War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[eflatminor]

Our war with Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq's use of chem warfare years before.

Riiiight...we never heard "Saddam gassed the Kurds" as one of the reasons for invading Iraq.

Whatever dude, you go with that...

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Right...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Our war with Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq's use of chem warfare years before.

Riiiight...we never heard "Saddam gassed the Kurds" as one of the reasons for invading Iraq.

Whatever dude, you go with that...

Yep.

Congress itself CITED Saddam's USE of such weapons AGAINST his own (Kurd) people:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

-- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

 

[Camp]

Our war with Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq's use of chem warfare years before.

Riiiight...we never heard "Saddam gassed the Kurds" as one of the reasons for invading Iraq.

Whatever dude, you go with that...

Yep.

Congress itself CITED Saddam's USE of such weapons AGAINST his own (Kurd) people:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

-- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

His use of chemical weapons was used as evidence he had them and had a willingness to use them. That in itself was not enough to cause us to support invasion. Fear was instilled in the American population that he would transfer these weapons to the people who attacked us on 9/11, specificly al Qaeda.

 

[TooTall]

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.

Chemical warfare manufacturing facilities will not be targeted for fear of dispersing poison gas into the air and killing thousands. Military command and control hubs are legitimate targets, but will probably be empty or underground by the time a strike is authorized. Cruise missiles are not bunker busters and would be ineffective.

With his rocket launchers safely hidden he can resume gassing his people at will. We will probably be out of cruise missiles by then. The expensive part is the cost of replacing several hundred tomahawk missiles.

Are you prepared for two or three days of bloody pictures of dead Syrian men, women and children with missing arms, legs and heads? That is what will be broadcast to the world after a US missile strike.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you certain that a NATO response isn't what Syria would be after?

At one time, the USSR had a couple of attack dogs in the Middle East - Iraq and Syria. We had our attack dog, Israel.

Iraq is gone, and in real terms, Syria is a bit toothless. That said, Syria under Assad will do exactly what Putin tells them to do. So while Syria might well be crazy enough to attack NATO, Russia is not. They have NATO states in their heartland. Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and the Czech Republic are breathing down the neck of Mother Russia.

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.

Turkey is a NATO nation, an attack on Turkey obligates NATO to act. There is no choice, the treaty dictates that all NATO nations move to defend any member state that is attacked.

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.

Maybe Obama is playing this due to his inability to formulate a plan, to force NATO to act in his stead?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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...

Maybe, but at this time, the USA stands alone and is the aggressor against Syria. Hitting Jordan will not elicit a NATO response.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Riiiight...we never heard "Saddam gassed the Kurds" as one of the reasons for invading Iraq.

Whatever dude, you go with that...

Yep.

Congress itself CITED Saddam's USE of such weapons AGAINST his own (Kurd) people:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

-- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

His use of chemical weapons was used as evidence he had them and had a willingness to use them. That in itself was not enough to cause us to support invasion. Fear was instilled in the American population that he would transfer these weapons to the people who attacked us on 9/11, specificly al Qaeda.

Your tidy selective reading of the WHEREAS clauses is simply wrong.

They are all part and parcel of the enumerated grounds for our action against Saddam's regime.

You may wish to pick and choose and you might prefer to try to engage in parceling out the meaning of what the Resolution itself says, but therein lies your problem. The Resolution speaks for itself.

PART of the reason was a concern that a scumbag like Saddam might permit the like of al qaeda to gain access to such weapons. PART of the reason was to buttress a variety of prior UN Resolutions. PART of the reason was because that scumbag DID use weapons on his own people. PART of the reason was because his behaviors and threats did threaten the region. Etc.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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

They will pretend to laugh, but you won't see them using chemical weapons again. Assad is in the middle of a civil war and is struggling to survive. He can't afford to have US intervention against his military. His military already have enough on their plate fighting the rebels.

You are a walking contradiction. It's Ok to slaughter men, women and children. No problem there. Use Chems and we're all over you.

You really don't have a clue, do you? You're nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece for that idiot in the White House. If you want to lick Obama's boots, that's your business. Just be honest about it.

 

[Camp]

Yep.

Congress itself CITED Saddam's USE of such weapons AGAINST his own (Kurd) people:

-- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

His use of chemical weapons was used as evidence he had them and had a willingness to use them. That in itself was not enough to cause us to support invasion. Fear was instilled in the American population that he would transfer these weapons to the people who attacked us on 9/11, specificly al Qaeda.

