Syria?

[I'm Supposn]

When there’s no satisfactory alternative, comparative advantage is the determination of choosing the least unsatisfactory alternative.

If we set or continue a precedent is that there may be no severe consequences to those who introduce chemical warfare into armed conflicts, the world will certainly regret it and because chemical warfare will become less rather than more rare, the USA will learn that we cannot exclude ourselves from the world.

The French are inclined to go along with us. Great Britain has determined otherwise but there’s a hope that they will reverse themselves if the USA chooses to go. I won’t speculate regarding Germany and the remainder of the world.

If it’s a go, I believe that some nation’s troops or UN inspectors will have to be on Syrian soil. It would be fortunate if they could find and disable the chemical weapons but I wouldn’t count on it. There is no satisfactory outcome due to USA attacking Syria.

There’s also consideration of our betraying what we claim to uphold, the Geneva convention, the Nuremberg trails will be meaningless. Our inactive stance will confirm that our nation only perceives our national interests are at stake when oil or oil corporations’ profits are at risk.

Regardless of Syria’s civil war’s outcome, it’s unlikely any outcome will be significantly more or less beneficial to USA’s interests but not attacking Syria would be the most unsatisfactory alternative available to us.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Artevelde]

When there’s no satisfactory alternative, comparative advantage is the determination of choosing the least unsatisfactory alternative.

If we set or continue a precedent is that there may be no severe consequences to those who introduce chemical warfare into armed conflicts, the world will certainly regret it and because chemical warfare will become less rather than more rare, the USA will learn that we cannot exclude ourselves from the world.

The French are inclined to go along with us. Great Britain has determined otherwise but there’s a hope that they will reverse themselves if the USA chooses to go. I won’t speculate regarding Germany and the remainder of the world.

If it’s a go, I believe that some nation’s troops or UN inspectors will have to be on Syrian soil. It would be fortunate if they could find and disable the chemical weapons but I wouldn’t count on it. There is no satisfactory outcome due to USA attacking Syria.

There’s also consideration of our betraying what we claim to uphold, the Geneva convention, the Nuremberg trails will be meaningless. Our inactive stance will confirm that our nation only perceive our national interests are at stake only if oil and oil corporations’ profits are at risk.

Regardless of Syria’s civil war’s outcome, it’s unlikely any outcome will be significantly more or less beneficial to USA’s interests but not attacking Syria would be the most unsatisfactory alternative available to us.

Respectfully, Supposn

First of all, let me correct you on a few things. Germany and Italy will definitely not participate and neither will the UK reverse itself. All of this has already been publicly announced.

Secondly, I take issue with your logic. If a limited strike is conducted, then the Assad regime will most likely survive. The net message is then that using chemical weapons does not mean you can't survive. The only other alternative is to go for an all out assault on the Assad regime, meaning the US becoming involved in the civil war and in all the bloodshed and massacres that will follow, with zero benefit.

On the whole, the most sensible thing is not to attack Libya. Throwing a few cruise missiles around as "punishment" is a sign of frustration and impotence, not real long-term policy or deterrence.

 

[DDD]

First of all, let me correct you on a few things. Germany and Italy will definitely not participate and neither will the UK reverse itself. All of this has already been publicly announced.

Hope dies last though. The United Kingdom may reverse it. How do you know that they will not?

On the whole, the most sensible thing is not to attack Libya. Throwing a few cruise missiles around as "punishment" is a sign of frustration and impotence, not real long-term policy or deterrence.

Libya! This is about Syria for Pete's sake! Do you even read titles or pay attention to what has been going on?!

 

[MMC]

Well, today our Media is touting how Johnny Quest McCain and Lindsey Graham have come to save the day for Obama support on trying to pass this with Congress. They really do need to check McCain out for senility. Then send his azz out to pasture.


Top Republicans warn Syria no vote would be 'catastrophic'

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, Republican hawks who have long advocated deeper US involvement in Syria's civil war, met President Barack Obama as part of his efforts to sell US lawmakers on military action.

McCain emerged from the meeting with a stern warning for fellow Republicans who may be considering voting against military action purely to damage the Democratic president.

"A vote against that resolution by Congress I think would be catastrophic," said McCain.

"It would undermine the credibility of the United States of America and the president of the United States. None of us want that."

The two senators also offered what appeared to be indications of evolving administration thinking about its Syria policy.

Obama has stressed that any US action, expected to include cruise missiles, would be "limited" and "narrow."

But McCain suggested that more US muscle than expected might be deployed.

The plan could be intended to degrade President Bashar al-Assad's capabilities and upgrade those of vetted opposition groups, McCain suggested.....snip~

Top Republicans warn Syria no vote would be 'catastrophic'

Both, McCain and Kerry have made remarks that would indicate Regime change not just limited action. The only thing that will be catastrophic is if we get involved.

