What "IF" reference Syria

[Desert Rat!]

Is it just me or is John Kerry looking more and more like John Smiley?

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

yeah he does have that streachy smooth just got back from the cosmetic surgeon look.

[COWBOYSURVIVAL]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...a-jackass.html

[Ken]

First it was all of the apologies. Next it was our skyrocketing national debt and our financial indebtedness to foreign powers. Then it was our financial and military aid to our enemies at the expense of our friends. Now, it's Syria.

The world is beginning to laugh at the United States, thanks to........

[Ranger F]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...a-jackass.html

Is this true?

[BENESSE]

No it's not.

[LowKey]

As someone posted above, 150,000 people, many or mostly civilians, have already been killed in Syria. AND CHILDREN, you've no doubt noticed the recent emphasis on child count has been added to drive the point home in attempts to garner public support.
The time to intercede has long since passed.

No unilateral strikes. Not with, and certainly not without Congress approval.

I'm not in favor of escalating tensions to 'save face'. In feudal Japan, saving face sometimes meant having to commit seppuku. Have at it. Privately. And leave the rest of the US (and our military) out of it so we have the resources for the greater threat – a nuclear Iran.

[BENESSE]

The best way to save face is to keep your mouth closed, to begin with.

[Ken]

The best way to save face is to keep your mouth closed, to begin with.

Some people need to open it to change feet.

[Rick]

I guess I have to be different. I see no place in a civilized world for anyone that uses poison gas. However, there are some things that have to be stated.

1. It has to be proved that it was used (I don't personally have to know but if I were the President I'd want absolute confirmation).
2. You don't open your mouth and put yourself in the proverbial wet paint corner by saying something stupid like, "that's a game changer" and then not do anything but flap your gums going forward.
3. You strike, you strike decisively, you strike discreetly and you strike at the cause of the problem. And you don't worry about what Putin or CCTV has to say about it. Apologize after the fact if you feel so compelled.
4. You sleep soundly knowing you rid the world of one more lunatic.


What you don't do is allow it to continue unchallenged. What you don't do is proclaim Russia is important to the decision when they haven't been important in the Middle East in 35 years. What you don't do is keep threatening with a strike that you probably have no intention of delivering. What you don't do is send mixed messages to the world's leaders.

[Sourdough]

And didn't the American Government gas our own citizens...........????


[QUOTE=Rick;411719] I see no place in a civilized world for anyone that uses poison gas. QUOTE]

[Ken]

May I?

I despise the fact that noncombatant deaths - "collateral damage" is a term that offends me - can rarely be avoided in war. In a perfect world, disputes would be resolved the way guys like me resolve them, unless we have no choice but to resort to violence for self defense or in defense of others.

That having been said, I have difficulty understanding the argument that chemical warfare - which in this instance has been shown to kill quickly - is any more objectionable than conventional weapons. I, for one, would rather die after a few minutes of agony than to lie there bleeding out from 3 rounds to my abdomen or after getting my legs half-blown off by an IED, bomb, grenade, or missile.

But I digress....

Nothing, NOTHING, we do in Syria will win us any friends anywhere. Assad is a maggot and a murderer. However, he is still better than al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Did you see the video of the rebels hacking the heads off of two Christians, including a priest?

Is beheading less objectionable than chemical warfare? It isn't to me.

Let the Arab world deal with this. I'm tired of watching the United States play policeman for the world. Protecting and defending our allies is one thing. Aiding those who would hack our heads off if given the opportunity is something else.

[randyt]

Like Archie Bunker would say "would you feel better if they were pushed out of windows?"

[Ken]

Syria will not pose a substantial threat to the United States unless we meddle in its affairs. I wouldn't put it past any of the players to strike us through terrorism or cyber war if we fail to mind our own business.

Now lets talk about Iran. Now THERE'S a threat to the United States and our allies. We'd be far better off using our cruise missiles - and MOABs and whatever else we need to use - to target Iran's nuclear weapons development facilities. THAT is something I would support in an instant.

[Desert Rat!]

Is this true?

I don't think he's got a pair big enough to say that, at least not to his face.

[crashdive123]

I don't think he's got a pair big enough to say that, at least not to his face.

The article reporting it was satire - nothing more.

[Rick]

And didn't the American Government gas our own citizens...........????

I have no idea what your reference is and even if Sarin gas or some equivalent were used on U.S. Civilians (I'd sure like to see a link) I know you don't believe that because we did it then it's okay. My comment still stands.

@Randy - No. While I abhor war in all it's many faces we have to draw the line somewhere as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

@Ken - I disagree. We are the preeminent power in the Middle East for whatever good it does us. Iran is a close second. The unabated use of gas warfare anywhere is a threat to all of us. If the U.S. does not respond it projects a picture of weakness to our enemies in the region and places our allies at risk. A surgical strike using cruise missiles and other non manned munitions tells the world that the use of gas warfare is outside the bounds of civility. Again...assuming such use can be verified.

