Questions On The Forthcoming Syria Strike.

1, Do you think it will happen?

- I do.

2, What do you think we will target?

- This depends on what we can target I suppose, possibilities include, but are not limited to (and do feel free to add other possible targets.):

2a, Infrastructure. (I think this unlikely.)

- 2a/1 Military infrastructure. Airfields, repair depots, radar installations, supply routs, docks, and harbors.

2b, Degrading Assad's war machine by destroying war equptment. (But they have been dispersing heavy war gear for a week or more.)

2c, Decapitation. Targeting essential personnel. (Our intelligence system isn't good at finding and tracking individuals but Mossad is.)

2d, Decimation. Targeting military personnel.

3, What are the odds that Hamas and Al Qaeda backed rebel groups will "accidentally" be hit by "friendly fire"? (And due to our links with the more moderate rebel groups we should have good intel on these.)

4, Will it make a difference? Long term, short term, to the conduct of the war, to the world wide TV audience? (I know it will make a difference to the bottom lines of many companies.)

Thoughts? And please no derailing to "Obamacare", "Obamaphones", or comparing the size of John McCain's and Ron Paul's testicles. (Well, unless you have personally examined both, then please start a new thread on it.)

I'm not going to get bunkered down in this but I did want to give an opinion on one part:

The civilized peoples of the world had decided that using chemical, and biological warfare was "not playing fair". If people are not going to stick to that agreement, I think EVERYONE is responsible to step in. This shouldn't be "America: World Police", it should just be "World Police".

That being said, I understand the above paragraph is like me saying "a true Leninistic Socialist Republic would make a wonderful society". In the end, ideals and "the way things should be" fall far short of the intended goal.

The problem is twofold; were weapons deployed, and determining who actually deployed the weapons. If both questions can be answered in a verifiable manner, then the resulting action is pretty straightforward.

The problem is if the second part can't be determined accurately. You can determine that they were used, but not by whom. At that point, you are essentially arbitrarily passing judgement. And this is where we get into the deadlock.

The reason this is such a big deal, is America has been saying Assads Regime has been using chemical weapons this whole time. But according to the U.Ns investigation the rebels (who the Americans have been arming) were the ones using chemical weapons.

I'm more concerned about the potential these "limited strikes" will have for destabilizing the entire region and setting off a powderkeg that drags the US and other world powers into a regional war.

The endgame for this could slip easily into a battle to topple the Iranian regime. What then.

our sons & grandsons will spend thier days in a desert, playing peacekeeper, not sure why.

I hope we're ready to live with that possibility then because it seems Congress is. If ten years in Iraq didn't drive the lesson home then I guess more blood needs to be spilled for us to 'get it'.

thier sons don't end up having to go.

:/

The UN will never be given actual teeth. So "world police" isn't going to happen.

Also, Heaven is a benevolent dictatorship.

Back on track....

5, What are the odds of the strike leading to someone putting "boots on the ground?" (And in my mind the Arab League is the perfect candidate.)

***doesn't change a whole lot does it?

Well I wouldn't say that because some of the members of Congress do have skin in the game (family) but the casual manner in which war is being thrown around on both sides of the political fence does give me that pre-Iraq vibe where it's almost a foregone conclusion that we're going to do something. It's almost as if chemical weapons being used hasn't occurred before and that our military isn't warning enough to rogue nations.

"We can't let Assad get away with this! North Korea might become emboldened by Assads defiance!"

Right....

The constant assurances that strikes will be limited and we'll surgically attack Assad without actually attacking Assad also play with the ghosts of Iraq in the room. They know the public is burned out on patriotism and freedom fries so the strategy this time is to parade dead children as if that matters in the grand scheme of global affairs.

An appeal to emotion doesn't change the fact that in order to really *change* Syria means taking out Assad and potentially being dragged into an Iranian response which trips global powers with vested interests in Iran. The whole thing is a game of Jenga where one wrong move leaves us with alot of toppled bricks.

I see two sides of the issue.

On one side, if a government is doing something so vile to its people, don't we have a moral obligation at some point to step and say no, you can't do this?

On the other side, other governments have been doing wretched and vile things to their civilians for years and we have given zero darns. Why do we step in now? Why here? What is our end goal? Will our brothers and sisters be over in Syria now for ten more years, shedding their own blood as well as the blood of Syrian civilians? We would have to stay, we can't just smack their government on the wrist and leave, leaving a mess behind. If we break it, we have to fix it.

In my personal opinion, President Obama and our leaders are herding us into another war just like Iraq, and I feel no support for it. It's not our place nor has it ever been our place to police the rest of the world without their consent. Then again, it's not my husband, sister, child, or mother being murdered with chemical weapons, either. If it was, surely I'd feel differently.

My brain says we cannot allow a government to slaughter its people. My heart says it's a mistake to get involved. I'm not entirely sure which one to listen to. But I have no desire for another decade of bloody war, and I fear that's exactly where this is heading.

I cannot support this.

EDIT: Also what Sparth said concerning jenga bricks. The potential consequences are too costly.

