Thread: Why get involved in Syria?

I'm sorry to see America is going to become involved in Syria. I see that the DICTATOR is protecting his position against the TERRORISTS who want to destroy America as well as Syria. I do not understand why America would want to get involved in a war that whoever wins won't be wanting America there any longer once the fighting subsides. Why would anyone want to get involved with TERRORISTS who wre just a few years ago fighting Americans. Very sad situation on all fronts and in the end no one wins.

"Terrorist" is one of those words we toss around and assume it's automatically bad--a betrayal of our own history and how civil war works in general including for some of our allies. We don't even define it very well.

With nearly 2/3 of Americans against getting involved in Syria, and only something like 15% supporting I doubt we'll put troops on the ground to do combat any time soon. Military advisers are all over the world, so that's not automatically a step towards war--I can almost guarantee though one of their missions will be providing intel so we can sort out the tapestry of rebel groups--who's organized, who's less likely to ship weapons towards the fight against Israel etc. Or we might simply choose a direct strike focused against their chemicals stockpiles, production facilities or the command structure that decided to use chemical weapons.

Hopefully the boots won't touch the ground.

Yes I hope people realize despite Media PROPAGANDA that the civil war (and massacres) were sponsored by the west (US/Israel/UK and our new zionist-sidekick-of-the-month France),
and the very massacres they sponsor are then used to justify further massacres with overt military mass murder.

"Hopefully the boots won't touch the ground."

Yes, I would add that hopefully missiles shells and bombs wont be shot to kill human beings that are there (who may also be wearing boots or shoes)
I also hope that an escalation (boots on the ground) will not be implemented.


Imo, it is imbecilic to think that the Regime, that knows the suicidal use of chemical weapons is the BullsEye sign the US and friends are waiting for to start their mass murder and bomb parade, would use chemical weapons. It is very likely that any chemical weapon use is a frame up, false flag, to provide propaganda support for more mass murder by the US/Israel/UK/France/Nato on countries that are not subservient puppets or in line with the Petro$ Hegemony.

Here in the UK, the leaders of all the top three political parties appear to be in agreement over military action against the Syrian government – but only limited military action aimed at deterring any future use of chemical weapons against civilians. We are in no way about to embark on an all-out war with any country.

BBC News – Syria: Cameron says use of chemical weapons “cannot stand”

"but only limited military action" note that only military action is an act of war, i hope that they will not bomb another country without a formal declaration of war.

And of course, waging war implies that the other country that is being bombed by a foreign army is justified in using bombs to retaliate on the country that is bombing them, that is why a declaration of war should not be treated like going to get milk. (Reminds me of the Star Trek episode "A Taste of Armageddon")

These people need to solve their OWN problems.

We can't do it for them.

Originally Posted by babe

These people need to solve their OWN problems.

We can't do it for them.

Their problems were caused by our interference in their affairs. The political make up of the entire Middle East is a direct consequence of decisions mad by Britain, France and later the US over a period of more than a century. We have persisted with interference in an unplanned, largely ad hoc, certainly inconsistent way throughout that period. We are responsible, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

OR

We attack potential terrorists so that they will then attack us.
This makes "Joe sixpack" feel afraid, so Joe will now be willing to give up more of his freedoms for safety.
.........
Feudalism
deja vu all over again.
Way back when, the local lord would lead his band of thugs out and attack the other lord's peasants. The other lord. in retaliation, would lead his band of thugs out and attack the local lord's peasants. The local lord's peasants would come to the local lord's castle begging for protection. The local lord would graciously protect the peasants for a little bit more of their freedoms until, eventually, the peasants became serfs, then serfs bound to the land, who could be sold with the land.

Another attack keeps our minds off the 1 percenters, or the fact that those foolish enough to seek medical care are much more likely to go bankrupt, or the fact that higher education can lead to a lifetime of paying off debts acquired as a student.

Our governments invest our money wisely. Not for us, but surely for themselves.

Their problems were caused by our interference in their affairs.

YEs, and to provide popular support for further interference, why not have Quatar finance British military "contractors" to hand over chemical weapons to the rebels, so that the rebels(with a wholesome portion of terrorists, death squads and mercenaries supported by the West directly or through puppet regimes) can gas Syrians civilians and blame the government, in a similar way in which Operation AJAX had MI6/CIA commit acts of terrorism against the people of IRAN killing innocent civilians and frame it so as to blame the Iranian Government for having committed it, the method it tried and tested, the media propagandist will lie about it as usual, and the foolish population will only hear about it 10 or 20 years later when this will be dismissed has one of those things people in the past have done. By Killing them even more, you therefore justify more interference, which just happens to be killing even more of them, in a humanitarian mass murder campaign, to bomb them into freedom, being blown apart by a friendly UK/US/Israel/France bomb, liberates you from the burden of life, we kill more because we love, it is altruistic murder on a large scale. I am touched.

Bombing needs to be done in a Formal Declaration of war, and Obama/Cameron/Hollande and the US/UK/French administration are WAR CRIMINALS (since there wont be UN resolution favouring WAR and Acts of military agression), and they should all be thrown in jail for war crimes.

Our president and VP seem to be doing a major flip-flop on this issue. It was bad when Bush did it, but not when they do.
Past comments dog Obama, Biden as Syria response looms

Ya political landmines a plenty on this one.

Internationally this will not get UN support because Russia will veto anything put before the security counsil and actions otherwise will be violations of international law and UN charters that US signed.

Domestic politics are against action. The people don't want it. The War Powers action doesn't really apply because there's time to deliberate and the US in no way is threatened. And of course Congress is unlikely to declare war because they've become accustomed of shirking their war deciding responsibilities for decades. I hope however, Congress at least brings it to the floor though..or the door will be open to executive actions whether they lead to war or not.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I hope however, Congress at least brings it to the floor though..or the door will be open to executive actions whether they lead to war or not.

No, the door is not open. It is quite unconstitutional. I don't expect Obama to let that stop him, though.

If the leaders really believe in the rule of law, there is a venue that they can use for crimes against humanity, wherein both sides can present their evidence, and abide by the findings of the court.

Using violence instead of the rule of law kinda indicates the intent of the advocates of the violence.

While at this stage, to not act would not be a wise move for the US, I can't help but think once we strike, we will be heading into another major war. Let's say Assad is out of power, that region will still be vulnerable to rebels. How to solve THAT problem? It's just such a mess.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by babe

These people need to solve their OWN problems.

We can't do it for them.

Their problems were caused by our interference in their affairs. The political make up of the entire Middle East is a direct consequence of decisions mad by Britain, France and later the US over a period of more than a century. We have persisted with interference in an unplanned, largely ad hoc, certainly inconsistent way throughout that period. We are responsible, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

I do not disagree with you, but they have also been at war with each other forever! I really don't see THAT ending!

They're rioting in Africa - YouTube

This song is still appropriate today as it was the first time I heard it.

Originally Posted by wegs

While at this stage, to not act would not be a wise move for the US, I can't help but think once we strike, we will be heading into another major war. Let's say Assad is out of power, that region will still be vulnerable to rebels. How to solve THAT problem? It's just such a mess.

I really don't want that either.

"they have also been at war with each other forever!"

Im not sure who "they" are, nor do I want to say ordinary US citizens are responsible, but I just want to point out that,
not all of course, but nonetheless a good number or wars in third world countries are directly orchestrated/fostered by the European colonial empires in general and the US in particular, or an indirect consequence of western hegemony.
The information is not appearing in newpapers/media since these are covert operations, but it is well documented.

