War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Camp]

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.

There are over 50 rebel groups and many of them are fighting each other as well as the government forces. Two of the groups referred to in the media as "al Qaeda" are actually al Qaeda affiliates. They do not always get along wtih each other and often fight each other. Everyone knows that when the Assad government falls these groups will be fighting for control and position in the new government that could take a very long time to form. al Qaeda is a specific organization. You do know that, right? They were not present in Kosovo.

 

[Circe]

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.

Are you saying you don't believe Syria will shoot back? That if we attack them with your 300 cruise missiles, they will just sit their quietly and take it? No reply of any kind?

I don't know about that........

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

They won't go after Israel. But Jordan is a weak nation that could be easily attacked, with Russian air support, wiping out the U.S. bases and making a point to the USA about intervention.

Attacking Turkey would require a NATO response, and Russia ain't that stupid.

 

[Katzndogz]

The individuals who make up moderate groups or al quaeda affiliate groups are fluid. They go from one group to the other depending what they are offered.

 

[Circe]

We're so used to hitting countries that have no weapons at all except some old scimitars from a century ago, and they are incapable of replying to our fire in any way.

I wonder if that will go on forever or if someday some country might think of a way to attack us back.

Syria, for instance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The individuals who make up moderate groups or al quaeda affiliate groups are fluid. They go from one group to the other depending what they are offered.

They don't really change groups, the administration and the propaganda corpse of the MSM simply change description of the groups, depending on whether we are supporting or killing them, that particular week.

 

[g5000]

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.

There are over 50 rebel groups and many of them are fighting each other as well as the government forces. Two of the groups referred to in the media as "al Qaeda" are actually al Qaeda affiliates. They do not always get along wtih each other and often fight each other. Everyone knows that when the Assad government falls these groups will be fighting for control and position in the new government that could take a very long time to form. al Qaeda is a specific organization. You do know that, right? They were not present in Kosovo.

Stop that! Facts are not wanted here! All the people fighting Assad, and all the people gassed, are Muslim terrorists, dammit! The voices in my head said so.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are over 50 rebel groups and many of them are fighting each other as well as the government forces. Two of the groups referred to in the media as "al Qaeda" are actually al Qaeda affiliates. They do not always get along wtih each other and often fight each other. Everyone knows that when the Assad government falls these groups will be fighting for control and position in the new government that could take a very long time to form. al Qaeda is a specific organization. You do know that, right? They were not present in Kosovo.

Islam is a religion based on violence and war. If Muslims cannot kill infidels, they kill each other. Of course the factions will fight and slaughter each other - it is the way of Muhammad.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOBGLIV5TY]From Yugoslavia to Libya: KLA Links to Al Qaeda - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Circe]

McCain this morning said he won't vote for the war plan --- he wants something open-ended and more aggressive --- and now Obama is saying in Sweden at a press conference that he doesn't need congressional approval after all ---

I guess his new vote count isn't looking too good.

This will probably go back and forth for days.

 

[Circe]

A major poll today showed only 19% of Americans in favor of this war!!

Is it really wise to go to war with that kind of opposition??

Oobop could get impeached, couldn't he?

 

[Camp]

The individuals who make up moderate groups or al quaeda affiliate groups are fluid. They go from one group to the other depending what they are offered.

They don't really change groups, the administration and the propaganda corpse of the MSM simply change description of the groups, depending on whether we are supporting or killing them, that particular week.

You really don't know what you are talking about. You are shooting from the hip, but your pistol shoots blanks. Over 10 years since 9/11 and it is obvious you don't know what al Qaeda means, who they are or what they are about.

 

[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.

They won't go after Israel. But Jordan is a weak nation that could be easily attacked, with Russian air support, wiping out the U.S. bases and making a point to the USA about intervention.

Attacking Turkey would require a NATO response, and Russia ain't that stupid.

Are you certain that a NATO response isn't what Syria would be after? If what they are looking for is a wide regional war to drag in Iran, a NATO response would be exactly what they intend. Don't count on a NATO response either. This would be obama's baby and they might elect to find a way out.

What isn't considered is that just because the US has no plan, others are making plans of their own. Americans just aren't even considering that as a possibility. obama truly believes he will fire a couple of hundred missiles into Syria and nothing will happen. No one would dare to retaliate against him, he's black. No one wants to be called a racist for retaliating against a black man.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

They won't go after Israel. But Jordan is a weak nation that could be easily attacked, with Russian air support, wiping out the U.S. bases and making a point to the USA about intervention.

