Situation in Syria

[woolybug25]

The Syrian government HAS been saying it's the rebels that used the chemical weapons. The rebels themselves have even said they would use chemical weapons.

Americans need to take the all the time that is necessary to understand what's going on before they allow their leaders to start targeting Syria. Americans could find themselves immersed in an endless war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah which would be far more horrible than the Iraq war ever was. It would essentially be a war with Shia Islam itself who, after being provoked, would not hesitate to go after soft targets all across the United States. I don't think most Americans have any understanding of what their leaders are trying to get them involved in.

Where? Everything I read is that they say that it didn't happen at all. They let the UN in because they claimed that the attacks never happened. The UN wasn't trying to find out who did it, they were trying to prove that it did happen.

I don't want to see us get into this either, btw.

 

[enrico514]

Where? Everything I read is that they say that it didn't happen at all. They let the UN in because they claimed that the attacks never happened. The UN wasn't trying to find out who did it, they were trying to prove that it did happen.

I don't want to see us get into this either, btw.

Syria's Assad denies use of chemical weapons: Syria's Assad denies use of chemical weapons - latimes.com


"Syrian authorities and their Russian allies have charged that it was the rebels who unleashed chemical agents in a bid to discredit the government and spur a U.S.-led military attack on Syrian forces. The opposition has denied using chemical arms."

 

[mgriff]

A war is such a convenient way to deflect attention from the massive amounts of government administration officials and agencies lying straight up to the American public.

Obviously there is a civil war going on, but we do not police the world. Was the intelligence about chemical weapons use not given to us by Mossad?

 

[irishff1014]

Obama will be speaking at 1:15 about this.

 

[calvegas04]

can we just relocate usc, UM, OSU and bama to the middle east?

 

[Buster Bluth]

A war is such a convenient way to deflect attention from the massive amounts of government administration officials and agencies lying straight up to the American public.

Obviously there is a civil war going on, but we do not police the world. Was the intelligence about chemical weapons use not given to us by Mossad?

this.

 

[enrico514]

Not that they're more trustworthy but still worth nothing:

Russian expert findings show weapon used in Syrian chemical attack was similar to ones made by a rebel group, per Foreign Ministry statement - @Reuters

Russian expert findings show weapon used in Syrian chemical attack was similar to ones made by a rebel group, per Foreign Ministry statement - @Reuters - breakingnews.com

 

[Cackalacky]

Obama is going to get approval from the Congress to do a "limited strike" against Syria. He says its measured, proportional, and limited with no boots on the ground. SMH.

Good ol' bipartisan war.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

Obama is going to get approval from the Congress to do a "limited strike" against Syria. He says its measured, proportional, and limited with no boots on the ground. SMH.

Good ol' bipartisan war.

We certainly have plenty of "boots" in the area, though. That policy can change in an instant. I am shaking my head too. This situation can go much, much worse in a heartbeat.

 

[LoveThee]

Can somebody tell me how to add a poll to the original post? I received a request for it and it sounds like a good addition

 

[scUM Hater]

I am putting my life on the line here.The secratary of defense is visiting a manufacturing facility that packages epi-pens for anthrax........this message will self destruct. If I am never heard from again....Go Irish

 

[BGIF]

Can somebody tell me how to add a poll to the original post? I received a request for it and it sounds like a good addition

I don't know if you can after the thread is open.

When you open a NEW thread look way down at the bottom of the page and you'll see Additional Options. One of them is "Post a Poll".

Post a Poll
Yes, post a poll with this thread

I opened a couple of threads that I created and looked under EDIT to see if it could be done. I do not see the Post a Poll option. I don't know if a mod or administrator can do it for you.

You might be able to create another thread say, "Syria Poll" checking the "Post a Poll" option then having a mod merge the two threads together. The poll would probably appear in the merged thread chronologically rather than at the head of the old thread as merged threads are sorted out by date and time.

If you post your questions in the Feedback Forum it should get the attention of the powers that be.

 

[enrico514]

We certainly have plenty of "boots" in the area, though. That policy can change in an instant. I am shaking my head too. This situation can go much, much worse in a heartbeat.

This situation WILL get worse in less than a heartbeat if americans don't stand up and start asking some serious questions!

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

1) John McCain and John Boehner are embarrassing.

2) John Kerry once protested against war but now can't eliminate the possibility of boots on the ground.

3) Obama...enough said.

4) Someone pinch me when there is an anti-Syria protest organized by code pink, barbara streisand, sean penn, etc.

5) Someone pinch me again if anyone calls Obama a war mongerer, Hitler, the devil, etc. like the left called Bush from 2002-2008.

6) What is our goal in Syria? What is the end game?