 

[WCH]

If a cruise missile lands in the middle of sectarian civil war violence, will anyone notice?

This country is run by dip chits.

 

[MMC]

Well now we have moved a Strike Force.....plus now it is out of the bag we have subs in Club Med as well. So now Putin knows this too. Which nothing has been said about any Russian subs in and around Club Med.

Assad has moved his stuff. The Rebels have pulled back their people. Yet now Kerry and McCain are talking about helping the Rebels again. Most know there are No Good Guys there.

So now what good will it do to fire any missiles at Assad? In trying to somehow strategically help the Rebels????? That's regime change.....or shall we say Opposition now like the Media is doing? 820k a pop on the Tomahawks. Save the money let the French use theirs.

Moreover what if Congress says no. That leaves the French hanging in the Wind all by their lonesome. Think the French will do anything by themselves without the help of others?

 

[ecofarm]

Yet now Kerry and McCain are talking about helping the Rebels again. Most know there are No Good Guys there.

Do you mean there are no good guys in Syria, or in congress?

 

[Lord of Planar]

When there’s no satisfactory alternative, comparative advantage is the determination of choosing the least unsatisfactory alternative.

If we set or continue a precedent is that there may be no severe consequences to those who introduce chemical warfare into armed conflicts, the world will certainly regret it and because chemical warfare will become less rather than more rare, the USA will learn that we cannot exclude ourselves from the world.

The French are inclined to go along with us. Great Britain has determined otherwise but there’s a hope that they will reverse themselves if the USA chooses to go. I won’t speculate regarding Germany and the remainder of the world.

If it’s a go, I believe that some nation’s troops or UN inspectors will have to be on Syrian soil. It would be fortunate if they could find and disable the chemical weapons but I wouldn’t count on it. There is no satisfactory outcome due to USA attacking Syria.

There’s also consideration of our betraying what we claim to uphold, the Geneva convention, the Nuremberg trails will be meaningless. Our inactive stance will confirm that our nation only perceives our national interests are at stake when oil or oil corporations’ profits are at risk.

Regardless of Syria’s civil war’s outcome, it’s unlikely any outcome will be significantly more or less beneficial to USA’s interests but not attacking Syria would be the most unsatisfactory alternative available to us.

Respectfully, Supposn

I have still only see unsubstantiated claims that Syria attacked the rebels with WMD, and also heard the rebels are the ones who used it.

Where is the proof, and even if so, why should we get involved?

 

[MMC]

Do you mean there are no good guys in Syria, or in congress?

No good guys in Syria.....but Ya might as well as throw most of our Congress in there.

 

[ecofarm]

No good guys in Syria.....but Ya might as well as throw most of our Congress in there.

That's no different than claiming that there no good guys in blacks, Christians or any other group. People are people.

 

[MMC]

That's no different than claiming that there no good guys in blacks, Christians or any other group. People are people.

Oh well, were you looking for some technicality in the first place?.....Can you come up with any links to any good Guys? Got any names and I don't think you can use the FSA, anymore. So lets see the Links to the names of these Good Guys?

Can ya produce any?

 

[ecofarm]

Oh well, were you looking for some technicality in the first place?....

You claimed 50k killed by rebels but were entirely unable to accept a 4:1 ratio on combatants:non-combat. We know that Assad is running at least 1:3 on combatants:non-combatants.

You took figures from rebel propaganda to assert a total kills without respect to source bias and, worse, without respect to civilian targets.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

When there’s no satisfactory alternative, comparative advantage is the determination of choosing the least unsatisfactory alternative.

If we set or continue a precedent is that there may be no severe consequences to those who introduce chemical warfare into armed conflicts, the world will certainly regret it and because chemical warfare will become less rather than more rare, the USA will learn that we cannot exclude ourselves from the world.

The French are inclined to go along with us. Great Britain has determined otherwise but there’s a hope that they will reverse themselves if the USA chooses to go. I won’t speculate regarding Germany and the remainder of the world.

If it’s a go, I believe that some nation’s troops or UN inspectors will have to be on Syrian soil. It would be fortunate if they could find and disable the chemical weapons but I wouldn’t count on it. There is no satisfactory outcome due to USA attacking Syria.

There’s also consideration of our betraying what we claim to uphold, the Geneva convention, the Nuremberg trails will be meaningless. Our inactive stance will confirm that our nation only perceives our national interests are at stake when oil or oil corporations’ profits are at risk.

Regardless of Syria’s civil war’s outcome, it’s unlikely any outcome will be significantly more or less beneficial to USA’s interests but not attacking Syria would be the most unsatisfactory alternative available to us.

Respectfully, Supposn

How will it hurt us if we don't act? We save money, save troops. It's not our fight, stay out of it. Besides, there is reasonable doubt to believe that it may have actually been the rebels that used the weapons.

