War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[TooTall]

There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.

There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.

You left out schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where they have moved the rocket launchers that deliver poison gas. Or wasn't crippling their ability to use poison gas the stated purpose of this "shot across the bow."

The United States won't be targeting places like that and the Syrians can't hide all their military assets in schools, mosques and hospitals. More importantly, Syrian military forces are already engaged in a war against the rebels and must remain engaged or lose ground to the rebels. That means they can't be hiding and can be targeted in a US missile strike.

The stated purpose of the missile strike is to PUNISH Assad for using Chemicals and to deter further use of chemical weapons. Anything that degrades or takes away any of Assads military assets will accomplish that goal.

They only have to save ONE rocket launcher to launch another chemical attack. And the will save a lot more than one.

 

[B. Kidd]

let's see if Congress comes even close to reflecting the views of the American people on this issue.

I doubt it.

they are beholden to their donors, not their voters.

....until a few months before the election.

We'll see how many Congress critters are beholden to the Defense Industry lobbyists, thatz fer' sure!
This upcoming vote will be a good guage as to what extent crony capitalism is destroying our country.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not spot on at all. Spot off. Muslim Brotherhood is not in control of Egypt or Libya.

Obama's faction overplayed it's hand in Egypt. BECAUSE they destroyed tourism with their Islamic extremism, this utterly destroyed the economy. The military had little choice but act. So Obama's Muslim Brotherhood lost control of Egypt.

However, despite your fiction, they remain quite powerful in Libya

All that analysis and it is closed with a ridiculously misleading conclusion. Egypt military took out the elected muslim brotherhood officials and threw them in jail and took control of the country. Brotherhood supporters were shot down in the streets or arrested when they protested. Libya is a no man's land with nobody in charge.

Obama's faction was not shot when they "protested," but rather when they staged a violent rampage, murdering, looting, and raping across the land, in a way that would make Muhammad himself smile.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I remember voting for Richard Nixon (the first time) because I was in the Army and he supported the military. When he ran the second time, I literally BEGGED my folks NOT to vote for the man and (shamefully) I was overseas and didn't vote.

I distinctly remember how crappy I felt when Watergate was exposed. No one was killed, no one was hurt, some guys just broke into an office at the DNC. It brought the crook down and I was glad it did.

Believe me, I know how you feel...............

And what is our solution to this is it keep voting D's or R's, or this country finally sees the light and realizes how both parties Fucked this place up and start voting people in with one goal in mind to help the american people. But I really doubt it though

The solution? I used to believe that a viable third party was an option. It is not. The "powers that be" on both the (D) and the (R) side will never allow it.

Look, it's not really about what is "best" for America. These clowns that we send to Washington - who take up residence and never leave - couldn't care less about what is "best" for the American people. They merely seek power for themselves. Hell, truth be told, they don't give a damn about "party". They care about one thing and one thing only - themselves.

These same "politicians" refuse to allow term limits. They refuse to allow a third party. They mask their "work" (and I use that term very loosely) in such legalese detail that the majority of Americans don't have the remotest idea what the hell they even do.

You have people "serving" in DC that haven't worked in their districts for 30-40 years. They maintain a home that they never go to. They have offices in their home districts that they RARELY visit. Politics is nothing more than a giant shell-game whose participants KNOW that they are screwing the populace and laugh about it at their K Street cocktail parties.

Some, Harry Reid for example, went to Washington DC with a net worth of $85,000. Today, he is worth somewhere in the neighborhood (he won't say exactly) of 18 million dollars. Same with Pelosi. Same with McCain. Hell I could go on for an hour.

This was NEVER how our founding Fathers envisioned it. Represenatives were to travel back and forth to DC - never taking up residence there. Now, these same "servants" live lavish lifestyles, own 3 - 4 homes, take vacations that most of us would die for, and continue on their merry way - laughing all the way to the bank.

WE are not employing them as "servants of the people" they are the "Masters and WE are the Servants" and they will NEVER dilute the "pool" by adding another party. Won't happen.

The solution? There is none. WE THE PEOPLE have done this to ourselves.

And the dirty game they've played so long has completely pushed out rational folks, who can't possibly compete with all the backstabbing and dedication to aggrandizement.

We have fooled ourselves long enough with letters to our congressmen and the hope of a third party. It's out of control, and a revolution is needed, not a myopic OWS. Good luck everybody.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

LOL!

President Obumbler drew the red line. But now he denies it.

Let's compare and contrast, shall we? Yes. We shall. The FACT:

versus the FICTION:

******* liars lie. This explains the transparency of the latest Obama lie.

Now, he sees that America doesn't buy his bullshit, so he sends out the minions and, prompt to report for doody, Carville speaks.

