US homeland:

"The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being 'instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'

"The criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test).

"This concept was introduced to compensate the strict, classical and inefficient definition of self-defense used by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend of an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."

Self-defence in international law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are other reasons where taking self defensive action is justified. An imminent threat is only one justification, there are others.

 

[U2Edge]

Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.

The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.

No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.

Had the technology been available in 1812 to lob 300 cruise missiles into Syria, international law would not have stood in the way. That isn't the case in 2013 unless you can point out the imminent threat Assad poses to the US homeland:

"The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being 'instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'

"The criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test).

"This concept was introduced to compensate the strict, classical and inefficient definition of self-defense used by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend of an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."

Self-defence in international law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indeed- And if this was a real threat to National Security, why is Obama sitting on his hands? There is no sense of urgency so this cannot be an actual threat to the United States

-Geaux

Once again, a threat does not have to be imminent in order to justify the use of military force in a defensive fashion.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Funny. I look at the results of this rather "unscientific" poll and I see that the vast majority of the participants do NOT want these "so-called" strikes on Syria. I have no doubt whatsoever that this is reflected in America as a whole, as well.

Yet, I'm out feeding stock today and I'm listening to Sirius and amazingly, I hear the democrats in hearings defending OBarry's position on strikes.

Looks like we should prepare to be bamboozled, once again. After all, it's for "our own good", don't you know....

 

[U2Edge]

You still haven't shown any proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons, as opposed to the fully documented war crime of the US dumping more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over 4.5 million acres of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia between 1966-1972, for example.

Yes, and Germany used mustard gas during WWI. But none of that is relevant to the fact that current events have taken place after certain international agreements were met, which, of course, Syria is not officially a party to; nonetheless, if that treaty is going to have any meaning, it certainly must apply to Syria's stockpile, seeing that it is one of the largest on the planet, certainly the largest in the ME. Otherwise what is the friggin point?

despite what obozo, McCrazy, and Grannesty say about Syria, there is no US interest at stake in the syrian civil war. Its none of our damn business. Let them fight it our until someone wins.

the dialog coming out of DC today sounds very much like the dialog before the viet nam fiasco-------"if we don't stop them the whole region will be destroyed or become communist".

That stupid war cost us 58,000 americans and billions of dollars for absolutely nothing, and we also heard the "no boots ont he ground" bullshit before that one.

Stay the hell out of other countries business.

The Vietnam war was part of defending the world against global Soviet Communism, in this particular case, defending and independent State, South Vietnam from being swallowed by its northern neighbor.

The United States had nearly succeeded in Vietnam, by congress in 1973 undercut the effort that was succeeding. Funding for further US military action in Vietnam was cut by congress in 1973 and they also drastically cut funding for South Vietnam at a time when the whole world was reeling from the oil crises. At the time, Russia and China were pouring massive amounts of money and weapons into North Vietnam.

By 1975, South Vietnames military had been gutted by the cutbacks and the US military was not allowed to support it with airpower. That's why the communist were able to role in blitzkrieg style in the Spring of 75. Had congress not cut funding in 1973 and allowed United States Air Power to continue to support South Vietnam, the communist offensive in 1975 would have been crushed!

 

[U2Edge]

Just a random thought...

Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
Proxy war?

Iran has said it will honor its mutual defense treaty with Syria which could spike oil prices in this country considerably. There seems little doubt the powers that be are redrawing the borders of middle eastern countries a century after Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire after the War to End All Wars. Personally, I remember the gas lines of 1973 and it makes me glad I don't drive anymore.

Iran is not going to do jack shit after the United States missile strike. Yes, they will continue to send supplies and fund their proxies as always. But the Iranian military has not directly appeared on any battlefield since 1988.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Looks as though NOW would be a good time to, once again, remind everyone of what is coming:


THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


.....Soon, folks.....soon.

 

[U2Edge]

I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.

There is not overwhelming opposition. The President will get the Senates approval no problem. He has a little work to do in the house, maybe 20 votes, but that's it.

All Obama needs is 70% of House Democrats and 33% of house Republicans and he'll have 50% of the house. No problem.

 

[Camp]

Funny. I look at the results of this rather "unscientific" poll and I see that the vast majority of the participants do NOT want these "so-called" strikes on Syria. I have no doubt whatsoever that this is reflected in America as a whole, as well.

Yet, I'm out feeding stock today and I'm listening to Sirius and amazingly, I hear the democrats in hearings defending OBarry's position on strikes.

Looks like we should prepare to be bamboozled, once again. After all, it's for "our own good", don't you know....

I missed that poll about strikes. Saw the one about going to war, but not the one about missile strikes or limited air attack. Mostly when folks get bamboozled it's because they are told untrue stuff and make their decisions on fraudulent information. Like changing what a poll that was taken for into something it wasn't. That would be bamboozling people into thinking something occured that did not really occur.

 

[U2Edge]

I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.

152 to 6 against war with Syria on this poll here.

I hope we'll see some national polls this week.

Disappointingly, it looks like Congress means to vote in favor of this war. I really can't understand this, given the apparent opposition of the voters on both sides.

Maybe it's because Obama is black. If they're black, you're supposed to give them whatever they ask for. Even if they want a big war.

I can't see it, myself.

Shows you how totally out of step people on this forum are, doesn't it. Congress is going to approve, even thought President could launch the strike without the 50% approval margin.

