War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Circe]

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.

You think it's about a natural gas pipeline the Russkies are opposing via Assad; I think it's about getting a war started to clean up the Iran problem; or maybe Turkey's refugee problem --

The one thing no one seems to believe is that it has anything to do with the pile of unlikely lies the administration is telling.

We're all trying to figure out what it is REALLY about.



If we don't know
We shouldn't go.

 

[g5000]

And there is also no proof that Assad used chemical weapons.

I have not made any such claim.

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.

Again, at no point, at no time, has the UN blamed the rebels for a chemical weapons attack as you claimed. You lied, period.

 

[Redfish]

Just one question: why is it worse to kill someone with poison gas than to kill someone with a bullet of a bomb?

the person is just as dead either way.

Why don't we care about the 100,000 that have been killed by bullets and bombs?

this reminds me of the hate crime logic--------its worse if I kill you because I don't like your religion than if I kill you to steal your money-------WTF ?

 

[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?

A claim not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

Your arguments collapse since they are based entirely on a false premise.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yawn. Ok, moving on from a hairsplittingly stupid debate with G5000, it's far mor elikely it was the rebels than Assad.

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline? « TheTradingReport

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian…

In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be“completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

 

[TooTall]

Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.

You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?

You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.

Hopefully nothing.

You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.

You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.

Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??

No.

None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars. Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.

United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.

There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.

I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.

I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would not be in anyones interest.

Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?

 

[g5000]

TakeAStepBack, you claimed the rebels used chemical weapons, and from there concluded this therefore cannot be about chemical weapons.

Since your argument rests on a false premise rooted in wishful thinking, your conclusions are not valid. Simple as that.

 

[Redfish]

You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?

You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.

Hopefully nothing.

You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.

You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.

Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??

No.

None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars. Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.

United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.

There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.

I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.

I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would not be in anyones interest.

Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?

none at all. Oh, but it might just kick off a total war in the mid east.

obozo, McCrazy, Gramnesty, and heintz-kerry are all full of shit. There is no american interest at risk in the syrian civll war.

and who the **** do we think we are that we should pick winners and losers. No wonder much of the world hates us.

 

[g5000]

Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?

It is not so easy to move chemical warfare manufacturing facilities and military command and control hubs which would be the primary targets of such a strike.

A strike will also serve notice to any asshole contemplating using chemical weapons in the future that there will be expensive negative consequences.

 

[Uncensored2008]

TakeAStepBack, you claimed the rebels used chemical weapons, and from there concluded this therefore cannot be about chemical weapons.

Since your argument rests on a false premise rooted in wishful thinking, your conclusions are not valid. Simple as that.

Regardless of the chemical weapons, we have on one side, Assad - leader of the Soviet based Ba'ath party. True to Stalinist roots, hostile to the West, to any sort of liberty, Vassals of the USSR since the time of Stalin - who have full support of Putin and his re-emerged Evil Empire. (Ronnie took out the Soviets - Obammy reinstated them...)

On the other side, we have Al Qaeda, represented by Obama's Muslim Brotherhood.

Is America going to stand idle while Obama sends us to war against Russia on behalf of his Muslim Brotherhood?

 

[Camp]

Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?

The weapons will not be targeted. The airforce and air defense sytems will be the targets. Without those assests the Syrian government will be pushed into a more defensive posture and the rebel forces will restart their offensive posture. With "clear skys" overhead, drones can be used to assist the moderate rebels by taking out al Qaeda affiliate targets. That is why a few days of punishing strikes have been turned into a 60 or 90 day operation. Hidden in there may be punishing blows to Hezbolla as a favour to Israel.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

TakeAStepBack, you claimed the rebels used chemical weapons, and from there concluded this therefore cannot be about chemical weapons.

Since your argument rests on a false premise rooted in wishful thinking, your conclusions are not valid. Simple as that.

You just love splitting hairs, even as you make things up as you go. The UN diplomat is the one who rested the guilt on the rebels. This attack happened way earlier this year. All of a sudden, now the US is saying, after the last attack (which with interview evidence claims it was the rebels supplied by Saudi's...the rebels own admission) that we can't allow chemical weapons to be used. But there is no proof at all on who used them, what was used and the reports are conflicting from both sides.

IF this was about chemical weapons used, we would have gotten invlolved before now. They were used in two separate incidents earlier this year and we stood by. NOW, suddenly, we have to act? Only a fool would believe this is about chemical weapons.

 

[Camp]

TakeAStepBack, you claimed the rebels used chemical weapons, and from there concluded this therefore cannot be about chemical weapons.

Since your argument rests on a false premise rooted in wishful thinking, your conclusions are not valid. Simple as that.

You just love splitting hairs, even as you make things up as you go. The UN diplomat is the one who rested the guilt on the rebels. This attack happened way earlier this year. All of a sudden, now the US is saying, after the last attack (which with interview evidence claims it was the rebels supplied by Saudi's...the rebels own admission) that we can't allow chemical weapons to be used. But there is no proof at all on who used them, what was used and the reports are conflicting from both sides.

IF this was about chemical weapons used, we would have gotten invlolved before now. They were used in two separate incidents earlier this year and we stood by. NOW, suddenly, we have to act? Only a fool would believe this is about chemical weapons.

We did get involved. That is what the Red Line was all about. In addition we began arming specific moderate rebel forces.