The impression that people in 3rd world countries that have suffered from covert operations, coup d'etats, death squads, political assassinations, civil wars, by UK/US are having wars and riots because they like it or are inherently like that, is imo very inaccurate. Radical islam was supported by the CIA btw, as a proxy vs USSR, and Wall Street as been getting rich from countries that are very rich in resources but whose populations are exploited into misery for 100 years. (in some respects, some of the economic warfare tactics used against 3rd world countries are now used on developed nations). IRan has Oil, and when democratically elected Mossadeq nationalized Oil so that its profits could be shared among the population, the CIA/MI6 orchestrated a terrorist campaign and blamed the deaths of innocent on the government (the media propagated the lies then, as they still do now) and supported a coup d'etat, while the CIA trained the new state police in the fine art of torture. From the perspective of a US citizen, the US/CIA hand was not know about, so as always, it appeared to US citizens that those "them" were once again at it with their riots and wars.

Waggin' the dog ...

"Waggin' the dog"Which topic is the covered important one, and which topic is the diversion?

Well, it looks like the UK are not going to agree to military intervention.
BBC News - David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action

"The "well of public opinion was poisoned" by the experience of the Iraq war in 2003" David Cameron
Yup.
Blair pissed in our well and we didn't like it.

This is great news.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

This is great news.

tbh, I can't tell either way.
It's a f**king mess regardless of what happens.

As bleek as the situation is, i assure you it could be much worse. And the current situation with the Nato orchestrated civil war is itself much worse than the situation before the west/israel/quatar/whatever fermented the civil war and armed the rebels/terrorists/death squads/mercenairies.

If military action is taken it should be directed at those in charge of the military including their President. I still do not think that we or anyone should take military action but as I said only if there's no other remedy. We know that Al Quida is part of those trying to remove the Syrian President so therefore we also know they are not for anyone but themselves just as those in power there now. It's a no win situation with only the people who are cought in the middle of this war are taking a beating.

I expect we'll wake up to a large cruise missile strike directed at known chemical stockpiles and command centers in the next few days.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

If military action is taken it should be directed at those in charge of the military including their President. I still do not think that we or anyone should take military action but as I said only if there's no other remedy. We know that Al Quida is part of those trying to remove the Syrian President so therefore we also know they are not for anyone but themselves just as those in power there now. It's a no win situation with only the people who are cought in the middle of this war are taking a beating.

It is absolutely a no win scenario!

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I expect we'll wake up to a large cruise missile strike directed at known chemical stockpiles and command centers in the next few days.

You don't think Israel will do this?

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I expect we'll wake up to a large cruise missile strike directed at known chemical stockpiles and command centers in the next few days.

You don't think Israel will do this?

Hmm. Why? Syria isn't much of a threat to Isreal because it's military is already tied up with the civil war, even without the civil war it wouldn't be much of a contest, and Isreal would probably rather have the secular dictatorship to its North than what might replace it. They also haven't expressed much interest in enforcing UN rules before. If they play a role, it will be to help bolster US intel for the Syria and do it a way that keeps their hands clean--such as identifying where those stockpiles might be.

US Cruise missiles from one of our fancy retrofitted Ohio class subs....virtually no risk of loosing US military.

--
Care to hazard a guess about the next couple weeks?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I expect we'll wake up to a large cruise missile strike directed at known chemical stockpiles and command centers in the next few days.

You don't think Israel will do this?

Hmm. Why? Syria isn't much of a threat to Isreal because it's military is already tied up with the civil war, even without the civil war it wouldn't be much of a contest, and Isreal would probably rather have the secular dictatorship to its North than what might replace it. They also haven't expressed much interest in enforcing UN rules before. If they play a role, it will be to help bolster US intel for the Syria and do it a way that keeps their hands clean--such as identifying where those stockpiles might be.

US Cruise missiles from one of our fancy retrofitted Ohio class subs....virtually no risk of loosing US military.

--
Care to hazard a guess about the next couple weeks?

My personal opinion, is they will try to use technology (rockets, missiles, etc) to take out the suspected chemical "labs", and I hope no boots go on the ground.

But people will be caught in the middle......*sigh*

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

I'm sorry to see America is going to become involved in Syria. I see that the DICTATOR is protecting his position against the TERRORISTS who want to destroy America as well as Syria. I do not understand why America would want to get involved in a war that whoever wins won't be wanting America there any longer once the fighting subsides. Why would anyone want to get involved with TERRORISTS who wre just a few years ago fighting Americans. Very sad situation on all fronts and in the end no one wins.

How do you know these "terrorists" want to destroy America? We have many Americans here who believe our own DICTATOR is no worse than Syria's. Do you thing THEY want to destroy America?

WTH do we really know about those "terrorists" in Syria, anyway? jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

I'm sorry to see America is going to become involved in Syria. I see that the DICTATOR is protecting his position against the TERRORISTS who want to destroy America as well as Syria. I do not understand why America would want to get involved in a war that whoever wins won't be wanting America there any longer once the fighting subsides. Why would anyone want to get involved with TERRORISTS who wre just a few years ago fighting Americans. Very sad situation on all fronts and in the end no one wins.

How do you know these "terrorists" want to destroy America? We have many Americans here who believe our own DICTATOR is no worse than Syria's. Do you thing THEY want to destroy America?

WTH do we really know about those "terrorists" in Syria, anyway? jocular

I haven't seen them get any awards for "World Peace"!!! Putting on my Miss America outfit....

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by babe

These people need to solve their OWN problems.

We can't do it for them.

Their problems were caused by our interference in their affairs. The political make up of the entire Middle East is a direct consequence of decisions mad by Britain, France and later the US over a period of more than a century. We have persisted with interference in an unplanned, largely ad hoc, certainly inconsistent way throughout that period. We are responsible, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

So then, the quietly fomenting hatred over a HUNDRED years, suddenly erupts and causes this? Doubtful. Should we stay the hell out of there? YES, forcefully. Should we worry and fuss over supposed mistakes made over a CENTURY, hell no. Nobody remembers that long. jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by babe

These people need to solve their OWN problems.

We can't do it for them.

Their problems were caused by our interference in their affairs. The political make up of the entire Middle East is a direct consequence of decisions mad by Britain, France and later the US over a period of more than a century. We have persisted with interference in an unplanned, largely ad hoc, certainly inconsistent way throughout that period. We are responsible, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

So then, the quietly fomenting hatred over a HUNDRED years, suddenly erupts and causes this? Doubtful. Should we stay the hell out of there? YES, forcefully. Should we worry and fuss over supposed mistakes made over a CENTURY, hell no. Nobody remembers that long. jocular

I must disagree.

They do remember!

Originally Posted by jocular

Nobody remembers that long. jocular

Having traveled the world that seems like a uniquely American position. Most Arabs I got to know while working with them as a military advisory could not only name relatives going back up to ten generations, but also significant events in their tribes and families including oftentimes national level events. I'd oftentimes hear one of them tell a story of some relative from many generations ago, having trouble controlling their emotions if it was a bad tale. Such long cultural memory is deeply ingrained in both Islam and tribal relations.

In any event it's hard to see how it applies to Syria. The Assad regime is the last vestige of Arab Nationalism that swept the region about 70 or 80 years ago, and brought secular Ba'ath party governments into power in Syria and Iraq. Did Western involvement help stir up that Arabic nationalism...sure at one time it did, because especially in Iraq it become an assertion of that Arabs owned the oil..not some foreign company as a front to some foreign power.

So, Lyne_Fox what do you think is going to happen?

Nothing military will happen from the West. Obama is trying to bounce Congress into action, they will resist. Obama, as Commander In Chief could order action,n regardless of what Congress thinks. Cameron had a vote in the Commons, and as we all know, he lost that vote. The French will not go it alone, and they are not to be trusted anyway. The West, in my opinion, would be fighting on the behalf of Al Qaeda if we intervene in the Syrian civil war.

Originally Posted by babe

Hopefully the boots won't touch the ground.

The Humanitarian argument/reason given for destroying the Syrian government makes no sense unless boots are going to be placed on the ground after the Syrian government is weakened and then destroyed. If Obama is going to destroy their government, then he will be responsible for the deaths and suffering of millions of Syrians who no longer have a government to protect, provide and serve them.

