Page 1 of 2

Syria: WMD's

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:35 pm
by dgs49
Questions:

What did the Assad regime have to gain by gassing a town in Syria? Presumably, they knew that such an act would be easily discovered, widely reported, and would cause it to be excoriated in the civilized world.

What did the rebels have to gain by the attack?

Hmmm.

Assuming that Government forces carried out the gas attack, how can we positively ascertain whether it was ordered from the top, or alternatively, was carried out by a rogue field commander without knowledge of the top?

Who gave Our Beloved President the Constitutional right to draw a line in the sand w/r/t Syria or its possible use of WMD's?

What possible positive outcome could result from our assisting "The Rebel Forces" in ousting the current Syrian regime?

Haven't we seen this before? How fucking stupid are we?

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:39 pm
by Long Run
No good options. Pick the least bad one. Maybe some reflection on how things have worked out in Libya and Egypt, and the kind of effort required in Iraq and Afghanistan to actually make a modest (and likely temporary) improvement. Some problems are better managed than trying to solve them.

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:57 pm
by Crackpot
If it comes to that I think a single large scale percicely targeted air/missle strike campaign would be the best course of action.

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:06 pm
by liberty
Crackpot wrote:If it comes to that I think a single large scale percicely targeted air/missle strike campaign would be the best course of action.
Before the president can do that he must get approval from congress.

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:29 pm
by Lord Jim
Before the president can do that he must get approval from congress.
There is absolutely nothing in US law that requires that Lib; absolutely nothing...

In fact The War Powers Act lays out a process that empowers a President to conduct an operation like this without specific authorization from Congress.

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:15 am
by Jarlaxle
Do not get entangled in ANOTHER mess. We need to walk away & let them kill each other.

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:31 am
by Lord Jim
Do not get entangled in ANOTHER mess. We need to walk away & let them kill each other.
We have no choice, we must be involved...

We can not simply "walk away" and expect everyone to leave us alone...

We tried that in 1941, and it didn't work well...

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:33 am
by Gob
I cannot see Syria attacking the US Jim.

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:43 am
by Lord Jim
I listened on CPAN to the debate in the British Parliament about whether or not they would stand with us on this...

The PM certainly means well, but weak as water...

(Say what you want about about George W. Bush, he'd have had you lot in line, not looking for excuses to genuflex to the Russkies...)

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:46 am
by Lord Jim
We can not allow our policies to be vetoed by a thugocracy who's values and objectives lie in an antagonistic juxtaposition with our own values and objectives...

If we do that, then we cease to be who we are...

The day we decide that Vladimir "The Greatest Tragedy Of The 20th Century Was The Collapse Of The Soviet Union" Putin's views of the world should determine our policies, is the day that we have abandoned our moral compass...

The "UN Security Council" my ass...

Former KGB Col. Vladimir Putin is nothing but a latter day Russian Vito Corleone, and it's time we stopped kissing his butt...

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:52 am
by Econoline
So, What’s It Going To Be?
COMMENTARY • Opinion • ISSUE 49•35 • Aug 28, 2013
By Bashar Al-Assad

Well, here we are. It’s been two years of fighting, over 100,000 people are dead, there are no signs of this war ending, and a week ago I used chemical weapons on my own people. If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you’re on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.

So, it’s your move, America. What’s it going to be?

I’ve looked at your options, and I’m going to be honest here, I feel for you. Not exactly an embarrassment of riches you’ve got to choose from, strategy-wise. I mean, my God, there are just so many variables to consider, so many possible paths to choose, each fraught with incredible peril, and each leading back to the very real, very likely possibility that no matter what you do it’s going to backfire in a big, big way. It’s a good old-fashioned mess, is what this is! And now, you have to make some sort of decision that you can live with.

So, where do I begin? Well, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but let’s start with the fact that my alliance with Russia and China means that nothing you decide to do will have the official support of the UN Security Council. So, right off the bat, I’ve already eliminated the possibility of a legally sound united coalition like in Libya or the First Gulf War. Boom. Gone. Off the table.