@ All - The flood of refugees into neighboring countries like Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Turkey now totals some 2 million by estimates I've read. Approximately 1 million of those are children. Those numbers alone have a destabilizing effect on the host countries as they try to struggle with food, medical and sanitary relief for the refugees. Remember, these are countries that are already feeling the burden of poorer economies, internal strife and outright war. Adding hundreds of thousands of refugees only adds to their burden. Another 4+ million have lost their homes within Syria. The use of gas warfare only serves to push those homeless into neighboring countries further increasing the problem in the host countries.

I'm a bit dumbfounded that we as a people would say, it doesn't affect us, it's not our problem, let them deal with it. Where would you personally draw the line? Would the use of nuclear weapons be okay? How about biological weapons? I challenge you to look in the mirror and tell the person you are looking at that gas warfare is perfectly acceptable as long as it's somewhere else and we don't have to dirty our hands with it.

Again.....assuming its use can be proven.

[BENESSE]

We don't have the luxury or the resources to act unilaterally every time we think a great wrong has been committed in the world. We can't claim the moral high road or a legal right to do so, even if we could afford it.
Every time we acted alone it blew up in our face and we lost...not just our lives but our credibility.
The "cowboy mentality" we still embrace is abhorred around the world including among our friends. It is time to evolve our tactics because the world has changed, and the warfare is not what it used to be in WW2--the last time we marched home as true heroes.
It's time to get real, or suffer the consequences of living in denial.

[crashdive123]

@Rick - here's why it is such a problem (for me). While the Assad regime is bad and brutal - of that there can be no doubt - I believe that what is trying to replace him is much, much worse.

In the news we here them called rebels, freedom fighters and moderates. That may have been the case a year or two ago, but now they should accurately be called The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and extremists. There are now reports - quite a few actually - that the "rebels" have also used chemical weapons. Were they to topple the Assad regime and gain access to the stockpiles (by some accounts) of the chemical weapons then not only is the region in greater jeopardy, but the rest of the world is as well. The rebels are also committing genocide by systematically executing Christians in Syria. With them in power I believe that activity would continue and expand.

I also believe that a symbolic "shot across the bow" will do nothing to stop what is going on in the region. The administration has stated that regime change is not the goal. They have stated that the response would be limited and brief. I'm not sure what the goal is with military intervention with the current administration. Maybe that will be revealed in the address to the nation on Tuesday.

Ridding Syria of chemical weapons has not been stated as a goal, but the Defense Department has said it would take at least 75,000 troops on the ground to do that.

There are certainly no easy answers on this one. Even if we had all of the facts, which I don't believe we do, it would be difficult.

[Rick]

Both of you make compelling points and I can't disagree with anything you've said. There are a lot of brutal dictators in the world and history has given us plenty of terrible examples. You can't go after a dictator on that basis alone. The threat of WMD or even the verified existence of them isn't sufficient to intervene. That's two reasons I was adamantly opposed to the invasion of Iraq. There are several others but not germane to Syria.

However, and I can't stress this enough, if the use of WMD can be verified then he has crossed a line that no one can be allowed to cross. What comes after this goof ball is a concern but, frankly, it is NOT our concern. That area of the world has always been full of warring factions and it probably always will be. Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us that if nothing more. If nothing is done what message does that send to Libya, N. Korea or Iran. All of whom have WMD and crazies at the helm? If the rebels used it then the same thing applies to them. Those responsible have to suffer for their decision. This isn't aimed at just the regime.

I'm not talking about ridding the region of WMD either. However, a strategic strike does send the message that the use of WMD is not acceptable, it reassures our friends and allies in the region that we are serious about protecting them, and more importantly, it tells our enemies that we stand firm on what we will not allow to happen. Frankly, Iran should be a major concern here since they are funding and training most of these Islamic radical groups.

I completely agree that we don't have all the facts. I'm convinced the reason we have not taken this issue before the U.N. is because China and Russia would veto any move against Assad. That bothers me. It reeks that we either don't have sufficient evidence or we are making something up, which would not be a shocker to me.

B - I would suggest that our cowboy mentality has a lot less to do with how our friends view us than our complete lack of moral character. When we stand eyeball to eyeball with our friends and lie without even a smile they learn to stand with their back against the wall for fear the next knife might be pointed at their back. When you tell the world a country has WMD, that enriched uranium was shipped from Africa to Iraq, that the country was connected to 9/11, our Justice Department comes to the brilliant conclusion that the articles of the Geneva Convention don't apply to Afghanistan, in short when you build the evidence to suit your policy then your credibility, even among your friends, suffers.

[Ken]

Just a comment....

We invaded Iraq 10 years ago to destroy many or most of the very same chemical weapons we're discussing here. Saddam had enough time to ship them over the border before our well publicized invasion, just like he moved his sophisticated military aircraft into Iran before Desert Storm.