The line is somehow kinda familiar:

Carville: People Are Freaking Out About Syria Because Of Bush And Iraq | RealClearPolitics



I love these lolberals.

They're funny. Not credible in any way. But funny.

 

[B. Kidd]

LOL!

President Obumbler drew the red line. But now he denies it.

******* liars lie.

He sees that America doesn't buy his bullshit, so now he sends out the minions and, prompt to report for doody, Carville speaks.

The line is somehow kinda familiar:

Carville: People Are Freaking Out About Syria Because Of Bush And Iraq | RealClearPolitics



I love these lolberals.

They're funny. Not credible in any way. But funny.

Carville is not as sharp as he used to be......has lost a couple of steps in his old age.

 

[KissMy]

We already sending my tax dollars to aid the Syrian people. The United States has provided the Syrian people with over $1 billion since the crisis began. Now the refugees have increased 10 fold & so will the aid. This will cost us billions more if we do nothing.

If we can remove Assad for around the $1.1 billion we spent overthrowing Qudaffe, I am all for it. We will be money ahead of aiding refugees. Plus we will benefit greatly from the Qatar pipelines Assad & Russia are blocking. I am for allowing Obama to spend up to $5 billion to get rid of the Assad regime however he sees fit.

The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, Caspian Sea region, France & Most of the EU want a pipeline through Syria. This pipeline will greatly reduce energy profits of & demand from Russia & Iran. Also Iraq, Turkey & Jordan want the over 4.5 million refugees driven out of Syria by chemical weapons to return. Aljazeera also says Syrian refugees & rebels also want the USA to attack.

The our military budget is almost double that of most other presidents. When Obama wants to slow the rate of increase in military spending, idiots scream bloody murder that he is weak & inviting attacks on US. When he want's to use it to project strength, win US friends, allies, energy & economic benefits, the idiots scream the same stupid B.S. Military spending is not an entitlement program, it is to help serve your country.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Now, he sees that America doesn't buy his bullshit, so he sends out the minions and, prompt to report for doody, Carville speaks.

The line is somehow kinda familiar:

Carville: People Are Freaking Out About Syria Because Of Bush And Iraq | RealClearPolitics



I love these lolberals.

They're funny. Not credible in any way. But funny.

BILL O'REILLY: I think you've got to take emotion out of the equation. I see a lot of that emotion. I mean, Barbara Boxer, for example, would never support an action against Syria if Mitt Romney were president. Never in a million years. The only reason she is doing it is to help Obama.

That's what I was thinking. People, including myself, have thought that it would have been worse with McCain. But maybe that's just what we needed a weak president like McCain shooting off his mouth all the time about war, where he would have eventually been beaten down, before this got out of hand.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, a year ago Obama draws a red line in the sand, using the Presidential "we".

This week he denies he drew a red line and says the world drew it. And his credibility isn't at stake but it's the world's credibilty at stake.

The world doesn't seem to have much stomach for acknowledging that it has its own red line though. So far nobody seems to be rushing to join us in enforcing that red line whether that speaks to credibility or not.

So our goal is:

Days not weeks
No boots on the ground.
No regime change
No mandates
Have no idea what it is we are supposed to accomplish
Have no idea what criteria will determine we have accomplished it.

And all this time broadcasting to Assad, "HEY ASSAD!!! We're gonna bomb something so get your critical stuff like your air force out of the way and be sure to move a lot of attractive targets into areas where any attack from us will harm the maximum number of civilians, especailly kids.

Remembering a line from "Iron Eagle" by a militant Islamic colonel: "The American naivete never ceases to amaze me."

Ya'll hear all that snickering hanging in the air out there?

 

[Camp]

Not spot on at all. Spot off. Muslim Brotherhood is not in control of Egypt or Libya.

Obama's faction overplayed it's hand in Egypt. BECAUSE they destroyed tourism with their Islamic extremism, this utterly destroyed the economy. The military had little choice but act. So Obama's Muslim Brotherhood lost control of Egypt.

However, despite your fiction, they remain quite powerful in Libya

All that analysis and it is closed with a ridiculously misleading conclusion. Egypt military took out the elected muslim brotherhood officials and threw them in jail and took control of the country. Brotherhood supporters were shot down in the streets or arrested when they protested. Libya is a no man's land with nobody in charge.

Obama's faction was not shot when they "protested," but rather when they staged a violent rampage, murdering, looting, and raping across the land, in a way that would make Muhammad himself smile.