Now, let’s say you’re okay with that, and you decide to go ahead with, oh, I don’t know, a bombing campaign. Now, personally, I can see how that might seem like an attractive option for you. No boots on the ground, it sends a clear message, you could cripple some of my government’s infrastructure, and it’s a quick, clean, easy way to punish me and make you look strong in the face of my unimaginable tyranny. But let’s get real here. Any bombing campaign capable of being truly devastating to my regime would also end up killing a ton of innocent civilians, as such things always do, which I imagine is the kind of outcome you people would feel very guilty about. You know, seeing as you are so up in arms to begin with about innocent Syrians dying. Plus, you’d stoke a lot of anti-American hatred and quite possibly create a whole new generation of Syrian-born jihadists ready to punish the United States for its reckless warmongering and yadda yadda yadda.

Okay, what else? Well, you could play small-ball and hope that limited airstrikes to a few of my key military installations will send me the message to refrain from using chemical weapons again, but, c’mon, check me out: I’m ruthless, I’m desperate, and I’m going to do everything I can to stay in power. I’d use chemical weapons again in a heartbeat. You know that. And I know you know that. Hell, I want to help you guys out here, but you gotta be realistic. Trust me, I am incapable of being taught a lesson at this point. Got it? I am too far gone. Way too far gone.

Oh, and I know some of you think a no-fly zone will do the trick, but we both know you can’t stomach the estimated $1 billion a month that would cost, so wave bye-bye to that one, too.

Moving on.

I suppose you could always, you know, not respond with military force at all. But how can you do that? I pumped sarin gas into the lungs of my own people, for God’s sake! You can’t just let me get away with that, can you? I mean, I guess you easily could, and spare yourself all of this headache, but then you would probably lose any of your remaining moral high ground on the world stage and make everything from the Geneva Conventions to America’s reputation as a beacon for freedom and democracy around the world look like a complete sham.

And, hey, as long as we’re just throwing stuff out there, let’s consider a ground invasion for a moment. Now, even if you could reasonably fund a ground invasion, which I’m pretty sure you can’t, what exactly would such an invasion accomplish in the long term? I suppose it’s possible that you could come in and sweep me out the door and that would be the end of it. It’s possible. You know, like, in the sense that seeing a majestic white Bengal tiger in the wild is possible. Or, more likely, you could find yourself entrenched in a full-blown civil war that drags on for 15 years and sets off further turmoil in the rest of the region, leading to even more dead bodies for your country and mine, and even more virulent hatred of America. In fact, boy, maybe this is the one option that should be totally off the table.

Oh, and speaking of me being toppled from power, let’s say, just for fun, that tomorrow I were to somehow be dethroned. Who’s in charge? Half of these rebel groups refuse to work with one another and it’s getting harder to tell which ones are actually just Islamic extremists looking to fill a potential power vacuum. We’ve got Christians, Sunnis, and Shias all poised to fight one another for control should I fall. You want to be the ones sorting through that mess when you’re trying to build a new government? I didn’t think so.

So, all in all, quite the pickle you’re in, isn’t it? I have to say, I do not envy you here. Really curious to see where you go with this one.

I’ll leave you with this: I am insane. Not insane enough to generate worldwide unanimity that I cannot remain in charge of my own country. That would make this a lot easier. No, unfortunately, I’m just sane and stable enough to remain in power and devise cunning military and political strategies while at the same time adhering to a standard of morality that only the most perverse and sociopathic among us would be capable of adopting. But nevertheless, I am insane, so do with that information what you will.

Long story short, I’m going to keep doing my best to hold on to my country no matter what the cost. If that means bombing entire towns, murdering small children, or shooting at UN weapons inspectors, so be it. I’m in this for the long haul. And you will do...whatever it is you’re going to do, which is totally up to you. Your call.

Anyway, let me know what you decide. I’ll be waiting.
Source (if you haven't already clicked on the link I put in the headline)

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:15 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
In satire there is truth. :|

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:06 pm
by Big RR
(Say what you want about about George W. Bush, he'd have had you lot in line, not looking for excuses to genuflex to the Russkies...)
Good one Jim. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:18 pm
by Andrew D
Econoline wrote:
So, What’s It Going To Be?
COMMENTARY • Opinion • ISSUE 49•35 • Aug 28, 2013
By Bashar Al-Assad

Well, here we are. It’s been two years of fighting, over 100,000 people are dead, there are no signs of this war ending, and a week ago I used chemical weapons on my own people. If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, I'm on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.
Fixed that.

Makes the decision seem rather simpler ....

