War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Uncensored2008]

Al Qaeda only exists because we stuck our nose into Afghanistan's business.

Comrade Stalin, you're a stupid guy - we all know this. But Al Qaeda is an outgrowth of the Wahhabi cult of Islam. It dates back to about 1800.

You see, those Soviets were teaching women to read, and they couldn't have that.

Here's where I think we have a problem.

Yes Comrade, you Soviets were the saviors of the world.

We look back at Japan and West Germany, countries we defeated in war, but were able to transform into vibrant democracies.

The thing was, it took major commitments to do that.

Commitments we are unwilling to make today.

We are unwilling to defeat anyone. Defeat is absolute. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were defeated. Defeat is the condition where the enemy is no longer willing to fight.

 

[bodecea]

CIA sending arms to the rebels....a civil war....why is this sounding more and more like Viet Nam Part II?

 

[Uncensored2008]

When it comes to US foreign policy there is no such thing as a liberal President.

???

Every president post-Reagan has had a leftist, one world view. There is no such thing as a conservative president.

 

[Uncensored2008]

CIA sending arms to the rebels....a civil war....why is this sounding more and more like Viet Nam Part II?

Vietnam was a proxy war. Syria could be the real deal - head to head with the Bear.

 

[g5000]

"War with Syria".

This entire topic is based on a completely false premise.

There will be no invasion, there will be no boots on the ground, there will be no war. A few sailors will push some buttons and call it a day.

If you are calling that a "war", you have guzzled an Olympic-sized swimming pool of piss and are one credulous fool.

 

[U2Edge]

...the argument is that chemical weapons use by Assad is a danger to US National Security.

Why specifically? Over 100,000 have died in Syria with conventional weapons but only a fraction have died by chemical weapons. Conventional weapons are clearly far deadlier than chemical weapons and there is no evidence that their use in Syria increases the likelihood they'll be used in the US. So again, why specifically is the use of chemical weapons a danger to the US?

1. The United States have vital national security interest all over the world. You would have to go back to the 19th century to find a time when US vital national security interest was just about what was inside the borders of the country.

2. Chemical Weapons are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Their use can erode the conventional military advantages that the United States has. Anything that makes United States defenses weaker, threatens US National Security.

3. No response to Assad's use of the weapons will make it more likely they will be used again in Syria and elsewhere, increasing the likely hood of proliferation, and the the likely hood that the men and women of the United States armed forces will have these terrible weapons used against them.

4. Chemical Weapons use in Syria has proved more deadly than conventional weapons which is not a surprise. The facts: 1,469 Syrians were killed in the early hours of August 21, 2013. That is by far the highest death toll for any day in the Syrian conflict. It is higher than any single day in the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq. On average over the past year, 6,000 people are killed in Syria per month. In just a few hours on August 21, 2013, 1,469 people were murdered. If the weapons fired had been conventional explosives, the death toll would have been LESS THAN 10% of what was seen with chemical weapons!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well then, it sounds like we shouldn't be supporting the rebels funded by Qatar and Saudi A. who used chemical weapons in April and claimed again in August.

 

[Londoner]

This is exactly what happened with Kennedy and Vietnam.

Kennedy was a young democrat who didn't want to appear soft on Communism. So he was coaxed into very limited action by the hawks on the Right just as Obama was coaxed by McCain and Graham. (Of course Kennedy later made the mistake of trying to reverse course in Vietnam and rebel against the CIA and other components of the military industrial complex)

But the pattern is clear: a naive democratic president finds himself in a position where he thinks it is politically necessary to play ball with the Hawks. Then the situation grows beyond his control and we find ourself in a civil war without an end game.

Washington can't fix civil wars, no matter how many innocent soldiers and trillions of dollars it sacrifices. News Flash to Republicans: Washington isn't all powerful, despite your belief that our big government bureaucrats can turn Iraq into a sinning beacon of democracy .

Same old story. Every second of every day you accuse a Democratic president of being weak on national defense. Said President tries to escape this charge by dropping bombs. Then ... the U.S. finds itself in an un-winnable war where the only consequence is a loss of lives and money ... and the increased likelihood of blowback.

 

[g5000]

Well then, it sounds like we shouldn't be supporting the rebels funded by Qatar and Saudi A. who used chemical weapons in April and claimed again in August.

Please provide evidence the rebels used chemical weapons in April.

 

[U2Edge]

The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?

This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.

Good post: I agree. It's always about something else than we're told. In Bush's case there were no WMD poison gas thingies. In Assad's case, it was probably the rebels using them anyway. I assume they are lying about all the ha-ha supposed limits they are putting on the war in order to get to start up at all. Once they get there, they'll do whatever they want and not tell us and deny reports.

I am guessing it's about getting in there and then parlaying this into a war on Iran, but I can't know that, of course. What do you think is the real reason Obama and Co. want their war?