Al Qaeda is in syria, as well as many other twisted organizations. What is Obama going to do about them?

If Obama's goal is simply to hand the country over to criminal organizations and radical Muslims, and he is willing to kill and/or severely harm millions of men, women and children, directly and/or indirectly in order to hand syria over to the worst of the worst, then he will not put boots on the ground.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by babe

Hopefully the boots won't touch the ground.

The Humanitarian argument/reason given for destroying the Syrian government makes no sense unless boots are going to be placed on the ground after the Syrian government is weakened and then destroyed. If Obama is going to destroy their government, then he will be responsible for the deaths and suffering of millions of Syrians who no longer have a government to protect, provide and serve them.

I have heard a variety of opinions.

Mine, personally.

Not our call.

Not our business.

Let them do what they will.

I agree with you babe... We have no right or reason to get involved.

I personally think we should cruise missile by submarine several Syrian airfields. It saves face for the US and enforces the international standard about chemical weapons with minimal risk to US personal or interest.

collateral damage?
lets just cruise missle a lot of guys who didn't use chemical weapons?
Just for fun? After all, it's just some other mother's son.

With one caveat, assuming there's solid evidence of the regime using chemicals against its civilians -- evidence that's yet to be presented to the American people: Standards mean something. Morally, whether we can sleep at night as a nation, we have a responsibility to respond. Whether you take your wisdom from Edmunde Burke or Jesus, responding is the right thing to do. I would much prefer we act, and most nations, particularly those in the East and Middle East will completely understand. Russia will as well, even as they have their tantrums and shake their plastic sword. As far as killing those that actually didn't' bomb, it doesn't matter-- as a Soldier, or Airmen, or supporter of the government, they are legitimate targets (much as I during my short time at an American base).

My only reservation is Kerry and his like stop saying the evidence is good--and actually present some. I'd want pretty good certainty that the rebels didn't do the attacks before we make another mistake like so many we'd made in the past (e.g., the Maine explosion in Havana harbor).

Again I'll state that America shouldn't do anything, let the NATO forvces do something because that's what they are paid to do. If America helps the terrorists then the world will see America as siding with the worse of the two sides. If a few missiles are sent into Syria then what will that accomplish besides pissing off Assad and his troops?

I am not proud to say, but there are many people from my town that went in Syria to fight the 'bad one' . There are many kids amongst them .. they all believe they're doing the right thing, I am sad to admit but I know some of them, and they are really good people but they are blind to notice how meaningless and stupid their ideology is. :-(

The situation in Syria is kind of messed and we have dozen of sources reporting different stuffs... I heard many stories that contradict each another, and it is hard to be 100% sure who is guilty and who isn't, I just hate when innocent people die..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbFr8mc9rj4

NATO wouldn't be my first choice. If any outside body fomented this Syrian civil war, then I would suspect it to be one of NATO's member nations.

If there is a case to be made, we should present it to the UN or a world court, and let the evidence lead wherever it goes.
If our spycraft has indicated that the attack came from one unit with one comander, then that is where the blame game should start.

If Obama et.al. is just guessing wildly, then no lives should be sacrificed to such a whimsical determination.

Not in my name! Not now! Not ever!

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

As far as killing those that actually didn't' bomb, it doesn't matter-- as a Soldier, or Airmen, or supporter of the government, they are legitimate targets (much as I during my short time at an American base).

How about the newborns, shopkeepers, schoolkids, farmers, housewives, cooks and maids that will die? Are they also legitimate targets?

I'd want pretty good certainty that the rebels didn't do the attacks before we make another mistake like so many we'd made in the past (e.g., the Maine explosion in Havana harbor).

Let's say we learn (and I think this is likely) that Assad performed most of the attacks but the rebels pulled off a few attacks with chemical weapons as well. Who do we attack?

If we let a few boots onto the ground, you know how this will work. The first single casualty we take will get a biographical piece done on the news to get the whole nation's sympathy going. Then we'll be obligated to either "see it through to the end" or we're not showing enough respect for the fallen.

As such, I would really hate to be among the first boots on the ground, because anyone who wants the USA to have no choice but to step it up to full scale would be gunning for those guys.

Originally Posted by kojax

If we let a few boots onto the ground, you know how this will work. The first single casualty we take will get a biographical piece done on the news to get the whole nation's sympathy going. Then we'll be obligated to either "see it through to the end" or we're not showing enough respect for the fallen.

Exactly. We just send a few cruise missiles to destroy the chemical weapons. Then it turns out we hit the wrong place so we do it again. That works (sorta) but now the chemical-weapons complex is in disarray, and the resistance fighters (including Al Qaeda) are swarming over it.

So we send in a small contingent. Just to keep Al Qaeda from getting access to Sarin. I mean, who can argue with that?

Then someone is killed. And a stern-faced general gets on TV tells the US that we have to protect our soldiers. It is irresponsible to send them in harm's way and then abandon them. So we get a larger contingent.

Then Al Qaeda attacks again, and we fight back. Then Assad attacks - and we fight back again. And suddenly it's the US vs Syria.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

With one caveat, assuming there's solid evidence of the regime using chemicals against its civilians -- evidence that's yet to be presented to the American people: Standards mean something. Morally, whether we can sleep at night as a nation, we have a responsibility to respond. Whether you take your wisdom from Edmunde Burke or Jesus, responding is the right thing to do. I would much prefer we act, and most nations, particularly those in the East and Middle East will completely understand. Russia will as well, even as they have their tantrums and shake their plastic sword. As far as killing those that actually didn't' bomb, it doesn't matter-- as a Soldier, or Airmen, or supporter of the government, they are legitimate targets (much as I during my short time at an American base).

My only reservation is Kerry and his like stop saying the evidence is good--and actually present some. I'd want pretty good certainty that the rebels didn't do the attacks before we make another mistake like so many we'd made in the past (e.g., the Maine explosion in Havana harbor).

The USA only protects and attacks aggressors when there is something to lose or gain politically or corporately. If this wasn't so the USA would have been protecting people of other countries from genocide where thousands have been killed. The USA only gains the possibility of keeping the USD as a world currency for a bit longer but other than that there is no gain. No gain for Isreal or Iran with the probability high of extremist taking over Syria after a strike. No gain for Russia who would lose an ally and strong trading partner.

The only way the western countries gain in this conflict is to keep the conflict going because if it ever ends then our economies could crash.

Saudi Arabia gains the most and the Saudis have been pumping billions into this conflict. If the Saudis are successful they will have pitted two of their main religious enemies against each other. The Saudis are Sunni Islamists and the greatest threat to their religion in the region is the USA / Isreal and the Shia Islamist.

Qater has also been tossing billions at this conflict as well because they would like to run a natural gas pipeline to Europe along with the Saudis.

As far as Im concerned there is no good outcome for the USA . If Assad is deposed then we will likely face an al queda controlled government in Syria. If Assad stays in power Russia and China will have the ability to debase the USD.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

As far as killing those that actually didn't' bomb, it doesn't matter-- as a Soldier, or Airmen, or supporter of the government, they are legitimate targets (much as I during my short time at an American base).

How about the newborns, shopkeepers, schoolkids, farmers, housewives, cooks and maids that will die? Are they also legitimate targets?

Obviously not and not sure why you think they'd be on Syria military airfields, which is what I've suggested we hit.

--
You see there's a spectrum of possible actions in Syria.

-Diplomatic. Two major objective: 1) get the chemical weapons under UN control and dismantlement (I heard a Russian suggest a week to pass over to UN--he's completely delusional--I shut down a major ammo depot and it took months--this would be even larger effort). 2) try to resolve civil war

-limited strike to make the simple point that use of chemicals against civilian targets by Syrian government is not going to be accepted. This targets Syrian government willingness to use chemical weapons--not necessarily their capabilities. This could be a submarine based cruise missile strike. This is what I think is our best option.