 

[Katzndogz]

Once the war for obama's vanity starts no one knows what will happen.

Syria threatens to bomb Jordan, Israel, turkey if attacked | Ya Libnan | World News Live from Lebanon

Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad warned in an interview with The Wall Street Journal at his office in Damascus on Tuesday of the repercussions of a U.S. attack on Syria. He said Damascus would strike back not only at Israel, but also at Syria’s neighbors Jordan and Turkey if they take part in any U.S.-led operation.

“Once the war starts nobody can control what will happen,” he said. “We believe that any attack against Syria will definitely result in chaos in the entire region if not beyond.”

Isn't a regional war worth it to save obama's face?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The weapons will not be targeted. The airforce and air defense sytems will be the targets. Without those assests the Syrian government will be pushed into a more defensive posture and the rebel forces will restart their offensive posture. With "clear skys" overhead, drones can be used to assist the moderate rebels by taking out al Qaeda affiliate targets. That is why a few days of punishing strikes have been turned into a 60 or 90 day operation. Hidden in there may be punishing blows to Hezbolla as a favour to Israel.

You make no sense.

How are the rebels helped if we take them out as targets?

You DO grasp that the two sides here are Assad and his Communist Ba'ath party, and Al Qaeda rebels - right? Obama is suggesting we fight FOR Al Qaeda - as Clinton did in Kosovo.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

TakeAStepBack, you claimed the rebels used chemical weapons, and from there concluded this therefore cannot be about chemical weapons.

Since your argument rests on a false premise rooted in wishful thinking, your conclusions are not valid. Simple as that.

You just love splitting hairs, even as you make things up as you go. The UN diplomat is the one who rested the guilt on the rebels. This attack happened way earlier this year. All of a sudden, now the US is saying, after the last attack (which with interview evidence claims it was the rebels supplied by Saudi's...the rebels own admission) that we can't allow chemical weapons to be used. But there is no proof at all on who used them, what was used and the reports are conflicting from both sides.

IF this was about chemical weapons used, we would have gotten invlolved before now. They were used in two separate incidents earlier this year and we stood by. NOW, suddenly, we have to act? Only a fool would believe this is about chemical weapons.

We did get involved. That is what the Red Line was all about. In addition we began arming specific moderate rebel forces.

We began a CIA funded program to train assets of the rebels in Jordan. We never armed any rebels because of the fears of who we would be arming. We did, however, provide non-weapon assets to rebels (web gear, NV, med supplies, etc..) as far back as last year.

What "red line"? The chemical weapons were supposedly used earlier this year. We dont know who used them and according to the UN's Del Ponte, it was the rebels who used "something". Based on interviews with victims, medical staff and first hand witnesses.

That's not involved. This isn't about that stupid chemical weapons of mass destruction official narrative. This is geopolitics. You're being fed the emotional narrative to get on the ship. This is about ally interests, energy, money and religion.

 

[Circe]

Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad warned in an interview with The Wall Street Journal at his office in Damascus on Tuesday of the repercussions of a U.S. attack on Syria. He said Damascus would strike back not only at Israel, but also at Syria’s neighbors Jordan and Turkey if they take part in any U.S.-led operation.

“Once the war starts nobody can control what will happen,” he said. “We believe that any attack against Syria will definitely result in chaos in the entire region if not beyond.”

Yeah.................interesting quote from yesterday.

Why are we all assuming that the Syrians will just sit there and take it, with no military response whatsoever? We have bases in Jordan and Turkey, and there is always Israel.

Does everyone here think Syrian forces will not reply at all if we fire at them?

 

[U2Edge]

You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?

You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.

Hopefully nothing.

You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.

You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.

Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??

No.

None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars. Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.

United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.

There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.

I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.

I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would not be in anyones interest.

Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?

Assad is in the middle of a civil war, a struggle for the survival of his regime. There are lots of military assets he can't move around without damaging the Syrian military's position on the battlefield against the rebels. There are all kinds of military targets a missile strike can still hit.

If Assad hid everything he has underground or in schools, the rebels would be on the way to controlling the entire country.

 

[U2Edge]

Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad warned in an interview with The Wall Street Journal at his office in Damascus on Tuesday of the repercussions of a U.S. attack on Syria. He said Damascus would strike back not only at Israel, but also at Syria’s neighbors Jordan and Turkey if they take part in any U.S.-led operation.

“Once the war starts nobody can control what will happen,” he said. “We believe that any attack against Syria will definitely result in chaos in the entire region if not beyond.”

Yeah.................interesting quote from yesterday.

Why are we all assuming that the Syrians will just sit there and take it, with no military response whatsoever? We have bases in Jordan and Turkey, and there is always Israel.

Does everyone here think Syrian forces will not reply at all if we fire at them?

Israel has launched three separate strikes against Syria this year already. Assad did nothing in response. His military is busy dealing with the rebels in the country. They have their hands filled with the rebels. With rebel forces just a few miles from the city center of Damascus, Assad can't afford to be sending military assets out of the country to attack someone else.

 

[Katzndogz]

Just because obama has no plan, it doesn't mean that no one has a plan. Are the Russians moving in their own ships because they don't have a plan? Is Syria preparing to bomb Turkey, Israel and Jordan because they don't have a plan?

The only country that's barging around completely clueless is the United States. Could obama be arrested in Russia as a war criminal? That would be the most peaceful way out of the mess he created.