Attacking Turkey would require a NATO response, and Russia ain't that stupid.

Russia ain't that stupid, to attack US bases, either...

The second they do, US popular support for Fearless Leader will skyrocket into the 90s...

And we will have a war that the Russians are neither ready for, nor looking to trigger...

 

[eflatminor]

...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.

That's not a specific reason why chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US. It's simply an unsupported statement. "Because I say so" isn't a valid reason. Again, I asked for specificity. You gave us a bullshit talking point.

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.

And big bombs aren't? Just because you label a weapon as a WMD does not make the case that chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US. And I call bullshit once again when you state these weapons "erode conventional military advantages". Are you actually suggesting the Syrian 'army' is threat to the US military. Please.

Still looking for that specific evidence of a threat to the US.

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.

Evidence? Link? Anything?

Sorry, the "Because I can see the future" argument is as lame as your previous arguments. Chemical weapons have been around a long time, yet you provide no evidence that they'll be used against the US. Sorry, you don't know the future and you don't know what's best for everyone else.

So far, that's one big fat fail...

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!

So you're bitching about the effectiveness of such weapons? How is that making a case that these weapons are a threat to the US?

Hint: It isn't.

Further, I can show you NUMEROUS instances in which FAR more deaths occurred on a single day than 1,469 using only 'conventional' weapons.

Fail again.

Wow dude, that's just sad. You want to get us into another war, we get it. But at least you should have some semi-coherent reasons for doing so. What you put forth is just pathetic.

 

[Circe]

...others are making plans of their own. Americans just aren't even considering that as a possibility. obama truly believes he will fire a couple of hundred missiles into Syria and nothing will happen. No one would dare to retaliate against him, he's black. No one wants to be called a racist for retaliating against a black man.

I am not perfectly certain Syria shares the PC point of view that because he's black he gets to shell other countries with impunity.

It could be only in the U.S. that people think so crazy as that. It's okay if blacks do crimes --- because they're black! So it's okay!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

"So, are we about to go to war over the use of weapons now in Syria that the liberals SWORE George W. Bush was lying about?"

-Alfonzo Rachel

 

[eflatminor]

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.

By your "reasoning" our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons should have prevented their use in Syria. Didn't work then, won't work now.

Still haven't made the slightest case of any threat to the US.

Pass.

 

[paulitician]

A major poll today showed only 19% of Americans in favor of this war!!

Is it really wise to go to war with that kind of opposition??

Oobop could get impeached, couldn't he?

That's why they're taking their time. They're in the process of attempting to gain more support for it. Look for the Government/Media Complex to really start whipping up the War Propaganda hysteria. "OMG ASSAD IS HITLER!!!" And all that Bullshite. Right now, the People aren't going along. And that's very upsetting for Big Brother. He'll have to try different tactics. Stay tuned.

 

[Camp]

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.

By your "reasoning" our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons should have prevented their use in Syria. Didn't work then, won't work now.

Still haven't made the slightest case of any threat to the US.

Pass.

"Our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons". Where do you buy your history books? Take them back and demand a refund. We ignored it when they used them. Our war with Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq's use of chem warfare years before.

 

[Circe]

A major poll today showed only 19% of Americans in favor of this war!!

Is it really wise to go to war with that kind of opposition??

Oobop could get impeached, couldn't he?

That's why they're taking their time. They're in the process of attempting to gain more support for it. Look for the Government/Media Complex to really start whipping up the War Propaganda hysteria. "OMG ASSAD IS HITLER!!!" And all that Bullshite. Right now, the People aren't going along. And that's very upsetting for Big Brother. He'll have to try different tactics. Stay tuned.

They were stupid to use poison gas, given that this argument has been so conclusively ridiculed by all sides in the years since George Bush's terrible failure. Everyone now knows Bush lied us into war. I wonder why they thought they could use it second time?? Poor IQs, I suppose.

I don't see how they can effectively villainize Assad, with all the photos everywhere of our major pols loving on him in happier times.

They'll have to mock up a fake attack on us. I don't see how Obama's going to get his war otherwise.