 

[MMC]

You claimed 50k killed by rebels but were entirely unable to accept a 4:1 ratio on combatants:non-combat. We know that Assad is running at least 1:3 on combatants:non-combatants.

You took figures from rebel propaganda to assert a total kills without respect to source bias and, worse, without respect to civilian targets.

I also went with what the Rebels did in Homs.....you didn't. Got a link with the names to some good guys yet?

Something fringe even????? I'll even accept a blogger that is referenced. :shock:

 

[ecofarm]

Got a link with the names to some good guys yet?

Yes, your position is disconnected, and insanely absolutist/paranoid/xenophobic.

Something fringe even????? I'll even accept a blogger that is referenced.

You called a blogger CBS, I seriously doubt that you've considered his sources. You went fringe on confirmation bias without considering the source, he claims 5k non-combatants. You cannot tout the 50 without the 5.

 

[MMC]

Yes, your position is disconnected, and insanely absolutist/paranoid/xenophobic.



You called a blogger CBS, I seriously doubt that you've considered his sources. You went fringe on confirmation bias without considering the source, he claims 5k non-combatants.

Your the one that took the foolish position thinking a one size gloves fits all approach is the answer. How deluded you are in the real world.

Now do you got ANY Links on those alleged good Guys or are you just shooting spit in the wind again? Can you even come up with just one?

 

[ecofarm]

Your the one that took the foolish position thinking a one size gloves fits all approach is the answer. How deluded you are in the real world.

Now do you got ANY Links on those alleged good Guys or are you just shooting spit in the wind again? Can you even come up with just one?

You have grabbed a fringe 50k stat and swear allegiance to it.

Do you also accept his claim of 5k non-combatants?

 

[MMC]

You have grabbed a fringe 50k stat and swear allegiance to it.

Do you also accept his claim of 5k non-combatants?

You grabbed an alleged good guy argument. Can you produce links or not? That's where this thread is at now. You aren't in that other thread.

I also produced links with my argument. If you can't produce anything then surely that just gives more credence as to you not knowing what is going on inside Syria.

It's not like you have much credibility on the matter. Since we have been talking about it.

 

[ecofarm]

You grabbed an alleged good guy argument. Can you produce links or not?

I would like to deal with your evidence. The man to whom you swear allegiance claims 50k combatants and 5k non-combatants. He later claimed that 80% of combatants were Alawites (military and non-miltary total). Thus, he claims that the rebels have killed 50k soldiers (40k of which are Alawite military or mercenaries) and 5k non-combatants (killed by terrorist elements, including AlN).

Do you agree with his assessment or not? If not, in what regard.

I find his estimation of enemy combatants killed to be inflated. I would reduce those numbers to ~30k combatants killed of which perhaps 15k are Alawis, given source bias.

 

[[]D e e v e s]

One of the UN's charter points I believe is to condemn and use military force when necessary. A UN sanctioned force...NOT just a US coalition, is what is needed here to get attention from Assad. Any other unilateral attack will serve little but to rattle the Sunni-Shiite sectarian root causes.
I say if the UN DOES NOT take military reaction to poison nerve gas used on civilians, then disband the useless UN.

That one country like Russia may prevent proven (UN INVESTIGATORS), justifiable intervention is nonsense.

 

[MMC]

I would like to deal with your evidence. The man to whom you swear allegiance claims 50k combatants and 5k non-combatants. He later claimed that 80% of combatants were Alawites (military and non-miltary total). Thus, he claims that the rebels have killed 50k soldiers (40k of which are Alawite soldiers or mercenaries) and 5k non-combatants (killed by terrorist elements).

Do you agree with his assessment or not? If not, in what regard.

I don't see any of that in this thread...... moreover I stated that the Rebels were responsible for 40 some percent of all Killing in Syria. The UN is the one that keeps raising the totals.

Now do you have any links that you can produce with the names of the Good guys? Got any names of the Good Counsels? Any Civilian Committees names?

Let me know when you can come up with these good guys you say exist. Until then you really got nothing.

 

[ecofarm]

I don't see any of that in this thread...

Try harder. From above edit ~: I find his estimation of enemy combatants killed to be inflated (given he's an anti-Assad source). I would reduce his numbers to ~30k combatants killed of which perhaps 15k are Alawis, given source bias.

 

[MMC]

Try harder. From above edit: I find his estimation of enemy combatants killed to be inflated. I would reduce those numbers to ~30k combatants killed of which perhaps 15k are Alawis, given source bias.

Whatever you find to be inflated is on you.....but then just like with your good guy scenario and the one glove approach. Aint much to back it up. So then there is that. :roll:

 

[ecofarm]

Whatever you find to be inflated is on you...

Do you agree the blogger is anti-Assad?

 

[MMC]

Do you agree the source is anti-Assad?

I will go with the UN and Unicef totals and not yours. But thanks for proving you never can come up with any links over Syria.