America's War Drums Beating Over Syria

[GHook93]

First if anyone thinks we haven't been involved over there, then I have a bridge to sell you. But I digress. The Democrats (and some Republicans like John McCain) have been beating the war drums over Syria for a while now. They want to interfere over their like we did with Libya.

Obama, to his credit, has resisted the pressure to act. However, he now made a speech about a line being crossed with the "alleged" use of chemical weapons!!! It sounds like the we are set to intervene. I assume a Libya like no fly zone and bombing of key targets.

Now for the record, Obama's STRATEGY in Libya was a ginormous success. No US boots on the ground, no occupation, no nation building and less dollars spent and the removal of the current government. The results have been disasterous, since Libya is now a destabilized country, haven for terrorist and arm dealing corridor. The strategy worked, but evil of Gaddiff was far better than what was left when he was over-thrown.

I believe NATO is working on a no fly zone Libya like strategy to remove ASSSSSad from power. The strategy will work, but the outcome will be even more disasterous.

First, ASSSSad has flaws, but he at least kept Syria stable and modern in the way Iraq and Jordan are moderate. Second, he has kept a cold peace with Israel. Third, he has not developed WNDs. Fourth, while he supports Hezbollah, he doesn't support Al Qaeda. When ASSSad falls, Al Qaeda will take over, Sharia will be establish and the country will be destablized like Egypt, but to a much greater extent because they will be trying to recover from a costly civil war. The country will be a haven for terrorism and a dangerous antiAmerican (ironically because we saved them) regime.

The strategy will work, the the result will be disasterous. Hopefully Obama resists the call to war cries!

 

[Truthmatters]

you mean the UN?

 

[g5000]

GOP policy in Libya: Obama is for interceding, so we are opposed to it.

GOP policy in Syria: Obama is not interceding, we are for it.

I expect the moment Obama decides to act in Syria, the GOP will suddenly be against it. In the meantime, the GOP will criticize Obama's slowness to act in Syria.


God forbid we should actually confirm WMDs were used by the Syrian government. A rumor should be good enough!

Paging Joseph Wilson...

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Will Barack Hussein Obama II, use the same ploy to invade Syria as G.W Bush used to invade Iraq?

 

[DGS49]

Note to GHook93. Not a bad posting, but you should draft it first in MS WORD, to pick up all the typographical errors and mis-spellings. They are a distraction.

I don't think the USPublic has any appetite for another war in the Middle East. Not to put too fine a point on it, our attitude is "Fuck 'em." It appears that the only real reason to get involved would be to provide some comfort to Israel.

 

[GHook93]

Will Barack Hussein Obama II, use the same ploy to invade Syria as G.W Bush used to invade Iraq?

It appears so. I wish our current government could have learned from the mistakes of the last government.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Anything to take your minds off the floundering Economy.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Let us suppose Assad kills every one of his political opponents in Syria. For good measure let us suppose he does it personally by the worst means you can imagine.

What measurable, verifiable effects are there on the United States?

Please spare us speculative horseshit.

 

[GHook93]

It appears that the only real reason to get involved would be to provide some comfort to Israel.

Overthrowing Sadam was very negative for Israel. Yes Sadam hated Israel and shot missiles at Israel, but he was a polarizing force to Iran and he kept Al Qaeda and Hezbollah out of Iraq. Regardless of what the antisemites say, the Iraq war was not good for Israel.

ASSSSad might support Iran and Hezbollah, but he is much better than what would follow him. Us helping take down ASSSad would also be negative for Israel!

 

[Oldguy]

First if anyone thinks we haven't been involved over there, then I have a bridge to sell you. But I digress. The Democrats (and some Republicans like John McCain) have been beating the war drums over Syria for a while now. They want to interfere over their like we did with Libya.

Obama, to his credit, has resisted the pressure to act. However, he now made a speech about a line being crossed with the "alleged" use of chemical weapons!!! It sounds like the we are set to intervene. I assume a Libya like no fly zone and bombing of key targets.

Now for the record, Obama's STRATEGY in Libya was a ginormous success. No US boots on the ground, no occupation, no nation building and less dollars spent and the removal of the current government. The results have been disasterous, since Libya is now a destabilized country, haven for terrorist and arm dealing corridor. The strategy worked, but evil of Gaddiff was far better than what was left when he was over-thrown.

