War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Circe]

If anyone should get involved in this mess it should be the Arab League. They are the one supporting the fall and replacement of the Syrian government, they are the ones supporting the Egyptian military with tons of money.

Problem: Arabs are way too stupid to fly jet planes. I know they HAVE them -- we give them planes, of course they can't build them or anything -- and we train them, but they can't manage them, because they basically have a camel-power culture.

They can't do modern warfare. Remember the Iraq/Iran war -- hundreds of thousands of 14-year-old boys running at each other across the sands with knives, mainly. And poison gas, of course.

 

[The T]

If anyone should get involved in this mess it should be the Arab League. They are the one supporting the fall and replacement of the Syrian government, they are the ones supporting the Egyptian military with tons of money.

Problem: Arabs are way too stupid to fly jet planes. I know they HAVE them -- we give them planes, of course they can't build them or anything -- and we train them, but they can't manage them, because they basically have a camel-power culture.

They can't do modern warfare. Remember the Iraq/Iran war -- hundreds of thousands of 14-year-old boys running at each other across the sands with knives, mainly. And poison gas, of course.

Do you mean to tell me ALL that training WE gave them in the package failed?

 

[Circe]

If anyone should get involved in this mess it should be the Arab League. They are the one supporting the fall and replacement of the Syrian government, they are the ones supporting the Egyptian military with tons of money.

Problem: Arabs are way too stupid to fly jet planes. I know they HAVE them -- we give them planes, of course they can't build them or anything -- and we train them, but they can't manage them, because they basically have a camel-power culture.

They can't do modern warfare. Remember the Iraq/Iran war -- hundreds of thousands of 14-year-old boys running at each other across the sands with knives, mainly. And poison gas, of course.

Do you mean to tell me ALL that training WE gave them in the package failed?

Well: I don't mean to be prejudiced -- I bet they are LOTS better at racing camels than we are, and catching donkeys and loading firewood on them. Also butchering goats. Hey, everybody is good at something, right?

 

[Geaux4it]

This keeps escalating and the US and Russia are placing chess. We move in 5 destroyers, the Russians counter with same. We send in the Sam Houston ampib ship loaded with marines, Russians call and raise. So we send in the Nimitz and it's group and Russia sends more amphibs.

This is not a limited anything. It's a prelude to WW3 if one mistake is made

-Geaux

 

[Circe]

This keeps escalating and the US and Russia are placing chess. We move in 5 destroyers, the Russians counter with same. We send in the Sam Houston ampib ship loaded with marines, Russians call and raise. So we send in the Nimitz and it's group and Russia sends more amphibs.

This is not a limited anything. It's a prelude to WW3 if one mistake is made

-Geaux

I've spent a lot of time studying World War I and I don't think these set-ups are about mistakes. They are PLANNED. WWI was no mistake: the Germans spent YEARS setting it up. Then they waited for just the right crisis. There were several almost-good-enough crises when the Germans sent gunboats here and there after the French (they were always going to go after the French).

Finally some 17-year-old Serb kid shot the Archduke of Austria-Hungary, and that was it, that was their crisis. Germany mobilized and within five weeks were goosestepping over the border into Belgium headed for Paris.

Wait --------------------- how did a Serb shooting an Austrian result in the German marching on the French????????

Because they needed a crisis for an excuse.

Same deal here.

Bush needed a crisis to take out Saddam, and he was able to make it happen, but he made a botch of it.

Obama and Co. need a crisis to take out Iran.

Syria is their crisis.

Never let a crisis go to waste. Always use it to try to solve some other problem while the public is all upset.

Their real problem here is that they can't so far get us upset. They'll have to stage a faked attack on us. That always works. Let's watch for the faked attack.

 

[Camp]

This keeps escalating and the US and Russia are placing chess. We move in 5 destroyers, the Russians counter with same. We send in the Sam Houston ampib ship loaded with marines, Russians call and raise. So we send in the Nimitz and it's group and Russia sends more amphibs.

This is not a limited anything. It's a prelude to WW3 if one mistake is made

-Geaux

Where is this information about Russian ship movements come from? It doesn't jive with what I have been able to ascertain. It appears that certain types of ships left the area and were replaced with ships that would support the evacuation and protection of the RU civilian population, protection of the port and force protection. Perhaps you have access to information I am unaware of.