Thank God there were not stocks of chemicals that Saddam could use against US troops and other countries in the region when the United States invaded in March 2003. The goal of the United States since the end of the 1991 war was PREVENTING SADDAM from ever obtaining such weapons again. That means acting against him before he has such weapons to use against the US military. Only a fool would wait until Saddam has some nice little stock pile that he could slime US troops with before invading to remove him from power. The fact that there was intelligence that he had this stuff is evidence that the United States was LATE in acting decisively to deal with Saddam!


The United States is making the push to act in Syria now because 1,469 people were gassed by the Syrian government in the early morning hours of August 21, 2013. The attack is the first large scale use of WMD in a quarter of a century. Failing to respond to this will increase proliferation of chemical weapons which threatens United States military capabilities and national security interest around the world. The world and the United States will be less safe in a world where the possession and use of chemical weapons is spreading, which is what you will have if no response is made to this attack.

 

[g5000]

There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?

The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?

This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.

The only lie here is yours. The UN does not blame the rebels for the April attack. That is a lie.

 

[g5000]

At no time has the United Nations said the rebels in Syria perpetrated a chemical weapons attack. Anyone who says such a thing is lying through their teeth.

And now there is a report of the defection of a member of the Syrian regime who has brought evidence out of Syria with him that the earlier attack this year was made by Assad:

Abdeltawwab Shahrour, head of the forensic medicine committee in Aleppo, claims there was a chemical attack in Khan al-Assal, Aleppo, on March 19, said Istanbul-based opposition coalition spokeswoman Sarah Karkour.

Mr Shahrour, who has defected to Turkey, has documents proving the attack took place and eyewitness accounts from police authorities that contradicte the administration's version of events, a second opposition official said.

Syria Defector 'Exposes Assad Chemical Attack'


I would caution against stating anything as fact until actual evidence is provided.

 

[U2Edge]

1) There is no clear and compelling national interest. Humanitarian military interventions are ineffective. Lobbing missiles does not reduce violence. Bottom line, it's not our war.

2) Chemical weapons should not be a 'red line'. Even if Assad used these weapons and not his enemies (far from clear), the case for treating chemical weapons as somehow different than far more deadly conventional weapons is weak. Over 100,000 have been killed in this war with conventional weapons - a tiny fraction by chemical weapons. Dead is dead and as Rwanda proved, you don't need anything more than machetes to kill hundreds of thousands.

3) Victory has not been defined! No one has articulated what victory in Syria looks like. Why should we fight, who are we helping, and how do we know if we've succeeded? If we can't answer these questions, we shouldn't get involved.

4) Missiles and a 'no fly zone' will not be effective. "Limited" action by the US will do no good, according to the experts:

• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told NPR last month, the possible results of enforcing a no-fly zone could "include the loss of U.S. aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces. It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum..."
• Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies explained it to the L.A. Times: “Can you do damage with cruise missiles? Yes,” he said. “Can you stop them from having chemical weapons capability? I would think the answer would be no."

5) It’s hard to keep limited actions limited. As Chairman Dempsey further cautioned, "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid." John Kerry implied the same yesterday when he said boots on the ground were possible. Great, then what?

6) Deposing one regime means living with an imperfect successor. Why are we ignoring history? We wind up entangling the US in civil wars with outcomes clearly not worth the price.

7) The people do not want this war. Every poll clearly indicates the people are not interested in military intervention, chemical weapons or not.

8) If either side wins, it does not help the US. Our enemies are killing our enemies. So what's the problem?

1. This not a humanitarian intervention. Its a missile strike designed to deter the further use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else in the world.

2. Chemical Weapons are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The most deadly day in the Syrian conflict is August 21 when 1,469 people were gassed to death. That is SEVEN TIMES that average death toll per day in the conflict across the ENTIRE country. This is 1,469 people dead in a few hours in just the Damascus area!

3. Victory is the prevention of the further use of chemical weapons in Syria which will be accomplished by the missile strike.

4. The United States is not planning a no fly zone nor is it planning to take away Assad's chemical weapons capability. The goal is only to PREVENT, DETER the further use of chemical weapons and that will be accomplished with a cruise missile strike!

5. Well, technically anything is possible, but its not likely.

6. The United States is not trying to depose the regime with this missile strike.

7. Congress, the people representatives, will get to vote, and all indications are is that congress will support the missile strike. You'll find the polls all in favor once the missiles have been fired!

8. This is not about the Syrian Civil War, this about Assad and his use of chemical weapons and deterring further use of chemical weapons. That's it.

 

[U2Edge]

This is exactly what happened with Kennedy and Vietnam.

Kennedy was a young democrat who didn't want to appear soft on Communism. So he was coaxed into very limited action by the hawks on the Right just as Obama was coaxed by McCain and Graham. (Of course Kennedy later made the mistake of trying to reverse course in Vietnam and rebel against the CIA and other components of the military industrial complex)

But the pattern is clear: a naive democratic president finds himself in a position where he thinks it is politically necessary to play ball with the Hawks. Then the situation grows beyond his control and we find ourself in a civil war without an end game.