7) If it's purely humanitarian, why aren't we using military action against North Korea, Cuba, and others?

8) This is a perfect distraction for Americans to take their minds off of the jobless recovery and unemployment stuck at 7.5% or higher for 5 years.

The only thing worse than whimpy Republicans' bipartisanship in this mess is the left wing's complete lack of principle.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Almost forgot...if we do strike Syria I hope those same anti war protesters get off their @$$es, organize a nationwide event, and then demand their hero Obama return that Nobel Peace Prize from 2009. Friggin joke. And this is all after adding troops in Afghanistan and the strike on Lybia (no Congressional approval).

Hope! Change!

 

[NDohio]

1) John McCain and John Boehner are embarrassing.

2) John Kerry once protested against war but now can't eliminate the possibility of boots on the ground.

3) Obama...enough said.

4) Someone pinch me when there is an anti-Syria protest organized by code pink, barbara streisand, sean penn, etc.

5) Someone pinch me again if anyone calls Obama a war mongerer, Hitler, the devil, etc. like the left called Bush from 2002-2008.

6) What is our goal in Syria? What is the end game?

7) If it's purely humanitarian, why aren't we using military action against North Korea, Cuba, and others?

8) This is a perfect distraction for Americans to take their minds off of the jobless recovery and unemployment stuck at 7.5% or higher for 5 years.

The only thing worse than whimpy Republicans' bipartisanship in this mess is the left wing's complete lack of principle.

Good post. Bolded is right on.

 

[enrico514]

1) John McCain and John Boehner are embarrassing.

2) John Kerry once protested against war but now can't eliminate the possibility of boots on the ground.

3) Obama...enough said.

4) Someone pinch me when there is an anti-Syria protest organized by code pink, barbara streisand, sean penn, etc.

5) Someone pinch me again if anyone calls Obama a war mongerer, Hitler, the devil, etc. like the left called Bush from 2002-2008.

6) What is our goal in Syria? What is the end game?

7) If it's purely humanitarian, why aren't we using military action against North Korea, Cuba, and others?

8) This is a perfect distraction for Americans to take their minds off of the jobless recovery and unemployment stuck at 7.5% or higher for 5 years.

The only thing worse than whimpy Republicans' bipartisanship in this mess is the left wing's complete lack of principle.

Why did Obama not act when the rebels used chemical weapons?

Why did the US not act when Russia used chemical weapons?

If it's purely humanitarian why did the US not get involved in significantly worse conflicts (5.5 million estimated casualties in Congo civil war) ?

 

[jmurphy75]

It kills me that I have not met a single person that thinks we should get involved in Syria's problems, hell even the polls shown on every news network show a 9% approval rating at best. So how are our elected officials even considering it? Aren't they supposed to be our voice? What a joke, the United States is not the world police and Obama treats our troops like they are his personal GI Joe toys. He has NO respect for our troops and doesn't care about the repercussions of his actions, this has the potential for things to go horribly wrong.

 

[MJ12666]

First, if the US cannot intervene in Syria after insurgents behead Catholic missionaries I really don't care what happens over there. These people are still living in the middle ages. If they want to kill each other with chemicals, bullets or machetes fine.

Second, let's say we launch a missile strike. Exactly what objective will be achieved? What exactly will be destroyed? One thing I can say with confidence is that news coverage will include pictures of dead and injured civilians (probably women and children) no matter what targets are hit.

We have spent enough capital (both financial and human) in the past ten years or so with absolutely no results. At some time you need to say enough is enough and let the people decide there own fate.

 

[scUM Hater]

Three words: shock and awe

 

[dre1919]

Perhaps, yes, we do have enough of our own problems. But at the end of the day, the United States represents itself to the rest of the world as the nation with the biggest influence and power (both economic, political, and militarily); essentially, based on our actions in the last century we're the self-appointed democratic beacon of light in the world. Not only can you gain from the world what we do and not have any responsibility towards maintaining it, but the US simply cannot hold themselves out to be some shining example of democracy without having some sort of responsibility uphold the principles underlying that in major world crises.

I'm not necessarily saying that Syria is the right example or time to do so, but the argument that we should just "mind our own business" because we have our own problems just isn't feasible in the modern era and quite simply, with the way that we have conducted our affairs, would be hypocritical and wrong.

True. But, this is also a large part of our problems today both at home and internationally. Perhaps Syria is where we draw the line and say "That's ok world...this time, figure your own sh** out." I for one would like to see us scale back our international involvement because honestly, most of the countries we help (especially in that part of the world) could care less and even hate us for getting involved. Why waste our money, and more importantly, our sons and daughters lives for people that will never thank us or give a sh** about us? If we were just donating money or equipment, aid, etc. ok. But putting our brave soldiers in harm's way for something that will likely resume a few years after we have left is beyond dumb.