-a large strike to remove their ability to use chemical weapons. This would have to be extensive and would look like a few days to take down Syria's anti-aircraft capabilities, gain complete air superiority by destroying most runways and aircraft, finally followed by removal of chemical storage sights. At minimum a week. Also likely US causalities from lucky Syrian AA and mechanical problems. Possible prisoner of war situation from those downed pilots. Unlikely to be completely effective because they moving weapons as we discuss this.

-Full scale attack which includes the large strike but if followed by extensive international boots on the ground to remove the government and than deal with the rest of the players--I think this would be a quagmire much like Iraq.

I think our best option is limited strike followed by diplomatic effect to get the rest of the chemical weapons under UN control or dismantled.

--
Doing nothing is not a good option--isolationism has never served US interest very well and makes a mockery of the very international norms the US has not only championed but often took a prominent leadership position to draft.

Why is it that some people paint the scenario as a choice between "doing nothing" and bombing those who are most likely innocent?

Do some people in power get an ejaculatory rush when the missiles are launched?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

As far as killing those that actually didn't' bomb, it doesn't matter-- as a Soldier, or Airmen, or supporter of the government, they are legitimate targets (much as I during my short time at an American base).

How about the newborns, shopkeepers, schoolkids, farmers, housewives, cooks and maids that will die? Are they also legitimate targets?

Obviously not and not sure why you think they'd be on Syria military airfields, which is what I've suggested we hit.

--
You see there's a spectrum of possible actions in Syria.

-Diplomatic. Two major objective: 1) get the chemical weapons under UN control and dismantlement (I heard a Russian suggest a week to pass over to UN--he's completely delusional--I shut down a major ammo depot and it took months--this would be even larger effort). 2) try to resolve civil war

-limited strike to make the simple point that use of chemicals against civilian targets by Syrian government is not going to be accepted. This targets Syrian government willingness to use chemical weapons--not necessarily their capabilities. This could be a submarine based cruise missile strike. This is what I think is our best option.

-a large strike to remove their ability to use chemical weapons. This would have to be extensive and would look like a few days to take down Syria's anti-aircraft capabilities, gain complete air superiority by destroying most runways and aircraft, finally followed by removal of chemical storage sights. At minimum a week. Also likely US causalities from lucky Syrian AA and mechanical problems. Possible prisoner of war situation from those downed pilots. Unlikely to be completely effective because they moving weapons as we discuss this.

-Full scale attack which includes the large strike but if followed by extensive international boots on the ground to remove the government and than deal with the rest of the players--I think this would be a quagmire much like Iraq.

I think our best option is limited strike followed by diplomatic effect to get the rest of the chemical weapons under UN control or dismantled.

--
Doing nothing is not a good option--isolationism has never served US interest very well and makes a mockery of the very international norms the US has not only championed but often took a prominent leadership position to draft.

This sounds like a Chuck Norris approach.

When people speak of dropping bombs on a place like Syria I wonder if they realize that blowing up a chemical weapons facility of any kind is like blowing up a paint factory and not expecting splatter. Most of these facilities are near major cities. Simply dropping a bomb on these facilities will not be good.

To dispose of these chemical munitions is a hazardous task that requires incineration at 2000 degrees fahrenheit or a neutralizing them with hot water and a caustic agent. The only weapons capable of creating this much heat are a thermobaric explosive weapon or a nuclear weapon. Both could do the job but would result in mass civilian casualties.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by billvon

How about the newborns, shopkeepers, schoolkids, farmers, housewives, cooks and maids that will die? Are they also legitimate targets?

Obviously not and not sure why you think they'd be on Syria military airfields, which is what I've suggested we hit.

Because

1) Our bombs don't always land where we want them to.
2) We don't always know exactly where the chemical weapons are.
3) If you blow a chemical weapons factory to bits there is a reasonable chance that chemical weapons (either components or weaponized product) will be released.

Before you decide to bomb anyone, you have to be OK with killing innocent men, women and children. If you are not OK with it - make that decision BEFORE the bombs are launched.

-Diplomatic. Two major objective: 1) get the chemical weapons under UN control and dismantlement (I heard a Russian suggest a week to pass over to UN--he's completely delusional--I shut down a major ammo depot and it took months--this would be even larger effort). 2) try to resolve civil war

Agreed to the first one, and from recent reports this now looks like a possibility.

limited strike to make the simple point that use of chemicals against civilian targets by Syrian government is not going to be accepted. This targets Syrian government willingness to use chemical weapons--not necessarily their capabilities. This could be a submarine based cruise missile strike. This is what I think is our best option.

A few problems with that.

1) The civilian toll may be pretty high if you are targeting 'suspected' military facilities.
2) If Assad is as insane/ruthless/evil as many people are now saying, such strikes won't deter him.
3) It may well lead to boots on the ground as we take responsibility for our bombing.

Doing nothing is not a good option--isolationism has never served US interest very well and makes a mockery of the very international norms the US has not only championed but often took a prominent leadership position to draft.

The diplomatic solution is miles ahead of either extreme.

Originally Posted by billvon

1) The civilian toll may be pretty high if you are targeting 'suspected' military facilities.
2) If Assad is as insane/ruthless/evil as many people are now saying, such strikes won't deter him.
3) It may well lead to boots on the ground as we take responsibility for our bombing.

Most likely a limited strike would hit known military facilities, particular military run ways, military aircraft, and airfield support facilities. You see it doesn't matter at all if they were the ones actually used to deliver the chemical weapons--it's about sending a message that if chemical weapons are used, he's loose military capability and at least one means to continue to use chemical weapons. This is not in anyway difficult. You could come up with a suitable target list in a hour or so of Google searches and some map time. There's only a few dozen military airports and they are all easy to find--just pick a few and hit them.

I'm not sure how we think Assad is insane....if anything he and his father have demonstrated themselves to be particularly reliant and pragmatic. A limited strike works on both those characteristics, one he might just consider it not worth the cost of loosing another military base, and like history shows over and over a blood nose is often what it takes to bring people to the negotiating table. Without a stick...why come to the table at all? Why not use more chemical weapons if necessary? IF Syria used chemical weapons, and there's no cost, the next few hundred children dying of nerve agent will be at least partially due to our inaction and quite frankly our cowardice.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Most likely a limited strike would hit known military facilities, particular military run ways, military aircraft, and airfield support facilities. You see it doesn't matter at all if they were the ones actually used to deliver the chemical weapons--it's about sending a message that if chemical weapons are used, he's loose military capability and at least one means to continue to use chemical weapons. This is not in anyway difficult. You could come up with a suitable target list in a hour or so of Google searches and some map time. There's only a few dozen military airports and they are all easy to find--just pick a few and hit them.

Around here that would be Miramar Air Base. At any given time about 3000 civilians are working there, and there are about 25,000 civilians living within half a mile of the base. I can imagine Syria requires a similar level of civilian support.

And maybe the answer is "don't care, it's more important to bloody Assad's nose" - but again, killing civilians is what, supposedly, we are against.

At 2 AM it's probably 30 civilians. Cruise missiles would likely be at night so they are more difficult to shoot down. And yes it is more important to send the message than trying to avoid every non-military casualty.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

And yes it is more important to send the message than trying to avoid every non-military casualty.

While that may be true, isn't that the same rationale that suicide bombers use? (Interesting question in this case, since choosing to fight Assad puts us on Al Qaeda's side)

I'm not very interested in comparing your equivocation logical fallacy. It's not the same and a rather silly comparison.

This seems to make as much sense as anything. The coming war is about a natural gas pipeline, not chemical weapons.

http://blog.shaleshockmedia.org/2013/09/07/gas-pipeline-war-in-syria/

Iraq wasn’t about “weapons of mass destruction.” It was about oil.