Total bs misinformation being used to attack Obama. There is plenty to attack him on, but you admit your claim of muslim brotherhood in Egypt it wrong. So what is left to give any cred to your Libya claim. More misinformation. Muslim brotherhood is not in control of Libya. Hell, their HQ's were attacked and destroyed by opponents only a few months ago. Truthfully, they are making some gains, but that changes from week to week and they are far from having any kind of control. So the facts you need to make your point are bs misinformation with the facts being the exact oppisit of your claims. I love your framing of "Obama's faction" being responsible for "a violent rampage of murder, looting and raping across the land...". Your priortity is hate. It is not country or truth in any sense of the way. Simple hate for hates sake. The use of such blatant lies and misinformation makes it obvious.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Now, he sees that America doesn't buy his bullshit, so he sends out the minions and, prompt to report for doody, Carville speaks.

The line is somehow kinda familiar:

Carville: People Are Freaking Out About Syria Because Of Bush And Iraq | RealClearPolitics



I love these lolberals.

They're funny. Not credible in any way. But funny.

BILL O'REILLY: I think you've got to take emotion out of the equation. I see a lot of that emotion. I mean, Barbara Boxer, for example, would never support an action against Syria if Mitt Romney were president. Never in a million years. The only reason she is doing it is to help Obama.

That's what I was thinking. People, including myself, have thought that it would have been worse with McCain. But maybe that's just what we needed a weak president like McCain shooting off his mouth all the time about war, where he would have eventually been beaten down, before this got out of hand.

Republicans are far more likely to support this "action" than the reverse of democrats supporting action by a republican president. O'Reilly is essentially correct. Boxer, a teeth gnashing liberal democrat, would NEVER support a republican for ANY reason, especially military action. However, the "action" doesn't matter. It is BARRY that wants it - so she's "all in". Got to support the "legacy".

One thing you can nearly ALWAYS count on - democrats will ALWAYS put PARTY ahead of the COUNTRY. ALWAYS.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Okay, a year ago Obama draws a red line in the sand, using the Presidential "we".

This week he denies he drew a red line and says the world drew it. And his credibility isn't at stake but it's the world's credibilty at stake.

The world doesn't seem to have much stomach for acknowledging that it has its own red line though. So far nobody seems to be rushing to join us in enforcing that red line whether that speaks to credibility or not.

So our goal is:

Days not weeks
No boots on the ground.
No regime change
No mandates
Have no idea what it is we are supposed to accomplish
Have no idea what criteria will determine we have accomplished it.

And all this time broadcasting to Assad, "HEY ASSAD!!! We're gonna bomb something so get your critical stuff like your air force out of the way and be sure to move a lot of attractive targets into areas where any attack from us will harm the maximum number of civilians, especailly kids.

Remembering a line from "Iron Eagle" by a militant Islamic colonel: "The American naivete never ceases to amaze me."

Ya'll hear all that snickering hanging in the air out there?

Obama says NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

Of course, this is the same feller who said "red line" but now flatly denies that it was HE who said it.

So, all in all, we're good.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Now, he sees that America doesn't buy his bullshit, so he sends out the minions and, prompt to report for doody, Carville speaks.

The line is somehow kinda familiar:

Carville: People Are Freaking Out About Syria Because Of Bush And Iraq | RealClearPolitics



I love these lolberals.

They're funny. Not credible in any way. But funny.

BILL O'REILLY: I think you've got to take emotion out of the equation. I see a lot of that emotion. I mean, Barbara Boxer, for example, would never support an action against Syria if Mitt Romney were president. Never in a million years. The only reason she is doing it is to help Obama.

That's what I was thinking. People, including myself, have thought that it would have been worse with McCain. But maybe that's just what we needed a weak president like McCain shooting off his mouth all the time about war, where he would have eventually been beaten down, before this got out of hand.

Republicans are far more likely to support this "action" than the reverse of democrats supporting action by a republican president. O'Reilly is essentially correct. Boxer, a teeth gnashing liberal democrat, would NEVER support a republican for ANY reason, especially military action. However, the "action" doesn't matter. It is BARRY that wants it - so she's "all in". Got to support the "legacy".

One thing you can nearly ALWAYS count on - democrats will ALWAYS put PARTY ahead of the COUNTRY. ALWAYS.

The whole fiscal cliff debacle really hurt us, and what over a few billion dollars that won't change the debt problem one iota. They found a better way to take us over the cliff.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Okay, a year ago Obama draws a red line in the sand, using the Presidential "we".

This week he denies he drew a red line and says the world drew it. And his credibility isn't at stake but it's the world's credibilty at stake.

