Military strikes on Syria as early as Thursday. Thoughts?

Oh, well. That’s fine then. It’s just “three days of warnings”, at least it’s not “a war”.

Fuck. Does this president even know that we have a Constitution?

Iraq all over again. For the same fucking reason. Obama IS Bush.

At least were consistent. its like my imaginary grandfather always said, if you can’t admit you’re wrong keep making the same mistake over and over again.

It’s time’s like this that I’m so proud of my war mongering country —_—

It’s nice to see how much we’ve progressed over a few hundred years. We think it’s wrong for a government to kill it’s citizens with the wrong weapons. To prove it we’ll kill some more of them with the right weapons.

I’m really, really torn on this. I am one of the most anti-war people I know. On the other hand, Hitler killed Jews, gays, Romanii and dissidents and the world did nothing. I just don’t know….

America is the most codependent country in the world. I don’t even bother getting riled up about any political bullshit at all. Pointless waste of energy. We will always go borrowing trouble and sticking our noses into others problems/business.
If this fucking government devoted even 1/10th the energy into taking care of it’s own we wouldn’t be in this economic toilet right now.

We aren’t helping other countries out of a sense of altruism and global unity, we get involved to score political brownie points for our own selfish reasons.

@janbb that is really my problem with it. It’s a world issue. If the UN decides to act, fine, but it shouldn’t be merica! “come to the rescue” again.

I’m not opposed to war per se, it just didn’t accomplish the desired objectives the previous 2 (3? Gulf war I) times, so why is it going to work this time?

It’s not intended to accomplish anything. The only point here is to give Obama cover for his ‘Red Line’. Something like when Clinton blew up the aspirin factory in the dead of night. The only real danger is if they miss and hurt Assad in some way.

@Jaxk Life is too short to argue with you.

I do think the military strikes in Serbia helped end that conflict although I may be wrong.

I haven’t seen today’s news. Is it not NATO that will be doing this or just us?

Massive yawn!!
Although I did like the Russian deputy Prime Minister’s comment about the behaviour of western countries toward the islamic world, “like a monkey with a grenade.”

The weird thing here is that there wouldn’t likely be talk of military strikes on Syria if they killed thousands innocent civilians with conventional bombs and bullets.

@gondwanalon that’s because they’d have to do it on an individual basis and that’s boring. People get shot all the time. Even (especially) here in the US.

Easiest psychic challenge of the century. I predict this will not end well. The Administration has no choice but to act, and no act that will provide an acceptable choice.

”“If there is no action, we are afraid that in the coming days, not coming weeks, Bashar will use chemical weapons and chemical materials against very wide areas and, I’m afraid, to kill maybe 20,000 or 30,000 more people,” he said.”
_______

Where does “he” get these figures from? Why not 24,639 people? Have they seen Bashar’s chem stockpiles to stand a statement upon? Is it Southern or Northern region? Are folks who like XBox targeted more than PS fans?

Or is “he” just pulling numbers out of his ass to make news quotes tastier? What’s his estimate for American casualties? What’s his estimate for how many civilians we’ll kill?

Look, if we gotta go, then we gotta go. But where do these politicians get their “estimates” from?

what is also funny is during the iraq-iran war the amis knew iraq was using chemical weapons against iran, and yet they supported them.

What can be done about it?

Russia is actively on the ground aiding the other side of this conflict. This means Obama could very well start WWIII. Obama has been sending supplies to the same organizations that we have been fighting for years. Maybe if he’s impeached quickly someone with half a brain could smooth this thing over…

Is there oil in Syria?
@ragingloli it’s strangely true what you say about the chemical weapons. I think Obama is just looking for and excuse to start a fight.
@DWW25921 at one stage I thought a WWIII can do us good, but the problem is that it can last for years or it can be over in 45 hours leaving a few parts of the world radio active.

@antimatter I think Obama is really, really reluctant to start a fight. That is why he hasn’t acted so far. You may not like the man and I criticize a lot about him but I don’t think he has anything to gain by starting a war now.

If people would take the time to read this link about the chemical attack I wonder what you think the humanitarian response should be.

I’m with @ETpro. No matter which faction we choose to support, or how, it’s going to piss off a lot of people world wide. I’ve yet to hear a possible win-win solution.

Maybe we’re the computer from war games, realizing their is no victory condition.

I’m hoping this goes down like the War in Kosovo where we took down Slobodan Milosevic. And I think it’s right for the same reasons that war was. Innocent civilians were being massacred by their own government in huge numbers and it’s morally unjust to look the other way. Aiding the rebels from the air is a reasonable course of action and very different from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have seen reports of both the Assad regime and the rebels using chemical weapons in this conflict.maybe the US should use missiles to take out the chemical weapons sites without resorting to putting boots on the ground.

@1TubeGuru Last I heard they were probably going to use Tomahawk cruise missiles. I agree boots on the ground would be a disaster.

I am with @ETpro . If there was a simple way out of this, like Kosovo or Libya, it would have already been done.

Old words still apply:

“There never was a good war or a bad peace.”
—Ben Franklin

(comment in general) I agree boots on the ground would be a disaster.
If you want to go into the barn to kill the rats what is the point if you don’t get them all? If you don’t have the moxie to put boots on the ground, keep the hell out of there.

It strikes me as odd that Assad would use chemical weapons. Until we get more information on what actually happened I don’t think we should respond. We have gone to war based on bogus intelligence in the past with disastrous consequences.

@CWOTUS Neville Chamberlain managed to find a bad peace. But I agree no good war.