We borrowed the money from the Chinese so that we could make it safe for the Chinese and Exxon to frack Iraq. Bombing Syria is not about “chemical weapons of mass destruction.” It’s about the rivalry between competing gas pipeline projects – one that has been proposed to take gas from Quatar to Europe – via Syria and Turkey. The other proposed from Iran, via Iraq, Syria and Turkey: The Battle of Pipelineistan - fought by US troops – on behalf of Quatar, Israel, Turkey, Europeans – everybody but Americans - to resolve who gets the pipeline concession through Syria. It’s about that simple.

If the balance of power shifts to benefit the al qaeda led FSA, any and all weapons captured by the FSA would likely end up in al qaeda possession and could then be used against the USA or our allies.

There is no possible way of securing these chemical weapons without "boots on the ground". Early estimates from last year indicate it would take at least 75,000 troops to secure these weapons in Syria.

A limited strike on Assad himself like the 1986 strike against Gaddafi is probably the best choice. imo. This would send a clear message to all countries especially if the USA could do this on Sept 11.

Originally Posted by jocular

So then, the quietly fomenting hatred over a HUNDRED years, suddenly erupts and causes this? Doubtful.

1. It was not quietly fomenting.
2. It was not sudden.
3. The fact that you think it was both of these things effectively disqualifies you from having an opinion on this matter.

Originally Posted by jocular

Should we stay the hell out of there? YES, forcefully. Should we worry and fuss over supposed mistakes made over a CENTURY, hell no.

If you are going to respond to my posts I would definitely appreciate it if you would read them first, then try to understand what they mean. I clearly noted that our mistakes had continued for over a century. There is a massive difference between a mistake made over a century ago and mistakes initiated a century ago and expanded upon ever since. Once again you disqualify yourself from any right to have an opinion on this matter.

Originally Posted by jocular

. Nobody remembers that long. jocular

Arrant nonsense. The Arabs remember. I remember. Your inabaility to invoke a historical perpective, yet again, disqualifies you from having an opinion on the matter.

I really hope we don't bomb Syria. Because if a war starts and it gets big enough, I might be drafted. I am 15 and I know I will be forced to sign for selective services when I turn 18 and I could never fight in a war, I don't know what I would do if I got drafted. I'm scared, please let's stay away.

Interesting speech this eve:
Obama just said that we were working with certain "rebel factions" in Syria.

A slip of the tongue?
Interplay of tactics and strategy?

Can we extrapolate inclusive strategy from the tactic du jour?

Originally Posted by sculptor

Interesting speech this eve:
Obama just said that we were working with certain "rebel factions" in Syria.

A slip of the tongue?
Interplay of tactics and strategy?

Can we extrapolate inclusive strategy from the tactic du jour?

Didn't get to hear it....we were driving!

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

As far as killing those that actually didn't' bomb, it doesn't matter-- as a Soldier, or Airmen, or supporter of the government, they are legitimate targets (much as I during my short time at an American base).

How about the newborns, shopkeepers, schoolkids, farmers, housewives, cooks and maids that will die? Are they also legitimate targets?

Obviously not and not sure why you think they'd be on Syria military airfields, which is what I've suggested we hit.

--
You see there's a spectrum of possible actions in Syria.

-Diplomatic. Two major objective: 1) get the chemical weapons under UN control and dismantlement (I heard a Russian suggest a week to pass over to UN--he's completely delusional--I shut down a major ammo depot and it took months--this would be even larger effort). 2) try to resolve civil war

-limited strike to make the simple point that use of chemicals against civilian targets by Syrian government is not going to be accepted. This targets Syrian government willingness to use chemical weapons--not necessarily their capabilities. This could be a submarine based cruise missile strike. This is what I think is our best option.

-a large strike to remove their ability to use chemical weapons. This would have to be extensive and would look like a few days to take down Syria's anti-aircraft capabilities, gain complete air superiority by destroying most runways and aircraft, finally followed by removal of chemical storage sights. At minimum a week. Also likely US causalities from lucky Syrian AA and mechanical problems. Possible prisoner of war situation from those downed pilots. Unlikely to be completely effective because they moving weapons as we discuss this.

-Full scale attack which includes the large strike but if followed by extensive international boots on the ground to remove the government and than deal with the rest of the players--I think this would be a quagmire much like Iraq.

I think our best option is limited strike followed by diplomatic effect to get the rest of the chemical weapons under UN control or dismantled.

--
Doing nothing is not a good option--isolationism has never served US interest very well and makes a mockery of the very international norms the US has not only championed but often took a prominent leadership position to draft.

Those are very well reasoned options, but I think press makes too much hype about Sarin Gas. Wiki has a pretty good, concise history:

Sarin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


We never even had treaties about making the stuff until 1993. Saddam is infamous for using it in 1988, which is probably what later prompted the ban. However, the stuff has been around since World War II, and it didn't really play a very prominent role in that war.

People say it's a "weapon of mass destruction" and I kind of roll my eyes. I have to wonder, then: why didn't we drop Sarin bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki then, if Sarin gas equal to a nuclear bomb?


My plan of action would be: give the rebels some Sarin to level the playing field, then let things well enough alone. It worked in World War II. Neither side deployed their Sarin very much even though both sides clearly had it. Because neither side wanted the other side to retaliate.

Wowie Zowie
so
We have been working with Syrian rebels all along.
One wonders if this latest posturing was for and or at the behest of "the Syrian opposition we work with..."
I suppose it is exceptionally naive of me to wish that the USA would stop fomenting civil wars in other countries.
None the less, wish that i do.

It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.

full text here:
FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Sept. 10 speech on Syria - The Washington Post
(the quoted paragraph is on page 3)

When our president seems to be a war mongering twit, and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin seems the voice of reason and restraint, My world is standing on it's head.

Originally Posted by kojax

Those are very well reasoned options, but I think press makes too much hype about Sarin Gas. Wiki has a pretty good, concise history:

Sarin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


We never even had treaties about making the stuff until 1993. Saddam is infamous for using it in 1988, which is probably what later prompted the ban. However, the stuff has been around since World War II, and it didn't really play a very prominent role in that war.

People say it's a "weapon of mass destruction" and I kind of roll my eyes. I have to wonder, then: why didn't we drop Sarin bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki then, if Sarin gas equal to a nuclear bomb?


My plan of action would be: give the rebels some Sarin to level the playing field, then let things well enough alone. It worked in World War II. Neither side deployed their Sarin very much even though both sides clearly had it. Because neither side wanted the other side to retaliate.

Sarin, specifically was developed during WWI, and broadly, as well as all other forms of chemical weapons, invented or not, forbidden under 1920's conventions after WWI. It wasn't used in WWII, due to both those conventions, and many of the military leadership of WWII, were vets of WWI--it was very much still in their collective memories.

The US didn't use chemical weapons on Japan for a bunch of reasons--1)one it was already forbidden by those conventions, 2)effectiveness of all chemical weapons is highly dependent on weather dispersal patterns, 3) there would have been much less shock value by using a weapon the world was already familiar with.

My plan of action would be: give the rebels some Sarin to level the playing field

I'd still like to see evidence that the Rebels didn't use it. And sorry, giving weapons to rebels that we know can be used against Israel wouldn't' be a good idea.

--
I'm not surprised at all we've been talking to some rebel groups there--we certainly have an interest in figuring out the human landscape; we'd be stupid if we weren't.

talking to
vs
working with

If I understand our language:
There seems to be a difference.

as narrow as a pencil?
Or, as wide as missiles, munitions, and intell?

I agree with the opening poster. So many of the people who criticize Bush for going into war in Iraq are now saying "but Syria's different". It is not different. Syria is a pathetic third world country, with third world country views and third world country citizens. It does not even matter which side wins. People who blow themselves up and kill eachother are clearly not civilized, that country has problems for a reason. It's just not our problem.

Originally Posted by kojax

People say it's a "weapon of mass destruction" and I kind of roll my eyes. I have to wonder, then: why didn't we drop Sarin bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki then, if Sarin gas equal to a nuclear bomb?