The world doesn't seem to have much stomach for acknowledging that it has its own red line though. So far nobody seems to be rushing to join us in enforcing that red line whether that speaks to credibility or not.

So our goal is:

Days not weeks
No boots on the ground.
No regime change
No mandates
Have no idea what it is we are supposed to accomplish
Have no idea what criteria will determine we have accomplished it.

And all this time broadcasting to Assad, "HEY ASSAD!!! We're gonna bomb something so get your critical stuff like your air force out of the way and be sure to move a lot of attractive targets into areas where any attack from us will harm the maximum number of civilians, especailly kids.

Remembering a line from "Iron Eagle" by a militant Islamic colonel: "The American naivete never ceases to amaze me."

Ya'll hear all that snickering hanging in the air out there?

Excellent points.

I have been utterly amazed at the "so-called" plan with these strikes. Here's the biggest "non-goal" that I have taken away from this "so-called" plan"

"We are not seeking regime change in Syria"

This is the language of the mentally insane.

Imagine for a minute, Davy Crockett at the Alamo. Here they are, facing thousands of Mexican soldiers and Davy Crockett says "Don't shoot at General Santayana!! Shoot his horse!! That'll stop 'em!"

Barry, and those who advise him, have got to be the dumbest people on the planet. Dumber than dirt. Is it any wonder why we are the laughing stock of the world??

 

[Uncensored2008]

Total bs misinformation being used to attack Obama. There is plenty to attack him on, but you admit your claim of muslim brotherhood in Egypt it wrong.

Do you actually think yourself clever?

I "admit" no such thing. The Brotherhood was driven from ruling, VERY recently. You want to pretend that "no MB to here, move along.."

I understand, misinformation and outright lies have carried Obama this far, no reason to change your strategy.

So what is left to give any cred to your Libya claim.

Dunno, you lied about Egypt - does that lend credibility to my claim, or just shoot yours?

More misinformation. Muslim brotherhood is not in control of Libya.

Now there is some spin - you didn't outright lie - you just twisted the facts beyond recognition.

No one cares that the MB isn't in control of Libya - they are a major force and could easily assume power at any point.

Hell, their HQ's were attacked and destroyed by opponents only a few months ago. Truthfully, they are making some gains, but that changes from week to week and they are far from having any kind of control. So the facts you need to make your point are bs misinformation with the facts being the exact oppisit of your claims. I love your framing of "Obama's faction" being responsible for "a violent rampage of murder, looting and raping across the land...". Your priortity is hate. It is not country or truth in any sense of the way. Simple hate for hates sake. The use of such blatant lies and misinformation makes it obvious.

Yeah, despite what the propaganda claims, Libya is in a full blown civil war.

You are of the Obama Fedayeen, serving The One...

 

[Camp]

Total bs misinformation being used to attack Obama. There is plenty to attack him on, but you admit your claim of muslim brotherhood in Egypt it wrong.

Do you actually think yourself clever?

I "admit" no such thing. The Brotherhood was driven from ruling, VERY recently. You want to pretend that "no MB to here, move along.."

I understand, misinformation and outright lies have carried Obama this far, no reason to change your strategy.

So what is left to give any cred to your Libya claim.

Dunno, you lied about Egypt - does that lend credibility to my claim, or just shoot yours?

More misinformation. Muslim brotherhood is not in control of Libya.

Now there is some spin - you didn't outright lie - you just twisted the facts beyond recognition.

No one cares that the MB isn't in control of Libya - they are a major force and could easily assume power at any point.

Hell, their HQ's were attacked and destroyed by opponents only a few months ago. Truthfully, they are making some gains, but that changes from week to week and they are far from having any kind of control. So the facts you need to make your point are bs misinformation with the facts being the exact oppisit of your claims. I love your framing of "Obama's faction" being responsible for "a violent rampage of murder, looting and raping across the land...". Your priortity is hate. It is not country or truth in any sense of the way. Simple hate for hates sake. The use of such blatant lies and misinformation makes it obvious.

Yeah, despite what the propaganda claims, Libya is in a full blown civil war.

You are of the Obama Fedayeen, serving The One...

I was responding to comments made by other posters. You took it on yourself to inject yourself into the conversation and challanged my comments. I responded to you. I showed how you were wrong and in your bungled response you have admitted you were wrong. You have tried to move the line. MB is not in control of Egypt as you claimed, so you made it "was in charge". MB is not in control of Libya, so you made it "they could easily assume power". So now, unable to give an intelligent response, you revert to name calling and and allege I am an Obama Fedayeen. If you are going to inject yourself into a conversation or start an arguement, it would benifit you greatly to do so when and on topics you have some actual knowledge about. Stumbling and bungling through life is not a good direction.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I would LOVE for the staunch Barry defenders to take a couple of minutes and read this, by General Martin Dempsey in July of this war, stating what "military intervention" in Syria would mean.