 

[georgephillip]

This keeps escalating and the US and Russia are placing chess. We move in 5 destroyers, the Russians counter with same. We send in the Sam Houston ampib ship loaded with marines, Russians call and raise. So we send in the Nimitz and it's group and Russia sends more amphibs.

This is not a limited anything. It's a prelude to WW3 if one mistake is made

-Geaux

"The July Crisis was a diplomatic crisis among the major powers of Europe in the summer of 1914 that led to the First World War. Immediately after Gavrilo Princip, a Yugoslav nationalist, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo, a series of diplomatic maneuverings led to an ultimatum from Austria-Hungary to Serbia, and ultimately to war."

July 2014 is four months before our next opportunity to "choose" between the Republican OR Democrat factions of the War Party.

Every incumbent of the house or senate who votes for war in Syria deserves to be FLUSHED from office a year from now.

Find an acceptable third party candidate that mirrors your political views and help FLUSH Republicans AND Democrats by the hundreds from DC before they pick the wrong crises to exploit.

July Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Londoner]

Here is the plan.

If Obama does nothing, then we blame him.

If Obama drops bombs, we blame him.

If Obama doesn't seek Congressional approval, we blame him.

If Obama seeks congressional approval, we blame him.

Remember: this isn't about Syria. Everything we do, we do against Obama.

 

[The T]

Here is the plan.

If Obama does nothing, then we blame him.

If Obama drops bombs, we blame him.

If Obama doesn't seek Congressional approval, we blame him.

If Obama seeks congressional approval, we blame him.

Remember: this isn't about Syria. Everything we do, we do against Obama.

And THIS IS ALL ABout Obama's LEGACY...HE is a LAME DUCK.

 

[Kondor3]

Here is the plan.

If Obama does nothing, then we blame him.

If Obama drops bombs, we blame him.

If Obama doesn't seek Congressional approval, we blame him.

If Obama seeks congressional approval, we blame him.

Remember: this isn't about Syria. Everything we do, we do against Obama.

By Jove, I think you've got it !

 

[Missouri_Mike]

This keeps escalating and the US and Russia are placing chess. We move in 5 destroyers, the Russians counter with same. We send in the Sam Houston ampib ship loaded with marines, Russians call and raise. So we send in the Nimitz and it's group and Russia sends more amphibs.

This is not a limited anything. It's a prelude to WW3 if one mistake is made

-Geaux

The sad part is we have the same enemy as Russia does. Radical muslims. They are using Assad to keep AQ down and now we are going to help AQ to keep Assad down. If we really pulled our heads out of our asses we would see that Russia and China have the same f*cking problem we do, muslims.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

Nobody's going to be second-guessing this decision after a "big ass" war. Maybe, 10 years later in the aftermath, depending on just how "big ass" it is.

 

[Indofred]

Obama and Co. need a crisis to take out Iran.

Syria is their crisis.

Never let a crisis go to waste. Always use it to try to solve some other problem while the public is all upset.

Their real problem here is that they can't so far get us upset. They'll have to stage a faked attack on us. That always works. Let's watch for the faked attack.

That could well be.
Israel wants rid of Iran and Syria's exit would be a lovely bonus.
America attacks Syria on behalf of Israel.
Iran supplied or assists Syria.
Iran becomes an enemy and requires attacking.

Result:
A bloody mess in the middle east, a load of dead people in a lot of countries (including American troops) and terrorism used as a weapon of war in America so you can expect dead Americans on the streets of New York.
In years to come, after mission accomplished, Americans will still be killed in Syria and Iran even though the government says there are no longer any troops there, just advisers.
Israel will have gained a victory as is two major enemies will have been removed with no or very few dead Israelis.
Dead Americas are of no concern to them so that doesn't really matter.

Tell Obama to so shag himself - write to your rep today and tell him no more votes and no more gravy train if he/she supports this stupidity.

yes, Assad is a murdering bastard but quite why Americans should die to get rid of him is a mystery. If Israel wants rid of him - let them try it themselves.
Of course, they won't because Americans can die in their place so why should they bother?

 

[Tuatara]

Found this today

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTUcvKO3js8]Leaked Documents: US Framed Syria in Chemical Weapons Attack - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TemplarKormac]

If congress tells Obama no on Syria, then by all intents and purposes, it must be because they are racist.