Because we very much wanted to test nuclear weapons as a weapon of war. (And because even back then we were worried about Russia - and having a proven nuclear arsenal was, we thought, a powerful bargaining chip.)

My plan of action would be: give the rebels some Sarin to level the playing field, then let things well enough alone. It worked in World War II. Neither side deployed their Sarin very much even though both sides clearly had it. Because neither side wanted the other side to retaliate.

Not sure on the wisdom of giving Sarin to Al Qaeda.

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Syria is a pathetic third world country, with third world country views and third world country citizens. It does not even matter which side wins. People who blow themselves up and kill eachother are clearly not civilized, that country has problems for a reason. It's just not our problem.

Perhaps if you consider that Syria's literacy, life expectancy, fraction of clean water, and sewage are all better than the US had when term "third world nation" was actually in common use, you'd also consider not to judge the worth of people's lives by their respective quality of life they happened to be born into.... just saying.

I do agree though the general civil war really isn't our problem and there's an good chance it will result in a regime that's more a problem to our interest than the Assad family has been. Whether we allow use of chemical weapons is however somewhat our problem because we'd got nearly a century of trying to inform and sometimes enforce international standards of their use--particularly against civilians. No use in having standards if they can be ignored.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Syria is a pathetic third world country, with third world country views and third world country citizens.

Are you deliberately trying to be the biggest asshat on the forum or is it just your natural personality shining through?

He's saying it a little too extremely, perhaps, but the USA's track record of actually improving things when we intervene in a third world country is pretty bad.

We may have the noblest of intentions, but in the end, no matter what we do, they're just going to end up being all the more angry at us for screwing their country up worse.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by kojax

People say it's a "weapon of mass destruction" and I kind of roll my eyes. I have to wonder, then: why didn't we drop Sarin bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki then, if Sarin gas equal to a nuclear bomb?

Because we very much wanted to test nuclear weapons as a weapon of war. (And because even back then we were worried about Russia - and having a proven nuclear arsenal was, we thought, a powerful bargaining chip.)

So, do you think the Emperor would have accepted unconditional surrender if we had used Sarin instead?

My plan of action would be: give the rebels some Sarin to level the playing field, then let things well enough alone. It worked in World War II. Neither side deployed their Sarin very much even though both sides clearly had it. Because neither side wanted the other side to retaliate.

Not sure on the wisdom of giving Sarin to Al Qaeda.

It's not like terrorists can't already get it anyway.

Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by kojax

So, do you think the Emperor would have accepted unconditional surrender if we had used Sarin instead?

Probably, yes. Both are pretty horrible and excruciating ways to die. (Sarin even more so.) Kill a few hundred thousand people with either and you'd get a similar effect. However, we didn't need to test Sarin.

It's not like terrorists can't already get it anyway.

Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right. Given that we know they will use it, seems like not that great an idea to give them more.

Originally Posted by billvon

[

It's not like terrorists can't already get it anyway.

Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right. Given that we know they will use it, seems like not that great an idea to give them more.

Is it a better idea to get ourselves involved in a third insurgency war?

What if we give them sarin that has been specially prepared so it has only a few months of shelf life? Maybe we could promise to resupply them if they don't use it and return the expired stuff to us? Maybe give them a few extra guns if they return it instead of using it?

Of course, there's no need to give them Sarin specifically. Maybe we could find another equally deadly gas that isn't on the "no stockpiling" list?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Syria is a pathetic third world country, with third world country views and third world country citizens.

Are you deliberately trying to be the biggest asshat on the forum or is it just your natural personality shining through?

frantically trying to remember how to crochet a hat....do you know the size....????

I mean it has to be really large!

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by kojax

People say it's a "weapon of mass destruction" and I kind of roll my eyes. I have to wonder, then: why didn't we drop Sarin bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki then, if Sarin gas equal to a nuclear bomb?

Because we very much wanted to test nuclear weapons as a weapon of war. (And because even back then we were worried about Russia - and having a proven nuclear arsenal was, we thought, a powerful bargaining chip.)

My plan of action would be: give the rebels some Sarin to level the playing field, then let things well enough alone. It worked in World War II. Neither side deployed their Sarin very much even though both sides clearly had it. Because neither side wanted the other side to retaliate.

Not sure on the wisdom of giving Sarin to Al Qaeda.

Wisdom? That would be utter foolishness, although they probably all ready have it!

(wild guess du jour)
The leaders of the west, especially the USA were being played by the Syrian opposition and especially by Gen. Salim Idriss.
It is most likely that the rebels created the gas attack to get the USA to attack Syrian military facilities.
And, now that a bloodless alternate seems likely, Gen. Salim Idriss is saying, that ain't good enough, and the opposition still wants a US led strike against Syria.
The CIA has been supplying Syrian rebels with small arms, ammunition, and anti tank weapons.
The USA seems to have been involved with the Syrian National Coalition all along. And now, the tail would wag the dog.

Just how long we have been participating in the Syrian civil war remains covert.
One thing I have learned, is that often in the past, our government has announced intentions to do this or that long after it has already been doing this or that. The "announcement" usually came after continued secrecy was becoming impracticable.
Then, disruption of pattern recognition via juggling timelines delays the onset of the dreaded overtness.

It remains possible that gen. Idriss is a us puppet?

Iran's Mohammad Javad Zarif said:
"I think that a number of groups, people inside the United States, and interests outside the United States, wanted to put the president of the U.S. - whom I believe was reluctant to start the war - into a trap. A trap which he had unfortunately laid down for himself; and that was to get him involved in a war..."


So.............
Is there a grand plan as indicated in the post by icewendigo in #4?
If so
Where does it lead? (beyond these petty wars)

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

As far as killing those that actually didn't' bomb, it doesn't matter-- as a Soldier, or Airmen, or supporter of the government, they are legitimate targets (much as I during my short time at an American base).

How about the newborns, shopkeepers, schoolkids, farmers, housewives, cooks and maids that will die? Are they also legitimate targets?

Obviously not and not sure why you think they'd be on Syria military airfields, which is what I've suggested we hit.

--
You see there's a spectrum of possible actions in Syria.

-Diplomatic. Two major objective: 1) get the chemical weapons under UN control and dismantlement (I heard a Russian suggest a week to pass over to UN--he's completely delusional--I shut down a major ammo depot and it took months--this would be even larger effort). 2) try to resolve civil war

-limited strike to make the simple point that use of chemicals against civilian targets by Syrian government is not going to be accepted. This targets Syrian government willingness to use chemical weapons--not necessarily their capabilities. This could be a submarine based cruise missile strike. This is what I think is our best option.

-a large strike to remove their ability to use chemical weapons. This would have to be extensive and would look like a few days to take down Syria's anti-aircraft capabilities, gain complete air superiority by destroying most runways and aircraft, finally followed by removal of chemical storage sights. At minimum a week. Also likely US causalities from lucky Syrian AA and mechanical problems. Possible prisoner of war situation from those downed pilots. Unlikely to be completely effective because they moving weapons as we discuss this.

-Full scale attack which includes the large strike but if followed by extensive international boots on the ground to remove the government and than deal with the rest of the players--I think this would be a quagmire much like Iraq.

I think our best option is limited strike followed by diplomatic effect to get the rest of the chemical weapons under UN control or dismantled.

--
Doing nothing is not a good option--isolationism has never served US interest very well and makes a mockery of the very international norms the US has not only championed but often took a prominent leadership position to draft.

The #1 target would be the SSRC ( Scientific Studies and Research Center) in Syria. #2 would be Jamraya, the area around the SSRC. #3 would be a b-52 strike dropping ADW's ( agent defeat weapon ) on chemical weapons facilities. The way the US Navy is positioned in the area would suggest they would be support for the 2nd Bombwing out of Guam. imo.

There is no way that the USA will tip the balance of power to the FSA or Assad.