Dempsey: Syria intervention is "act of war" that could cost billions ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs


July 22nd, 2013
08:26 PM ET
Dempsey: Syria intervention is "act of war" that could cost billions
By Jamie Crawford

United States military involvement in Syria would likely cost billions of dollars and carry a range of risks for the forces involved, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey said in a letter released Monday.

"I know that the decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly," Dempsey wrote in the letter to Sen. Carl Levin,D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It is no less than an act of war."

Dempsey's letter was in response to a request by Levin and Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, to provide his assessments of possible scenarios for future involvement in the Syrian civil war.

But it also came with a warning for a military now in a second decade at war.

"We have learned from the past 10 years, however, that it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state."

Establishing a no-fly zone in Syria would cost $500 million initially, while "averaging as much as a billion dollars per month over the course of a year," Dempsey said of an operation that would limit as much as possible the aerial bombing capabilities of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Dempsey said establishing a no-fly zone could result in the loss of U.S. aircraft, which would require personnel recovery forces in Syria. "It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum because the regime relies overwhelmingly on surface fires - mortars, artillery, and missiles," he wrote.

Options to prevent the use and proliferation of chemical weapons would also include lethal force through the destruction of known stockpiles, movement interdiction, or through the physical seizure of known chemical weapons sites.

Dempsey said this option would also require a no-fly zone along with "air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines."

"Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites," Dempsey wrote. "Costs could also average well over $1 billion per month."

It is extremely rare for the costs of such operations to be laid out in such detail, and Dempsey also noted the potential costs of less expansive actions the United State could take.

Training, advising and supporting opposition forces could require as many as several thousand troops at an estimated cost of $500 million per year initially, Dempsey said.

Options for establishing safe zones or buffer areas to allow for the training of opposition forces, as well as areas for the safe distribution of humanitarian aid, would require a limited no-fly zone to keep the areas safe from the Assad regime's aerial bombardments. U.S. ground forces would be needed to defend the safe zones, Dempsey said.

This too, could cost a great deal of money and put lives at risk Dempsey wrote.

"A limited no-fly zone coupled with U.S. ground forces would push the costs over $1 billion per month," he wrote. "Risks are similar to the no-fly zone with the added problem of regime surface fires into the zones, killing more refugees due to their concentration. The zones could also become operational bases for extremists."

Dempsey said the use of periodic and limited strikes against regime military assets would also cost "billions" depending on the duration of such operations.

The letter comes at complex time in the evolution of the Obama administration's policy on Syria. Although the administration has recently signaled its readiness to provide certain arms to vetted factions of the Syrian opposition, there has been no movement of U.S. weapons due to concerns on Capitol Hill about how the program would work.

But Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, signaled there may be movement on the issue in the coming days.

"The House Intelligence Committee has very strong concerns about the strength of the administration's plans in Syria and its chances for success," Rogers said in a written statement Monday. "After much discussion and review, we got a consensus that we could move forward with what the administration's plans and intentions are in Syria consistent with committee reservations."

McCain put a hold on Dempsey's nomination for a second term last week until he received greater detail from Dempsey about the various options available to intervene in Syria. It was unclear whether Dempsey's letter answered McCain's questions.


Funny, how quickly things change, isn't it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I was responding to comments made by other posters. You took it on yourself to inject yourself into the conversation and challanged my comments. I responded to you. I showed how you were wrong and in your bungled response you have admitted you were wrong. You have tried to move the line. MB is not in control of Egypt as you claimed, so you made it "was in charge". MB is not in control of Libya, so you made it "they could easily assume power". So now, unable to give an intelligent response, you revert to name calling and and allege I am an Obama Fedayeen. If you are going to inject yourself into a conversation or start an arguement, it would benifit you greatly to do so when and on topics you have some actual knowledge about. Stumbling and bungling through life is not a good direction.

Wow, you're really not very good at this.

You spin and sputter, and become haughty - then fail to address the actual points.

Enjoy jousting at straw men.

 

[High_Gravity]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just drone Assad?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just drone Assad?

Absolutely. One problem, however. World "leaders" signed a pact some years ago that they wouldn't target each other. Guess it isn't "civilized". remember, these "leaders" are FAR more important than the average man, woman or child.

I always thought that that was the "real" reason forgoing into Iraq - when Saddam put out a "hit order" on George H W Bush. Little Bush swore he'd get Hussein for that - and he did.