 

[U2Edge]

When monkey man starts lobbing missiles at Assad, life as you know it will, most likely, change very dramatically. The potential for unintended consequences is extraordinary in this military misadventure.

It will be fun to see what you have to say when that does not happen after the missile strike.

 

[U2Edge]

Russia plans on sending Russian lawmakers to address our Congress. In my 60 years, this is unprecedented in a U.S. lead-up to a military action. Maybe they're coming to remind our lawmakers that we are still in the crosshairs of Russian and Chinese subs.

They won't do anything. The United States accidentally bombed China's embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and China essentially did nothing! The Russians did not confront the US bombing their little ally Serbia or their old client Saddam either.

 

[U2Edge]

That's great. Let Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE and France do it, then.



All true.

But the Administration knows that it is now on shaky ground and has deferred the matter to the Congress, which, as our duly-elected Representatives, will, hopefully, execute the Will of the People in this matter.



I'll let the Brits speak for themselves on that one, but, at such a juncture, it is important to remember that the Brits were the first ones to get behind us in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and to jump-in with both feet, in a big way, and that they proved themselves to be worthy allies during the course of those conflicts.

They simply chose to sit this one out.

Like we seem likely to do, at this juncture.

Sorry, but the President will get his way. Republicans don't want to be seen supporting a dictator like Assad or standing passively by in the face of the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction or appear weak on a national security issue.

Democrats will support their President mostly. 50% of the house and the senate is an easy bar to pass.

Plus, even if the President doesn't get to 50% approval, he can still launch the missile strike.

George H.W. Bush was willing to launch the first Gulf War in 1991 even if he did not get a majority of the members of congress behind them.

The fact is, the only real power the congress has over the Presidency is its ability to cut funding. But in order to cut funding, congress needs a veto proof 2/3 majority. Congress does not have that right now in either the Senate or the House, so Obama can go ahead with the strike PERIOD!

If you consider Republicans that vote against an act of war against Syria support for Assad, do you consider the Democrats that opposed the war in Iraq supporters of Saddam Hussein?

Just asking.

Yep. Supporters indeed of letting Saddam remain in power which was indeed the wrong choice!

 

[U2Edge]

Funny. I look at the results of this rather "unscientific" poll and I see that the vast majority of the participants do NOT want these "so-called" strikes on Syria. I have no doubt whatsoever that this is reflected in America as a whole, as well.

Yet, I'm out feeding stock today and I'm listening to Sirius and amazingly, I hear the democrats in hearings defending OBarry's position on strikes.

Looks like we should prepare to be bamboozled, once again. After all, it's for "our own good", don't you know....

The strike is coming and getting approval in congress should be easy. Obama already had the Senate with him and after few days he will have the House. He only needs 70% of the House Democrats and 33% of the House Republicans to get to 50%.

 

[Contumacious]

Two large Russian amphibious assault ships sail off to Mediterranean

.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Funny. I look at the results of this rather "unscientific" poll and I see that the vast majority of the participants do NOT want these "so-called" strikes on Syria. I have no doubt whatsoever that this is reflected in America as a whole, as well.

Yet, I'm out feeding stock today and I'm listening to Sirius and amazingly, I hear the democrats in hearings defending OBarry's position on strikes.

Looks like we should prepare to be bamboozled, once again. After all, it's for "our own good", don't you know....

The strike is coming and getting approval in congress should be easy. Obama already had the Senate with him and after few days he will have the House. He only needs 70% of the House Democrats and 33% of the House Republicans to get to 50%.

Well, of course it's coming you twit. How the hell else can "politicians" justify their existence? These fat-assed clowns, sitting in their leather bound seats, with their "HON so and so name plates" and their $25,000 gold rolex's - passing judgement on the rest of the world.

Irony? You bet. Democrats who steadfastly protest any kind of war (only when it comes from the right) are now defending Barry and his cohorts and preaching that "it's our obligation" to be the "protectors" of the world.

But, like those on the left are fond of telling us now, "It's only a few cruise missiles", and "we aren't putting boots on the ground", and "we aren't trying to Nation build in Syria".

Bull Sh&t. I heard the same nonsense from Bush.

But you folks on the left - you go on telling yourselves that your boy has the "best interest" of the US at hand. Go on buying into the propaganda that you are fed. As long as it comes from Barry - it MUST be a Holy Endeavor.

Sheep. and Barry is the Wolf.

 

[Kondor3]

Two large Russian amphibious assault ships sail off to Mediterranean

.

Looks like those two ships (both Ropucha-class, according to the article) - combined - only have the ability to land - at best - a Light Battalion, along with a dozen or more mid-sized tanks or personnel carriers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ropucha-class_landing_ship

If memory serves, the Russians have 10,000 or more (perhaps much more?) Russian citizens still in Syria, after all these years of client-state relations.

It's a good first guess that a Battalion-sized ground force would come in handy, in guarding a naval base, especially if it ends-up being used as a port of embarkation for hundreds or thousands of Russian evacuees streaming to the base from the interior, should the shit hit the fan and Russian citizens be endangered... they may also be considering using that Battalion to reach stranded pockets of Russian civilians and then fight their way back to the ports, with the civilians in tow... ala Dunkirk...

I don't think that the Russians plan on doing any kind of Interdiction or Defense of their Client with such a tiny force...

Although you never can tell...

If they intended to put up a Big Stink, methinks they'd be moving far more assets into the region...

I could be wrong, but that's the initial sense that I've got for it...