This just popped up on my News Feed an hour or two ago. As much as I dislike some of Putin's politics, I feel like he's made a good point in this open letter. Of course Russia too has imperialist gains in how this whole Syria conflict plays out... But, in my opinion, the West cannot go into Syria, not without direct knowledge of what the vast majority of Syrians want. Until that point, it is their fight, and their fight alone.

Syria Crisis: Vladimir Putin's Letter To America

Originally Posted by stander-j

This just popped up on my News Feed an hour or two ago. As much as I dislike some of Putin's politics, I feel like he's made a good point in this open letter. Of course Russia too has imperialist gains in how this whole Syria conflict plays out... But, in my opinion, the West cannot go into Syria, not without direct knowledge of what the vast majority of Syrians want. Until that point, it is their fight, and their fight alone.

Syria Crisis: Vladimir Putin's Letter To America

My first reaction is that Putin is WAY too intelligent to actually be religious. Goes without saying, I agree with Putin, and it's generally a really good read.

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Originally Posted by stander-j

This just popped up on my News Feed an hour or two ago. As much as I dislike some of Putin's politics, I feel like he's made a good point in this open letter. Of course Russia too has imperialist gains in how this whole Syria conflict plays out... But, in my opinion, the West cannot go into Syria, not without direct knowledge of what the vast majority of Syrians want. Until that point, it is their fight, and their fight alone.

Syria Crisis: Vladimir Putin's Letter To America

My first reaction is that Putin is WAY too intelligent to actually be religious. Goes without saying, I agree with Putin, and it's generally a really good read.

Just like Srinivasa Ramanujan...

Originally Posted by sculptor

Iran's Mohammad Javad Zarif said:
"I think that a number of groups, people inside the United States, and interests outside the United States, wanted to put the president of the U.S. - whom I believe was reluctant to start the war - into a trap. A trap which he had unfortunately laid down for himself; and that was to get him involved in a war..."


So.............
Is there a grand plan as indicated in the post by icewendigo in #4?
If so
Where does it lead? (beyond these petty wars)

Have you considered the possibility that maybe Obama painted himself into a corner on purpose? That way he can go into the war and not appear to have wanted to.


The man's got to be thinking about what he wants to do after he gets out of office. Maybe have a CEO position open up for him? Sit on a board of directors? There is a life after the presidency.

Putin's letter should give anyone a chuckle--it's a classic USRR/KGB propaganda style master piece.

What if Syria has as many chemical weapons as Iraq had, like from zero and up to two? Think the Russians might sneak em' a few to make it look good? I wouldn't mind, whatever for peace.
I personally suspect that the entire civil war is rooted in agent provocateur action by unknown agency, but at the behest of the gas/oil industry. Isn't resource one of the primary drivers of conflict (aside from ideology)?
Here's an article from Gaurdian.com about it; Syria intervention plans fuelled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concerns | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | theguardian.com
Although my guess of agent provocateur action is not covered in the article.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

What if Syria has as many chemical weapons as Iraq had, like from zero and up to two? Think the Russians might sneak em' a few to make it look good? I wouldn't mind, whatever for peace.I personally suspect that the entire civil war is rooted in agent provocateur action by unknown agency, but at the behest of the gas/oil industry. Isn't resource one of the primary drivers of conflict (aside from ideology)?Here's an article from Gaurdian.com about it; Syria intervention plans fuelled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concerns | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | theguardian.comAlthough my guess of agent provocateur action is not covered in the article.

Resources, and influence. We imperialists don't care how we control other countries, as long as they're in our sphere and not someone else's.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Putin's letter should give anyone a chuckle--it's a classic USRR/KGB propaganda style master piece.

Could you elaborate on that a bit?

If the KGB's great trick is just "use sound logic" and "say things that are reasonable", then I'd say it's a pretty good trick.

You mean the quip about the founders of the UN when arguably the security counsel as "enshrined" was little more than a power to be judge and executioner and complete free action by the victors of WWI without outside interference in not only internal affairs but with the ability to carry out proxy wars between the US and USSR/Russia that have directly and indirectly added tens of millions of war deaths over the past half century. While I often argue the huge successes of the UN, it's almost entirely from their humanitarian side--the security counsel is an incredible ineffective and archaic construct. Ow and ask why does Russia has any veto vote...their power should have ended with the collapse of USSR while nations such as India, Japan, South Korea and Indonesia which have far more influence than French or UK. But it doesn't' matter Putin is the master of spin when facts are so inconvenient such as Syria's extensive list of crimes against humanity even before the use of chemical weapons. Putin is well away these are also against those laws "enshrined" in the UN charter and claims that the "law is the law" Just wow.

His assertion that there's every reason to believe the opposition used the gas--notice no details (buy hey..I'd actually like some from the US side as well).

His fake alarm about US military involvement in internal affairs. Two faces bastard is all I have to say. As the two leading providers of arms, military teams and their own interventions in the world its remarkably hypocritical.

"If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust."
This should be read "if we can avoid interference with continuing Assad directed atrocities against his own people...."

And the bit about the Lord's blessing. Transparent pandering to America's faithful--nothing more. The man really has no shame.

You see if Putan wants to actually make an impression, he should at least be as concerned about the obvert and numerous violations of international laws already happening there, and use his leverage to curb Syria's use of those tactics. But he didn't. Time for the hook to usher this clown off the American stage. Though I suspect most Americans see like I did, and are more than willing to toss a few rotten tomatoes his way.

Originally Posted by lynx_fox

you mean the quip about the founders of the un when arguably the security counsel as "enshrined" was little more than a power to be judge and executioner and complete free action by the victors of wwi without outside interference in not only internal affairs but with the ability to carry out proxy wars between the us and ussr/russia that have directly and indirectly added tens of millions of war deaths over the past half century. While i often argue the huge successes of the un, it's almost entirely from their humanitarian side--the security counsel is an incredible ineffective and archaic construct. Ow and ask why does russia has any veto vote...their power should have ended with the collapse of ussr while nations such as india, japan, south korea and indonesia which have far more influence than french or uk. But it doesn't' matter putin is the master of spin when facts are so inconvenient such as syria's extensive list of crimes against humanity even before the use of chemical weapons. Putin is well away these are also against those laws "enshrined" in the un charter and claims that the "law is the law" just wow.

His assertion that there's every reason to believe the opposition used the gas--notice no details (buy hey..i'd actually like some from the us side as well).

His fake alarm about us military involvement in internal affairs. Two faces bastard is all i have to say. As the two leading providers of arms, military teams and their own interventions in the world its remarkably hypocritical.

"if we can avoid force against syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust."
this should be read "if we can avoid interference with continuing assad directed atrocities against his own people...."

and the bit about the lord's blessing. Transparent pandering to america's faithful--nothing more. The man really has no shame.

You see if putan wants to actually make an impression, he should at least be as concerned about the obvert and numerous violations of international laws already happening there, and use his leverage to curb syria's use of those tactics. But he didn't. Time for the hook to usher this clown off the american stage. Though i suspect most americans see like i did, and are more than willing to toss a few rotten tomatoes his way.

applauding lynx_fox!!

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

You mean the quip about the founders of the UN when arguably the security counsel as "enshrined" was little more than a power to be judge and executioner and complete free action by the victors of WWI without outside interference in not only internal affairs but with the ability to carry out proxy wars between the US and USSR/Russia that have directly and indirectly added tens of millions of war deaths over the past half century. While I often argue the huge successes of the UN, it's almost entirely from their humanitarian side--the security counsel is an incredible ineffective and archaic construct. Ow and ask why does Russia has any veto vote...their power should have ended with the collapse of USSR while nations such as India, Japan, South Korea and Indonesia which have far more influence than French or UK. But it doesn't' matter Putin is the master of spin when facts are so inconvenient such as Syria's extensive list of crimes against humanity even before the use of chemical weapons. Putin is well away these are also against those laws "enshrined" in the UN charter and claims that the "law is the law" Just wow.