 

[BobD]

Ok guys, vote in the new poll Lovethee just added to the top of this thread. I'm curious what others think.

I don't WANT to bomb Syria, but I feel if we don't, we are telling people of the world that the USA will no longer stand up to tyranny and for what is right. The jackass gassed children and we can't just ignore that because it's the easy way out.

 

[sparkyND]

"After all, Clausewitz reminds us, in war it is crucial "not to take the first step without considering the last.""

Advice from Clausewitz: Get a Strategy for Syria | Shadow Government | Shadow Government

I think this is what bothers me about Syria. What are we really trying to achieve by employing force in Syria.

 

[Andy in Sactown]

Article from today on economic times: China to build more aircraft carriers apart from 'Liaoning' - The Economic Times

Also, http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/varyag.htm is a good reference.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RxriKrEGnwQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

As a side note, if they wanted to deploy their one active aircraft carrier off the coast of Syria, she'd have to get underway from her berthing at Dazhu Shan on China's east coast and sail 15,772 nautical miles (thank you, google earth). At her reported top speed of 32 knots (probably a little faster, but going that speed 100% of the time isn't always feasible, so we'll roll with that) it would take her 492.875 hours to be on station (just a smidge over 20 and a half days).

The circumference of the earth at the equatorial bulge is 24840 nautical miles. So yeah, they're about as far away from the coast of Syria as any other place on the planet.

For comparison, we already have a carrier group in the med right now, not to speak of our other land based assets out of Turkey, etc. And that's not even counting NATO allied forces.

EDIT: I can't speak to the other branches of the U.S. Military, but if there are ever any naval questions on the board, as a sailor myself, I'm pretty "plugged in" to the fleet and naval topics in general and would be happy to oblige.

I was bored so I plotted a course through the Bearing Strait, and over the top through the Arctic Sea. Shortens the trip to 12,729 nautical miles, or 397.78 hours at 32 knots (16.574 days), but I doubt the Chinese would take that shiny new (untested, poorly supported) carrier up in the Arctic.

Just something less heavy, since it's got real, real; real fast.

 

[EddytoNow]

It's a no win situation for us. If we help one side they will turn on us when the fighting has ceased. We have no credibility with the Muslim world. Every time we intervene in the Middle East we create more enemies. Our intervention will insure thousands of new recruits for terrorist organizations.

 

[Andy in Sactown]

Ok guys, vote in the new poll Lovethee just added to the top of this thread. I'm curious what others think.

I don't WANT to bomb Syria, but I feel if we don't, we are telling people of the world that the USA will no longer stand up to tyranny and for what is right. The jackass gassed children and we can't just ignore that because it's the easy way out.

Like Bob, I don't WANT to bomb Syria. Ideally, we would not have to intervene. But I do think we HAVE to intervene militarily.

I'm 10,000% behind not putting boots on the ground. Those are my brothers and sisters. But, this is what we train for. When called upon, we'll put warheads on foreheads.

This is less and less about the what, and more and more about the how.

 

[enrico514]

Ok guys, vote in the new poll Lovethee just added to the top of this thread. I'm curious what others think.

I don't WANT to bomb Syria, but I feel if we don't, we are telling people of the world that the USA will no longer stand up to tyranny and for what is right. The jackass gassed children and we can't just ignore that because it's the easy way out.

The US has often not interfered in the past. I gave the example of the Congo where over 5 million people died and where atrocious acts were committed. Why did they not not get involved? Because they did not use chemical weapons???

If it's all about chemical weapons why did they not "punish" Russia when they recently used chemical weapons? Why did they not "punish" the rebels in Syria when they previously used them?

And finally... even this last use of chemical weapons... most data seems to indicate that the rebels used them and not the Assad regime.

 

[enrico514]

It's a no win situation for us. If we help one side they will turn on us when the fighting has ceased. We have no credibility with the Muslim world. Every time we intervene in the Middle East we create more enemies. Our intervention will insure thousands of new recruits for terrorist organizations.

By "punishing" Assad for an act that it seems the rebels probably did the US will in fact be declaring war on Shia Islam.

 

[ickythump1225]

No just no, but hell no. Stay out of Syria. Why fund and support opposition that's made up largely of Al-Queada operatives? Aren't they supposed to be the archenemy? There's something very fishy about this whole situation.

 

[dublinirish]

No just no, but hell no. Stay out of Syria. Why fund and support opposition that's made up largely of Al-Queada operatives? Aren't they supposed to be the archenemy? There's something very fishy about this whole situation.

its not as black and white as that. For instance Hezbollah is on the side of Asad in this conflict. They are the traditional enemy of Israel, a key US ally in the region.