Thread: The Official Syria Thread
9/04/2013 4:14pm, #71
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
9/04/2013 4:18pm, #72
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
"WASHINGTONï¿½The SenateForeign Relations Committee approved a resolution Wednesday authorizing President Barack Obama to conduct military strikes against Syria."
9/04/2013 4:41pm, #73
But let's be honest, no one had the heart to tell Rocky Marciano that he's no longer the baddest man on the planet. Instead they let him win that weird computer simulation thing with Ali.
The golden 60s are long gone. Too many strong players in the game.
Remember when early this year the Mars Rover found the Chinese flag on that pole? Holy ****, did NASA try to cover that up or what. Well... I'm sure your research will catch up with theirs eventually.
Last edited by Tranquil Suit; 9/04/2013 4:48pm at .
(button in upper right corner) Settings> (left menu under My Account) General Settings > in Thread Display Options > Number of Posts to Show Per Page: 40
9/04/2013 4:45pm, #74
9/04/2013 5:35pm, #75
9/04/2013 6:09pm, #76
9/04/2013 7:21pm, #77
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
9/05/2013 12:05am, #78
The White House wants to blunder into the Syrian Civil War but There is a Way Out
The word leaking out of Washington is that the Obama administration believes that it can run a several day carefully calibrated cruise missile campaign in Syria which will supposedly enforce Obama’s “red line” prohibition against using chemical weapons. This will be carried out against a regime which has been already fighting a two year long brutal civil war with untold numbers of civilian and military dead. Apparently Obama believes that a couple hundred cruise missiles will somehow convince the Assad regime to fight without using chemical weapons by “sending a message”.
The idea that a few days of missiles and a few blown up instillations will somehow convince Assad to follow the Geneva Convention is self delusional. One only has to look at our failed bombing campaigns in North Vietnam during 1964 and 1965 to see that limited incremental strikes do not convince a determined combatant to give up its preferred behavior. Similarly in 1999 when we bombed the Serbs to try to induce them to withdraw their army from Kosovo, it took 78 days of bombing where NATO had initially only planned for a few days of strikes. We could also threaten them with a ground invasion of Kosovo, an option we do not have with Syria.
“Sending a Message” like “preserving our credibility” is a weasel phrase loved by press spokesmen. A real objective would be to destroy Assad’s Air force, or destroy every known chemical weapon storage site in Syria, or to destroy his air defense system. This would require a sustained air campaign, read WAR, and the administration knows it does not have the public support to engage in such a campaign. So this Administration is attempting to sell us on a brief series of attacks so that Obama can claim that he has honored his promise not to let the use of Chemical Weapons to go unanswered, after he trapped himself into this commitment last year.
I do not believe that a couple day long military operations without tangible goals will convince the Assad Regime that we are to be obeyed on the issue of Chemical Weapons. I would suggest that readers call our congressman and two senators and ask them not to support this military intervention without an actual declaration of war. Do we somehow deceive ourselves into believing that running any bombing campaign against another nation is not an act of war?
I oppose intervention and here’s my suggested plan. Tell our Democratic representatives to force Obama to go to Congress to get authorization for his military campaign. They will hopefully turn him down. Assuming this happens, he can then claim that his “credibility is preserved” due to his efforts to obtain this approval. He then can stop militarily interfering in this civil war and focus on providing humanitarian aid which will actually help the refugee populations that have fled Syria and who will eventually return. If our Congressman and Senators however want to support a war with Syria, we can then elect their replacements. Absent however, will be the deception that our Executive Branch prefers, which will allow them to progressively dig us deeper and deeper into this conflict.
9/05/2013 12:09am, #79
This was the op-ed I sent into my local newspaper last Thursday which they decided not to print.
You see we want to stop Assad from using chemical weapons to preserve his regime, but we only want to bomb him in a way that doesn't threaten his grip on power. This ignores the reality that the only way to scare him into not doing something IS to bomb him in such a manner that threatens his life or his hold on Syria.
This means taking sides in the Syrian Civil War.
BTW the one in Lebanon next door to Syria with some of the same factions went about 15 years.
I think we should sit this one out.
9/05/2013 2:26am, #80
Why stop there?
We're hardly in a position to claim moral superiority in this.
And why are chemical weapons such as gas so abhorrent anyhow?
They kill the pesky people and leave all the 'stuff', so is it just too convenient?
Do we need to bomb the **** out of **** so we can rebuild it?