....If that argument is the best one that can be mustered in its case.... then implicitly it makes a fairly strong argument that the cases are not that terribly different.
We do, actually. The Syrian government employed a portion of it's CW stockpile. Confirmed by the Intelligence Community here at home, and its' incidence confirmed independently by Doctors without Borders abroad.
Yeah that's what i always believed these days.Oh bull cpwill! Doctors without Borders confirmed that there were deaths and casualties. They don't know who is responsible. From what I've read there are a lot who seem to think Al Qaeda insurgents are behind this attack. I do believe the Syrian government is the most likely culprit.
HOWEVER, as others have said, why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons after we warned them not to, and when they are winning the conflict? It just doesn't make sense. Some think that Al Qaeda is behind this in order to draw the United States into this cluster ****. They bring up some good points.
Yeah that's what i always believed these days.
All this, was made up just to push Obama to give the go.
Partly. I maintain my original position - that Syria is a place where we have huge national interests, and that we should utilize a targeted campaign to dismantle their integrated air defense system capability, secure or destroy their WMD stocks, and provide cover to fleeing civilians. We don't need to invade, or even seek to ensure one sides' victory over the other, but we do need to ensure that WMD's do not get loose, doing so will require serving some of our national interests (the dismantlement of some of Syria's C2 functions), and we should also utilize what force we have to mitigate or minimize the mass human suffering taking place on the ground.
It is strange how much the liberals of today sound like the isolationist conservatives of 80-90 years ago.
Wrong.
Check out Kosovo. It worked there, with little loss of U.S or other NATO lives.
Bombs are expensive.
Taking care of a disabled veteran for his/her entire live is also expensive.
And having to do neither to assist either side in Syria........ what is the cost of that compared to the other options?
This is not about assisting either side.
This is about punishing the Syrian government for its use of chemical weapons on it's own people.
I fail to see what national interests we have in Syria.
I don't deny I am an isolationist.
Oh bull cpwill! Doctors without Borders confirmed that there were deaths and casualties.
They don't know who is responsible.
HOWEVER, as others have said, why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons after we warned them not to, and when they are winning the conflict?
It just doesn't make sense. Some think that Al Qaeda is behind this in order to draw the United States into this cluster ****. They bring up some good points.
This is not about assisting either side.
This is about punishing the Syrian government for its use of chemical weapons on it's own people.
....If that argument is the best one that can be mustered in its case.... then implicitly it makes a fairly strong argument that the cases are not that terribly different.
We do, actually. The Syrian government employed a portion of it's CW stockpile. Confirmed by the Intelligence Community here at home, and its' incidence confirmed independently by Doctors without Borders abroad.
On the contrary, we have a huge national interest in Syria. Not only is it Iran's chief ally in the region, but it is responsible for enabling the deaths of thousands of American servicemembers. It's provides aid to Hezbollah and (until recently) al-Qaeda, has WMD production and stockpiles, and has the ability to destabilize a high-impact portion of the globe. Geography and politics both require that we maintain our interests in the middle east, and Syria is a big piece of that.
Interesting. Are you also a farmer?
Did you miss the words "its' incidence"?As stated - the use of chemical weapons was confirmed by DWB, and the fact that those weapons had come from the regime was confirmed by the U.S. and British Intelligence Communities.
Hmm, now that's an argument that requires an interesting implication. Given that the U.S. and British governments say that they do know who was responsible, what is your background expertise in U.S. / FIVE EYES collections capabilities that you are able to state with certainty that this is a false claim?
:lol: because we are toothless saps, Chris. Our "warnings" and "let me be clears" and "we will take this very seriously's" are worth approximately a bucket of warm spit in the Middle East right now. Hopefully we will actually (finally) start to back up our words with action, and this will change in the future. But as of a month ago, if I were advising Assad, I would have told him he could pretty much ignore U.S. blustering as a vast majority of their populace didn't want to get involved, and their president was unlikely to break his pattern of behavior in order to cross them.
In the meantime, limited use achieves two objectives: 1. it lends credibility to his detterence. North Korea has nukes for this (and Iran wants nukes for this), but Assad has chemical shells, so that's what he uses to ensure regime survival - but you have to demonstrate willingness and capability. and 2. it establishes a baseline for future use. You don't go all-out immediately after the President of the U.S. issues a redline statement, that puts him in a situation where his hand is forced. You boil the frog slowly, and after you have imported enough SA-20's from Russia that you feel that you have a strong enough deterrent from an air campaign - the trick is to introduce the system in such a way that U.S. reaction is limited and mitigated.
Yup. And while it's not impossible, so do the people who claim that 9/11 was an inside job to legitimize an American invasion of Iraq. But claims of conspiracy which lack evidence have a forum.
Regardless, the argument for a series of strikes and a limited campagin in Syria does not depend on Chemical Weapons usage by any player - though that does increase rather the urgency for it.
Dead is dead. Why punish them for that and not just the mass slaughter of its own people? We have no business being in Syria. Why is China or Russia or France or Germany not doing it. Why us? We are broke. We have a large number of unemployed. We have a fiasco of a health system. Our education system is in need of work. Our National Infrastructure rating is a D-. 70% of California's dams, bridges, waterways and highways are failing. We have a failing southern border.
A... screw it... let's spend billions on another war!
Anybody in favour of this war, in my opinion, doesn't understand our problems and/or care about America itself.
This is going to happen whether you like it or not.
Deal with it
This is not about assisting either side.
This is about punishing the Syrian government for its use of chemical weapons on it's own people.
On the contrary, we have a huge national interest in Syria. Not only is it Iran's chief ally in the region, but it is responsible for enabling the deaths of thousands of American servicemembers. It's provides aid to Hezbollah and (until recently) al-Qaeda, has WMD production and stockpiles, and has the ability to destabilize a high-impact portion of the globe. Geography and politics both require that we maintain our interests in the middle east, and Syria is a big piece of that.
Not exactly sure what that has to do with anything.... Syria fights its own civil war and Korea and China will keep shipping out my imported cheaply made goods.Interesting. Are you also a farmer?
Invading Iran is also a national interest... should we then? North Korea too?
This is going to happen whether you like it or not.
Deal with it
When did I say otherwise...? I am dealing just fine, thank you. I am so far removed from America's problems that it is really refreshing.
Once Israel strikes, then everyone in the USA will have the cover they need to support action in Syria. Then they will criticize Obama for not doing what what they were against.
For me, take out the offensive capabilities of all bad guys and minimize civilian losses as much as possible. Then we can further feed our military complex.
I feel like I'm smack dab in the middle of all these problems. I am honestly very concerned about what's happening in the world, and about our participation in this newest Syria problem. I just wish we could mind our own business for once and stay out of it. I have a bad feeling about us getting involved with this mess.
Me too with regards to what a mess it will be. I am removed though and love it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?