
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.