And dammmit, I'm sick of living in a warring nation. Can't we please just have some peace for a while? I was a child in my first years of high school when the 9-11 attacks happened and we had "proof" of WMDs and went to war. Now that's just barely ended and we've almost had a taste of peace, and now this "proof" of use of chemical weapons, and here we go again. I'm so damned sick of war. Just so sick of it.

The Israelis have launched 4 aerial strikes into Syria during this conflict without consequences. We are about to launch 1. There will be no consequences, its not going to start a war with anyone. Its just a missile strike. Its not boots on the *** ground. The paranoia and doomsdayers are once again providing great entertainment. Support it or don't, it doesn't matter.

Give peace a chance immediately gets stabbed in the back.

I'm a very big critic of Obama this is the one thing I do support him on.

I think the risks of doing nothing are far greater than a limited military strike.

I'm more concerned that Boehner is supporting a decision made by Obama...

*** it, we've got Drone Equipped carriers now like a tech8 Protoss. Might as well use it while the humans play ECKSBAWKS on the U.S.S. Ronald Regan.


At least Syria is already in a civil war, so we've already cut out the step before ??? and Profit(!).

What are the risks?

It's pretty sad. Where do you draw the line? If we work in absolutes: you either do absolutely nothing and allow attrocities to escalate, or you will "turn the country to black glass" and become worse than the people you are trying to stop.

There's a thin line that I don't believe anyone can walk (and everyone is going to fault you and remember the things you didn't do right) but the thing that keeps ringing through my head is the quotation that Kennedy atrributed to Edmund Burke:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

I'm the type who will get involved if domestic abuse is going on in my building. I'm not sure that perfectly translates to national policy (lol) but it does to how I feel about it.

I forget, does Russia support Assad? There's probably a thread there that leads to a tinfoil hat. Maybe the risk is not looking tuff since Russia harbored Snowden? Canceling your Meet N' Greet doesn't send a strong enough message.

What's the point of launching attacks proclaimed by the administration as being intentionally ineffective? Warning shots to a dictator who is committed fully to keeping power in his country by any means necessary is fruitless if you've already ruled out putting infantry on the ground or a no-fly zone.

The threat of force by launching an across the bow attack implies greater force if you continue down the chemical weapons path. Are we committed to backing that threat up? Nope.

Parading dead babies around as justification for firing missiles that will be aimed at installations that won't alter the course of the war and at the same time calling this a crime against humanity is simply posturing.

Do you even have any idea what the consequences would be?

We went to war in Afghannistan (2001) well before we had "proof" of WMD's in Iraq (2003)... Now that what's ended? We still haven't pulled our troops out and they can't really decide for sure when it will be ok to pull most everybody out and we're still engaging in operations... It is supposedly drawing down as it has been for the past 2 or 3 years or more...

As for Syria there is proof that a chemical weapon was used... The disputed part is who actually used it... You also act like this will lead to a full out war which may or may not be true but it doesn't look to be true as even now the president is only looking for authority to launch a limited attack... It's more likely to just shovel more debt on to our shoulders but beyond that I really don't think it's looking like american soldiers lives will be at risk...

As for not liking war... join the club... doesn't look like our involvement on the global scale is going to be going away any time soon though...

Every war is sold as being a limited engagement. Forget about Iraq already? We'll be in and out of there in no time. Greeted as liberators. The oil will pay for the whole war!

10 years later. Man, Iraq was a bad idea gaiz.

I see no reason for getting involved with Syria other than sticking it to Iran and Russia in a show of America: *** Yeah. The rest of the world is content to let the Islamists go up against Assad and have them butcher eachother while innocent civilians get killed.

Does it suck? You bet it does. Too bad this happens all over the world (sup Africa) and you don't see us sticking our nose there.

Well, there's no geopolitical statement to be made in Africa. "Moral Obligiation" is naive at best, and a lie the rest of the time.

Right, which is why I abhor the "think about the children" arguments being floated to the public as justification for these attacks.

Why not just say "Assad is a big meanie!" if you're going to insult me with such a blatant fabrication.

This is really the core of the issue. It's not even a shot across Assad's bow, it's a big middle finger to Russia... WHO ARE OUR ALLIES. This isn't the cold war era, there is no threat of mutual destruction. The correct approach is to be publicly condemning of Syria's (alleged) attacks on civilians, but let the UN do it's job.

Now the British Labor Party is rallying for a second vote on taking action in light of the US intelligence and the UN inspectors' reports. Though, the only public part I've seen anywhere is that the US is basing a lot of it's conclusions on the fact that the rockets were fired from Syrian government controlled zones into non-controlled zones exclusively, which doesn't really demonstrate anything besides the fact that rockets were fired. IF (and it's a big if) the rebels did this themselves to garner international support, they are smart enough to have done that.

You type that in caps like it means something, as if Russia wasn't throwing the US the middle finger when they granted Snowden asylum, despite the fact he was useless to them. Yeah, they are our allies, big deal. Neither Snowden nor Syria has affected our trade agreements with the Russians, nor are they likely to (especially since no one really cares about either). As far as military allies, yeah, we are at peace with the Russians, and it pretty much stops there. And did you really suggest letting the UN handle something, when have they ever proven capable of doing that?

the asylum of Snowdon is in no way a middle finger. asylum is by definition not a political statement. right now we're interfering with an allie's business interests; Russia's warm water ports.