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:29 pm
by Jarlaxle
Lord Jim wrote:
Do not get entangled in ANOTHER mess. We need to walk away & let them kill each other.
We have no choice, we must be involved...

We can not simply "walk away" and expect everyone to leave us aaffair.ne...

We tried that in 1941, and it didn't work well...
Walk away & wash our hands of the whole affair. There is no possible positive outcome from doing anything else.

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:32 pm
by Andrew D
If we do it right, there will be a very positive outcome: Someone who used chemical weapons against civilians will be taking a dirt nap.

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:41 pm
by Jarlaxle
As the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria...no, that is not a positive outcome.

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:06 pm
by Andrew D
If we do not take out Assad, the Muslim Brotherhood still might take over Syria.

If we do take out Assad, the Muslim Brotherhood still might not take over Syria.

Syria is in the midst of a civil war in which many factions are fighting the Assad regime. And some of those factions have almost nothing in common with each other except their desire to be rid of the Assad regime.

We have no way of knowing what will happen when -- and it appears to be when rather than if -- the Assad regime goes. We have no way of knowing whether our taking out the Assad regime will help or hurt any of those factions, let alone which one(s) might be helped and which one(s) might be hurt.

But we do know one thing: If we take out the Assad regime, other regimes tempted to use chemical weapons against civilians will have good reason to think twice.

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:47 pm
by Lord Jim
Walk away & wash our hands of the whole affair. There is no possible positive outcome from doing anything else.
There is no possible positive outcome from walking away and washing our hands...

I haven't been a huge critic of Obama on foreign policy, but I really think we have bungled the Syrian situation through our dithering to a fare-the-well...

We should have gotten more engaged much sooner, providing training and arms to the original folks who began the uprising. We could have done it through staging areas in Turkey, and also established and enforced a no fly zone area from which they could operate.

When the rebellion began nearly two years ago it was started by secular elements who wanted to establish a democratic system. While we have been sitting around with our thumbs up our collective asses, these forces now no longer have the upper hand and hardcore Islamacists and pro-Al Qaeda types are estimated to constitute a majority of the rebel forces...

Also if we had acted to support the pro-democratic forces earlier, we would have built up substantial good will with the Syrian people. (Despite what happened in Benghazi,...which resulted in mass pro-US and anti- Islamacist protests..there is no Arab country where the US and the West is viewed more favorably by the general population then Libya, and that's because we came in strongly on their side.)

So now our "keeping away" has created a far more negative situation then needed to be the case. Our non-involvement has created a self-fulfilling prophecy, where if Assad is brought down purely by force of arms, we could easily wind up with a worse situation then we have now.

It didn't have to be this way...

But that's all water under the bridge, so the question becomes what's the best course now (or least bad; the only options you generally get when dealing with the Mid East) . This is the right thing to do at this juncture for several reasons:

1. It's important to establish the principle that the use of chemical weapons will carry consequences.

2. It's also important that when the POTUS lays down a marker that he make good on it. (The missiles we send will also send a much needed message to Tehran in that regard.)

3. This may help us salvage at least some good will with the Syrian people, and provide us with some influence in post-Assad Syria. (It would be a major coup to de-couple Syria from Iran, and deal a significant blow to the Iranian regime's ability to project influence in the Mid East. Even though a post Assad Syria isn't likely to get kissy faced with Israel, a Syria that at least no longer functions as an Iranian stooge would be a huge improvement for international stability and US and Western security interests.)

4. This represents, at long last, the Obama Administration establishing the principle that it will no longer allow thugocracies like Russia and China to hold veto power over US military action.

Better late than never. One doesn't have to be Henry Kissinger to understand that regimes of that ilk have agendas that are absolutely antithetical to the interests of the Western Democracies, (as well as the well being of the people directly affected)

Dictators don't like it when they see other dictators being tossed out, especially by their own people...

That sort of thing has a way of "catching on"...it makes them uncomfortable; it makes them concerned that it could create hope among their own people...

Re: Syria: WMD's

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:17 pm
by Crackpot
Actually I think "walking away" is the only credible action that we have left. Hanging around will be expensive and counterproductive as it will only give credence to the most radical and reactionary elements rhetoric. That being said the only way to execute this campaign is as one to do the most damage possible to the Assad regimes military. None of this "symbolic strike" bullshit that's been bandied about. That will do nothing but make us look weak