Your tidy selective reading of the WHEREAS clauses is simply wrong.

They are all part and parcel of the enumerated grounds for our action against Saddam's regime.

You may wish to pick and choose and you might prefer to try to engage in parceling out the meaning of what the Resolution itself says, but therein lies your problem. The Resolution speaks for itself.

PART of the reason was a concern that a scumbag like Saddam might permit the like of al qaeda to gain access to such weapons. PART of the reason was to buttress a variety of prior UN Resolutions. PART of the reason was because that scumbag DID use weapons on his own people. PART of the reason was because his behaviors and threats did threaten the region. Etc.

I' not seeing much difference between what you are saying and what I said. War or military action with Syria will be allegedly caused by a chemical attack as a stand alone reason. Not so with Iraq. It may have been one of the reasons tied into other reasons, but it was not a stand alone cause. Ofcourse this disregards all the other sub plots going on in Syria and I suppose the sub plots that went on with Irag.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

His use of chemical weapons was used as evidence he had them and had a willingness to use them. That in itself was not enough to cause us to support invasion. Fear was instilled in the American population that he would transfer these weapons to the people who attacked us on 9/11, specificly al Qaeda.

Your tidy selective reading of the WHEREAS clauses is simply wrong.

They are all part and parcel of the enumerated grounds for our action against Saddam's regime.

You may wish to pick and choose and you might prefer to try to engage in parceling out the meaning of what the Resolution itself says, but therein lies your problem. The Resolution speaks for itself.

PART of the reason was a concern that a scumbag like Saddam might permit the like of al qaeda to gain access to such weapons. PART of the reason was to buttress a variety of prior UN Resolutions. PART of the reason was because that scumbag DID use weapons on his own people. PART of the reason was because his behaviors and threats did threaten the region. Etc.

I' not seeing much difference between what you are saying and what I said. War or military action with Syria will be allegedly caused by a chemical attack as a stand alone reason. Not so with Iraq. It may have been one of the reasons tied into other reasons, but it was not a stand alone cause. Ofcourse this disregards all the other sub plots going on in Syria and I suppose the sub plots that went on with Irag.

If Obumbler lobs in missiles, that's not the same as GOING to war. It is merely engaging in ACTS of war.

And yes. IF he does it, it would be for a "stand alone" reason.

And also true, there was no such "stand alone" reason for the attack in Iraq by the U.S. against Saddam's regime.

When we acted in Iraq, Congress authorized it.

As of this minute, no such action against Syria's illicit regime is authorized by Congress.

In Iraq, there WERE legitimate reasons.

In Syria, the stand alone reason, standing alone, is not a sufficient reason.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Look at the bright side, if the rebels win and we help defeat them then we will have armed Al Quaida with WMD. But at least Hezbollah and Iran will be weakened right? Good for Israel right, good for Quatar and Saudi too! Good business for everyone. Go Amerika!

 

[RandallFlagg]

Look at the bright side, if the rebels win and we help defeat them then we will have armed Al Quaida with WMD. But at least Hezbollah and Iran will be weakened right? Good for Israel right, good for Quatar and Saudi too! Good business for everyone. Go Amerika!

Essentially, that is 100% correct and something that the vast majority of these "Let's support our Supreme Leader Obama" types have failed to recognize.

(1) If we launch attacks on these sites - we will do nothing more than hit dirt. Assad has most certainly moved these stockpiles to a different location(s) and, probably continues to move them now. The NRO is probably tracking movements, but can only do so as long as the satellites are in the proximity of their last movement. It's really not that hard to move under the cover of darkness. HUMIT would be tracking them, as long as there are assets in the area. As in Iraq, it's really not that hard to move something, if you are inclined to do it.

(2) If/When Assad is driven from power, the "rebels" (or "Students" as Barry likes to call them) will take control of the country and will have access to the (estimated) 200 tons of CBR capability.

The idiot Martin Dempsey (I served with the man - he is an IDIOT) states that we can "insert special operations personnel to take charge of the munitions". Again - he is an IDIOT. You would need (at the very least) 2-3 battalions of Rangers to even BEGIN to have a clue - I'm sure that Russia and Iran would sit idly by for that.

Nope. We are sitting this up for Al Queada to swoop in and take yet another country.

You have to hand it to Barry though...He is most definitely "fundamentally transforming" not only America - but the world.

Just heard on the radio that Barry says "I didn't set a "red line", America set a red line. The WORLD set a red line". Jesus. What an incompetent slob.