 

[Indofred]

Pro-Israel groups publicly back U.S. action in Syria | Reuters

Israel's supporters wants America to attack because dead Christians are better than dead Jews.
At least the 'Israel before America'' lot are finally showing their true colours.

 

[Indofred]

Found this today

Leaked Documents: US Framed Syria in Chemical Weapons Attack - YouTube

I've seen the vast majority of that stuff on a wide range of sites.
Many do get removed, blocked or hacked very quickly.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

I'm not from the left and didn't vote for Obama in either election. I support the missile strike because its the right policy and necessary for US national security.

Its beautiful the way the Senate and the House will come together to support this policy. Many on here have said it would be voted down in congress. I told them it wouldn't.

Will soon have a vote in support of the missile strike, the missile strike itself, and Assad will go back to only using conventional weapons in his war with the rebels. That will be it.

Also, don't recall Bush ever saying that there would not be boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. There were boots on the ground from the start for both of those wars. Overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime in Iraq with a nation building process to follow in both cases!

BS.

There was a no-fly zone (enforced by the US) for several years BEFORE there were boots on the ground (1991 to 2003). There were missile strikes for years before there were boots on the ground. Get your facts straight.

So, we somehow get this clown (Assad) out of Syria. He is replaced by radical extremists who want our death. Congratulations rube. One more enemy that is plotting to kill us.

I fought in Vietnam and served 22 years in the Army. How about YOU suiting up and go show them how it's done?

Bush never stated there would be NO boots on the ground, EVER, when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan!

The fact that there was a no fly zone is irrelevant. No one said No boots on the ground" ever with regard to Iraq or Afghanistan!

Yes, in the intervening period in between the 1991 Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom, there were strikes on Iraq every year. But no one ever stated emphatically that there would never be any boots on the ground, ground invasion, if events or circumstances warranted such action.

The purpose of the missile strike is not to remove Assad or have any significant impact on the civil war in Syria. The purpose of the strike is to deter the further use of chemical weapons by Assad!

 

[U2Edge]

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.

I'm not from the left and didn't vote for Obama in either election. I support the missile strike because its the right policy and necessary for US national security.

Its beautiful the way the Senate and the House will come together to support this policy. Many on here have said it would be voted down in congress. I told them it wouldn't.

Will soon have a vote in support of the missile strike, the missile strike itself, and Assad will go back to only using conventional weapons in his war with the rebels. That will be it.

Also, don't recall Bush ever saying that there would not be boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. There were boots on the ground from the start for both of those wars. Overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime in Iraq with a nation building process to follow in both cases!

Please explain the danger Syria poses to the U.S.
Is it ready to invade new york, bomb the white house or use its massive navy to strike America with missiles?

Nope, but neither was NAZI Germany. Once again, your thinking about national security in 1812 terms, border security etc. Its 2013 and US national security is far more complex and for at least a century has started in variety of places overseas far from American shores because of economics, trade, and natural resource requirments.

The US is striking Syria to deter the further use of Chemical weapons by Assad, to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons worldwide, and to send a message to states like North Korea, Iran or anyone else contemplating the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that such use will NEVER be tolerated!

 

[Geaux4it]

I'm not from the left and didn't vote for Obama in either election. I support the missile strike because its the right policy and necessary for US national security.

Its beautiful the way the Senate and the House will come together to support this policy. Many on here have said it would be voted down in congress. I told them it wouldn't.

Will soon have a vote in support of the missile strike, the missile strike itself, and Assad will go back to only using conventional weapons in his war with the rebels. That will be it.

Also, don't recall Bush ever saying that there would not be boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. There were boots on the ground from the start for both of those wars. Overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime in Iraq with a nation building process to follow in both cases!

Please explain the danger Syria poses to the U.S.
Is it ready to invade new york, bomb the white house or use its massive navy to strike America with missiles?

Nope, but neither was NAZI Germany. Once again, your thinking about national security in 1812 terms, border security etc. Its 2013 and US national security is far more complex and for at least a century has started in variety of places overseas far from American shores because of economics, trade, and natural resource requirments.

The US is striking Syria to deter the further use of Chemical weapons by Assad, to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons worldwide, and to send a message to states like North Korea, Iran or anyone else contemplating the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that such use will NEVER be tolerated!

They will laugh off a limited strike. The US has to be all in to send a message. Like Charles what's his face said, if a limited strike is all you want, its cheaper to send a text and just as effective

-Geaux