Washington can't fix civil wars, no matter how many innocent soldiers and trillions of dollars it sacrifices. News Flash to Republicans: Washington isn't all powerful, despite your belief that our big government bureaucrats can turn Iraq into a sinning beacon of democracy .

Same old story. Every second of every day you accuse a Democratic president of being weak on national defense. Said President tries to escape this charge by dropping bombs. Then ... the U.S. finds itself in an un-winnable war where the only consequence is a loss of lives and money ... and the increased likelihood of blowback.

Kennedy and most democrats were hawks on national security back then. They were right to intervene to save South Vietnam and South Vietnam would have been saved from the Communist if Congress had not blocked all the funding for US military operations in 1973 and cut all the aid to South Vietnam. That made it easy for the North Vietnamese , who were heavily supported by the Russians and Chinese to role through the country two years later. Had the United States not abandoned South Vietnam, it would still be an independent country today, likely as prosperous as South Korea.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well then, it sounds like we shouldn't be supporting the rebels funded by Qatar and Saudi A. who used chemical weapons in April and claimed again in August.

Please provide evidence the rebels used chemical weapons in April.

"Proof"? You mean like the proof being touted that it was Assad?

UN's Carla Del Ponte says there is evidence rebels 'may have used sarin' in Syria - Middle East - World - The Independent

Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that testimony gathered from casualties and medical staff indicated that the nerve agent sarin was used by rebel fighters.

“Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” Ms Del Ponte said in an interview broadcast on Swiss-Italian television on Sunday.

“This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,” she added.

Ms Del Ponte said the inquiry has yet to see any direct evidence suggesting that government forces have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was required before this possibility could be ruled out.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?

The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?

This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.

The only lie here is yours. The UN does not blame the rebels for the April attack. That is a lie.

Uh huh.....

“Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” Ms Del Ponte said in an interview broadcast on Swiss-Italian television on Sunday.

“This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,” she added.

Ms Del Ponte said the inquiry has yet to see any direct evidence suggesting that government forces have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was required before this possibility could be ruled out.

 

[Circe]

"War with Syria".

This entire topic is based on a completely false premise.

There will be no invasion, there will be no boots on the ground, there will be no war. A few sailors will push some buttons and call it a day.

If you are calling that a "war", you have guzzled an Olympic-sized swimming pool of piss and are one credulous fool.

1) You have NO idea what will actually happen. All governments minimize the plans in their propaganda. Easy! Quick! Short! Over in a couple days!!

Yeah, sure. That really happens.......

Never.

2) Of course it's a war: if the Syrians stood off Baltimore harbor and "pushed some buttons" that sent a lot of Cruise missiles at Baltimore and Fort McHenry and the various and several military installations within range, such as the Pentagon and the CIA headquarters, my guess is we would call that a war.

Be sure, so will the Syrians call it a war. Who knows? They might even resent it.

I'm amazed by how so many people think we can go on forEVER bombing and shelling other countries and no one ever ever ever will bomb or shell back at us.

My guess is that someday, someone will find a way to retaliate.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This isn't about the use of chemical weapons. The way it's shaping up, both the rebels and Assad have probably used them to some degree. What this is really about is Qatar and Saudi Arabia's wish to topple Assad and install a puppet that will allow them their natural gas pipeline. The US, isn't in for the toppling of Assad fearing that this may give the country over to Jihadists. So, the answer is to arm the opposition, let them weaken themselves and Assad, who will hopefully give in to Qatar demands. OR wait fo th erebels to weed themselves thin of the extremists and then topple Assad and install a puppet that will give Qatar the access it desires. Which undermines Russian energy influence.

It has nothing to do with chemical weapons. Or we'd have been in there earlier when they were used and we knew about it.

 

[g5000]

There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?

The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?

This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.

The only lie here is yours. The UN does not blame the rebels for the April attack. That is a lie.

Uh huh.....

“Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” Ms Del Ponte said in an interview broadcast on Swiss-Italian television on Sunday.

“This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,” she added.

Ms Del Ponte said the inquiry has yet to see any direct evidence suggesting that government forces have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was required before this possibility could be ruled out.

I have bolded and enlarged the part to which you seem blind. And that is Del Ponte, not the UN's position. Your claims the UN said the rebels perpetrated a chemical attack are lies.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And there is also no proof that Assad used chemical weapons. You're splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs. A UN diplomat close to the situation is saying it was rebels. The "not yet incontrovertible proof" is to whether or not it was sarin gas.

Your reading comprehension sucks, dude.

You have no proof it was Assad. There is, with UN investigators support, evidence it was the rebels. The question around the April use is whether or not it was sarin gas.

Even still, this isn't about chemical weapons or we would have acted already.

it's about Qatar, who has dumped 3 billion into Assad's opposition over this conflict because they want their pipeline.