 

[U2Edge]

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........

Well, what would Syria shoot back with? Its reported that they only have on average about 50 combat aircraft serviceable on any given day with trained pilots to fly them. Why would they risk these aircraft against the United States or Israel when they could continue to use the against the rebels? If they use them against the United States or Israel, they will be shot down. The rebels are rarely able to shoot down aircraft. I don't think Syria wants to forgoe its advantage of airpower in the civil war. So using aircraft is out of the question.

Next, they could fire back with some form of ballistic missile. But then that is a ballistic missile that they won't have to use against the rebels.

The four northern provinces are in rebel hands which makes artillery attacks or attacks on the ground from Syria to Turkey impossible. The border with Israel changes hands with the rebels daily sometimes.

Most of what Assad has left is in the armor, infantry and artillery, and those assets are not in a position to attack United States or Turkish targets. Most of it can't even hit Israeli targets.

Their Air Force is too small to risk in combat against the United States and Israel. The US Destroyers at sea are out of range of their coastal anti-ship missiles.

So again, your down to just the long range ballistic missiles and why would they want to waste those in response to a 300 cruise missile strike?

Assad has very limited options in directly responding to any attack, and any response he makes with those limited assets deplete those assets and means they can't be used against the rebels.

 

[Redfish]

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........

Well, what would Syria shoot back with? Its reported that they only have on average about 50 combat aircraft serviceable on any given day with trained pilots to fly them. Why would they risk these aircraft against the United States or Israel when they could continue to use the against the rebels? If they use them against the United States or Israel, they will be shot down. The rebels are rarely able to shoot down aircraft. I don't think Syria wants to forgoe its advantage of airpower in the civil war. So using aircraft is out of the question.

Next, they could fire back with some form of ballistic missile. But then that is a ballistic missile that they won't have to use against the rebels.

The four northern provinces are in rebel hands which makes artillery attacks or attacks on the ground from Syria to Turkey impossible. The border with Israel changes hands with the rebels daily sometimes.

Most of what Assad has left is in the armor, infantry and artillery, and those assets are not in a position to attack United States or Turkish targets. Most of it can't even hit Israeli targets.

Their Air Force is too small to risk in combat against the United States and Israel. The US Destroyers at sea are out of range of their coastal anti-ship missiles.

So again, your down to just the long range ballistic missiles and why would they want to waste those in response to a 300 cruise missile strike?

Assad has very limited options in directly responding to any attack, and any response he makes with those limited assets deplete those assets and means they can't be used against the rebels.

their "shooting back" may take the form of a bomb in New York or Tel Aviv. We have open borders so it would be easy for al qaeda to retaliate on our soil.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Breaking NEWS

U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 10-7, approves a resolution authorizing a U.S. military response to chemical weapons use in Syria!

 

[Redfish]

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?

Breaking NEWS

U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 10-7, approves a resolution authorizing a U.S. military response to chemical weapons use in Syria!

Great, once again we declare ourselves the world's morality police and put our citizens at risk.

Every congressman who votes for this lunacy should be tarred and feathered.

 

[U2Edge]

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.



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.

1. It is a specific reason. Proliferation of the possession and use of chemical weapons threatens United States interest all over the world. If no one responds to Assad's use, then other countries around the world will see that there are no consequences to using Chemical Weapons. They will gradually stock up and use the weapons for their own ends. That will make the world a for more dangerous and unstable place and be a threat to the United States military.

2. Sorry, big conventional bombs are not considered weapons of mass destruction. Biological, Chemical, and nuclear weapons are because rather small devices of each can often yield casualty figures under the right conditions that are 10 times, a 100 times greater than a single conventional munition.

3. The evidence and the links are the very small use of chemical weapons in the late spring and early summer by the Syrians. Nothing was done, so the Syrians decided to go with a larger attack in August thinking they could get away with it. If there is no response now, not only will Syria feel they have a green light for even larger chemical attacks, but so will countries like Iran and North Korea etc. Iran also will no longer think that the United States is serious about confronting them on their nuclear program.

4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL

 

[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.

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.

That's because the Syrians believe the United States is war weary from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason they mistakenly believe the US wouldn't respond is because there are lots of people who think the United States shouldn't. Just look at this message board and poll. This message board is a place where Assad would find some hope.

Because Assad and other possible adversary's around the world think the United States is war weary and won't respond makes launching the missile strike even more important.