Kerry and others are already making assertions of there being incontrovertible evidence, before the UN inspectors have even finished their investigation… Of course, they don’t actually share this supposed evidence, only vague references to there being “intelligence”.

I don’t see how anyone can know exactly what was used and by whom until actual evidence is gathered. But the politicians have made up their minds and the media is complicit in presenting their assertions of evidence as actual evidence.

It may well be true that Assad used chemical weapons, but it seems somewhat implausible to me considering that it would play right into the hands on the rebels. It gives a pretext for international intervention, which suits the rebels.

If the Assad government did use chemical weapons. it would only be due to some sort of gross miscalculation or irrational desperation, and through a belief that it could be covered up or blamed on the rebels, which just doesn’t seem as likely to me.

@Kropotkin etal Read the link I posted from the New York Times. I think the evidence is pretty strong. “Doctors without Borders” has also reported hard evidence of chemical attacks.

There’s moxie and there’s idiocy. Only an ignoramus would go on the ground there. We’ve been so successful on the ground in the region, what’s one more time.

“Never fight a land war in Asia.”

I don’t get the impression that ground troops are really being considered.

I don’t either, I was addressing an earlier comment saying we should be ready to go in on the ground.

@janbb I had already read it and other sources. You know that adage about truth being the first casualty of war, right? In the media age, the war is also fought on the PR front.

I didn’t mean to imply that there was no evidence of a chemical attack. Only that it’s not known what chemicals were used exactly, and by whom.

As of now, it makes more sense to me that the rebels did it. However, this is only my conjecture.

@1TubeGuru The reason we don’t take out the chemical weapons facilities is that would loose a huge cloud of poison gas and who knows where the wind would take it before it finally became diffused enough to quit killing everything in its path? If we did that, we’d potentially be responsible for tens of millions of innocent civilian deaths. Got a plan B?

@ETpro Since if we do anything it will not bode well, how ‘bout as plan B we just sit this one out and retire to Paris to sit on the Champs-Elysees sipping French wine at a curbside cafe while the various factions fuck themselves over. Less American kids die and people will be pissed off at us no matter what so WTF?

Or do we have to prove our masculinity and wave our junk around?

@rojo We lose a great deal for doing nothing, as well. Often it is better to be condemned for a well-intentioned wrong action than for inaction. I believe Neville Chamberlain’s name has come up in this discussion.

I cannot disagree but either way we will lose. And when the choice is between two evils, perhaps the best action is to refuse to choose.
At least that way we lose less American soldiers.

@rojo The action being discussed currently is strictly missile strikes on military targets. No US ground forces will be involved and no US planes will fly in Syrian airspace. It will last at most for three days. The idea is to send Bashar al Assad a message he can understand. Use your chemical weapons stockpile on your own people, and you will pay a price for doing so.

And, is there a no escalation allowed clause?

What happens when he gets pissed off and lobs some chems at Israel. Then they retaliate and that brings in the Iranians or Hezbollah and then we have to come and pull their ass out of the fire and so on until….......... you get the picture.

@rojo It’s entirely possible Assad has a death wish and will do that. He would provoke the end of a lot of regional threats if he did, and I am willing to bet he knows that and won’t. The IDF is more capable than you seem to think.

I got bumped out.

Assad, in my opinion, does not have a deathwish. What he wants is to remain in power and enjoy the benefits derived from that. He will, however, lash out if he believes he is a dead man. What does he have to lose?

And while we may agree as to the lethality of the IDF, the US will be drawn into any conflict that involves Israel, like it or not.

I say, sit this one out. So some people will get mad. There will be those infuriated if we side with the rebels and those who are ready to pronounce Jihad on us if we side with Assad. So, where is the winning scenario?

I would be more willing to go to war if I believed our government was willing to kill those responsible for it but I do not. They will kill the minions and leave the head of the snake. There is a reluctance in all governments to take out the leaders of the opposition, probably a fear of setting a precedence, but they are perfectly willing to let others die for them.

@rojo Well neither you nor I have a vote in it, so time will tell what the consequences are.

Wait!
We don’t get a vote?
Since when?
I have an ID!
I have registered!
I am white!
Why can’t I vote on this?

Aw cummon, Surely you know that Congress, in their divinely inspired wisdom under the God appointed Bush, outsourced their constitutionally required responsibility to the President for “limited policing actions” having to do with our nebulous war on a strategy called terrorism, a strategy that’s been around since the stone age.

how do they afford all this aren’t they already in a war in the middle east?

there is always money for war

Yeah, Hitler moonlighted as a beer hall jazz singer to fund the war chest, a wasted effort in the end.

@ucme really? did’t know that. how funny would it be if he put on blackface.
I think the main difference in attitude is that before Afghanistan and Iraq 2001 happened, and we where all hurt and needed to DO SOMETHING and they were somewhat convenient targets. But now 2001 is a sadly fading memory, some jackass in the middle east gases his own people (like Hussein gassed Kurds) and were more willing to sit the fence.

Ugh! My cousin in Navy. He’s probably there.

The talk in the ether is that this will be sending a “message” to the Assad regime that you cannot kill your own people with chemical weapons (It appears that conventional weaponry is ok) and that this is to counter the message that Assad sent to his people by using them that no one will help them.
If all we are doing is sending messages, why not just use FB?
If, and in my opinion it is a mistake, we absolutely have to send a “message” then it should not be to Assad and his regime but to their next of kin that they need to come and pick up the pieces. Take out the ones responsible, not those who carry out the orders.

Then there is also the fact that it is not clear which side used the gas. Both sides are accusing each other of doing it.

@ragingloli No, there are a series or intercepts showing clearly that Assad ordered the attack. No guesswork there.