Most of that is probably true, except the idea of Japan being on the security council. By treaty they're not allowed to have a real military, and it would be kind of silly to have a country on the security council that can't actually participate in the wars it approves.

Probably Britain's role is just to give the USA a second vote.

I don't know why you would think Russia shouldn't keep its seat. It may not have a great economy, but its military is still pretty strong.

His assertion that there's every reason to believe the opposition used the gas--notice no details (buy hey..I'd actually like some from the US side as well).

I'm glad you agree that it's not certain that Assad did it.

And the bit about the Lord's blessing. Transparent pandering to America's faithful--nothing more. The man really has no shame.

It seems like pandering to us atheists, but I think a lot of Christians will take it as a sign of respect.

Acknowledging God isn't necessarily the same as claiming to believe in God, as I've learned when dealing with my religious relatives. They don't ask me to say any prayers, but they like it if I am willing to bow my head at least when they're saying them.

You see if Putan wants to actually make an impression, he should at least be as concerned about the obvert and numerous violations of international laws already happening there, and use his leverage to curb Syria's use of those tactics. But he didn't. Time for the hook to usher this clown off the American stage. Though I suspect most Americans see like I did, and are more than willing to toss a few rotten tomatoes his way.

It wouldn't be wise to treat his letter that way. The USA doesn't have a lot of credibility these days. Russia doesn't either, but they've probably got more than we do.

Also he's saying a lot of things that many throughout threst of the world already feels. He's saying it for his own reasons, but that won't change the fact that many throughout the rest of the world agree. Throw tomatoes at him, and they'll see it as us throwing tomatoes at all of them too.

So it's really a supremely well thought out tactical/political move to write the letter. He's probably hoping we'll be dumb enough to throw tomatoes.

lest we forget
China is siding with Russia on the Syrian issue.
We have been arming the resistance.
Which Bashar Al-Asad has said must stop.
(wild guess du jour) Our arming of the rebels is something that will come up in the coming negotiations.

I'm glad you agree that it's not certain that Assad did it.

Indeed. And this is where I think where Obama is completely missing the boat. The liberal media is too naive to demand it. The conservative media is reluctant because it reminds them of the huge mistakes and manipulation that got us into Iraq the 2nd time around. The administration is listening too closely to its intel community, which typically over-classifies most things and fiercely protects every secret. This is one time that revealing what information is available that points to Syrian government using chemical weapons, even if it risk exposing some collection assets, it absolutely necessary before the US acts. The American public simply doesn't trust its intel community nor the administration (wouldn't matter who was leading) when it comes to matters of war.

hubris
"We" are special(exceptional)
"We" seem to think that we can foment rebellion and arm the rebels almost anywhere we want.

Maybe it's time that our leader's hubris was tamed.
Maybe we'll finally all gain the long awaited "peace dividend".

Maybe we'll be forced to withdraw from participation in Syria's civil war?

Today Syria
Tomorrow the world?

"We" are frittering away the wealth of a once great nation on endless wars.
Do we not learn from the history of the once mighty/wealthy mugal empire?
We must end this waste while we still have something worth saving.

If it takes an outside influence to reign in our leaders' unbridled hubris, then I say: "bully for them".

Of course, this Syria thing could just be one little blip in our seeming desire for world domination?
Are "We" really that exceptional?

America and its main ally, Great Britain, have been constantly involved in war, for over ten years now. The British and American public do not want another war. Putin has given Obama a way out, and I think that he will take it. Let Syria get on with their civil war. History tells us that civil war is nothing new.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

America and its main ally, Great Britain, have been constantly involved in war, for over ten years now. The British and American public do not want another war. Putin has given Obama a way out, and I think that he will take it. Let Syria get on with their civil war. History tells us that civil war is nothing new.

True.

They have been going on for a year or two.

Damned good thing we didn't start blowing things up over there.

NF ... "inter arma enim silent leges"

Indeed......
It now seems that the online videos which our intelligence community took to mean that the rulers of Syria had gassed their own people were faked.
And that the children were actually kidnapped from

11 ALAWITE
VILLAGES IN THE MOUNTAINS OF LATTAKIAH BY JOBHAT AL NOSRA

on August 4th. , then killed by the rebels and used to stage the fake gas attack.

see:

'Footage of chemical attack in Syria is fraud' ? RT Op-Edge

http://www.globalresearch.ca/STUDY_T...TA_VERSION.pdf

Were Videos Depicting Victims Of Sarin Attack Faked?

Syrian Mashup: Mother Agnes, Sellstrom, and, Iran for Palestine? | MyFDL

Entire U.S. intel community shamed by Mother Agnes Mariam over 'stage-managed' Syria footage -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net

GOD BLESS Mother Agnes Miriam

We need to get the hell out of this military posturing bullshit and stay the hell out of it.
What in hell are our leaders playing at?

We have been supplying the FSA which just merged with Jabhat al-Nusra.
Jabhat al-Nusra kidnapped and killed those children.
Jabhat al-Nusra is allied with(part of?) al-Qaida.
The chemical weapons came from our good buddies Saudi Arabia.

and
Jabhat al-nusra just admitted that they were responsible for the "chemical weapons attack" but, that it was a boo boo-----oops.
The Saudis didn't bother to include a weapons manual along with the chemical weapons, and, well, rebel enthusiasm and all that=oops.

and
Our silly warmongering twit of a president wanted to bomb the Syrian army for that crap?!?!
Jesusfuckingchrist.

Now that it is clear that the chemical weapons came from Saudi-arabia, is O-Bummer gonna wanna bomb them?

One might reasonably ask why, excatly, it is that we are helping supply al-Qaida.................
Then, take your ice skates to hell and wait for an answer.

Jabhat al-Nusra Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack | Global Research

Raqqa’s FSA Brigades Join Jabhat al-Nusra | Syria News

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Originally Posted by stander-j

This just popped up on my News Feed an hour or two ago. As much as I dislike some of Putin's politics, I feel like he's made a good point in this open letter. Of course Russia too has imperialist gains in how this whole Syria conflict plays out... But, in my opinion, the West cannot go into Syria, not without direct knowledge of what the vast majority of Syrians want. Until that point, it is their fight, and their fight alone.

Syria Crisis: Vladimir Putin's Letter To America

My first reaction is that Putin is WAY too intelligent to actually be religious. Goes without saying, I agree with Putin, and it's generally a really good read.

So why did Russia sell the deadly gas to Syria to begin with if Putin says that Russia will now help in destroying that gas. Russia isn't trying to help difuse the situation by selling gas to anyone but only makes things much worse for all concerned. Russia now wants to look like it is the "good guy" but we all know that Russia sells whatever it can to make profits. There's no end until the arms dealers are made to stop their deal making under the table and sometimes above to stir the pot for more conflicts so more weapons can and will be sold.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Originally Posted by stander-j

This just popped up on my News Feed an hour or two ago. As much as I dislike some of Putin's politics, I feel like he's made a good point in this open letter. Of course Russia too has imperialist gains in how this whole Syria conflict plays out... But, in my opinion, the West cannot go into Syria, not without direct knowledge of what the vast majority of Syrians want. Until that point, it is their fight, and their fight alone.

Syria Crisis: Vladimir Putin's Letter To America

My first reaction is that Putin is WAY too intelligent to actually be religious. Goes without saying, I agree with Putin, and it's generally a really good read.

So why did Russia sell the deadly gas to Syria to begin with if Putin says that Russia will now help in destroying that gas. Russia isn't trying to help difuse the situation by selling gas to anyone but only makes things much worse for all concerned. Russia now wants to look like it is the "good guy" but we all know that Russia sells whatever it can to make profits. There's no end until the arms dealers are made to stop their deal making under the table and sometimes above to stir the pot for more conflicts so more weapons can and will be sold.

Why did Russia sell the Sarin gas to Syria?

Hmm.... good question.

Why did the USA give Israel an atom bomb?