I believe NATO is working on a no fly zone Libya like strategy to remove ASSSSSad from power. The strategy will work, but the outcome will be even more disasterous.

First, ASSSSad has flaws, but he at least kept Syria stable and modern in the way Iraq and Jordan are moderate. Second, he has kept a cold peace with Israel. Third, he has not developed WNDs. Fourth, while he supports Hezbollah, he doesn't support Al Qaeda. When ASSSad falls, Al Qaeda will take over, Sharia will be establish and the country will be destablized like Egypt, but to a much greater extent because they will be trying to recover from a costly civil war. The country will be a haven for terrorism and a dangerous antiAmerican (ironically because we saved them) regime.

The strategy will work, the the result will be disasterous. Hopefully Obama resists the call to war cries!

Then what do you propose the President do? Back Assad?

 

[GHook93]

Let us suppose Assad kills every one of his political opponents in Syria. For good measure let us suppose he does it personally by the worst means you can imagine.

What measurable, verifiable effects are there on the United States?

Please spare us speculative horseshit.

Zero

 

[High_Gravity]

One Assad is removed we better get the fuck out of dodge because the violence with increase ten fold, the Syrians are hungry to kill each other.

 

[bendog]

I gotta say, Bob Corker didn't sound insane on NRP last evening. Reach out to the Alwaits and try to find those in the opposition who will try to avoid ethnic cleansing. However, he ruefully acknowledged that the opposition groups tied to Iran were so much better at delivering social services to the masses, and much more organized politically.

It won't end well.

 

[Katzndogz]

Syria will go down in history as one of history's greatest blunders. No matter what we do, we will be wrong. Is that by accident, or design?

It wasn't the GOP that said chemical weapons were the red line. That was obama. The GOP didn't support al quaeda in Syria That was obama.

Now it's blown up in his face.

 

[Katzndogz]

Let us suppose Assad kills every one of his political opponents in Syria. For good measure let us suppose he does it personally by the worst means you can imagine.

What measurable, verifiable effects are there on the United States?

Please spare us speculative horseshit.

Suppose we had not done anything.

Assad would have put the rebellion down months ago. All those people wouldn't have died and we wouldn't be talking about chemical weapons now.

 

[bendog]

Please, it was bushjr and netandyahoo who considered young assad to be a bulwark on Israel's northern border. And it goes back even further.

Since 1948 we've been tied to defending Israel no matter what, and pining for the oil. Nothing else mattered .... unless it was arming the Taliban to kill Russians.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Let us suppose Assad kills every one of his political opponents in Syria. For good measure let us suppose he does it personally by the worst means you can imagine.

What measurable, verifiable effects are there on the United States?

Please spare us speculative horseshit.

Suppose we had not done anything.

Assad would have put the rebellion down months ago. All those people wouldn't have died and we wouldn't be talking about chemical weapons now.

In other words the best possible results are achieved minding one's own business.

 

[Oldguy]

Let us suppose Assad kills every one of his political opponents in Syria. For good measure let us suppose he does it personally by the worst means you can imagine.

What measurable, verifiable effects are there on the United States?

Please spare us speculative horseshit.

Suppose we had not done anything.

Assad would have put the rebellion down months ago. All those people wouldn't have died and we wouldn't be talking about chemical weapons now.

In other words the best possible results are achieved minding one's own business.

I doubt the millions of Syrian's who'd finally had enough of the Assad regime would agree with that outcome being the "best possible results," wouldn't you?

 

[paulitician]

We just cut the 'Rebels' a pretty huge Taxpayer check. So obviously we're involved. They've been beating this drum for awhile. More War is good for business. This could be the excuse they needed to get us more involved. But is it the truth? I seriously doubt it is. It's just more War Propaganda.

 

[bendog]

Suppose we had not done anything.

Assad would have put the rebellion down months ago. All those people wouldn't have died and we wouldn't be talking about chemical weapons now.

In other words the best possible results are achieved minding one's own business.

I doubt the millions of Syrian's who'd finally had enough of the Assad regime would agree with that outcome being the "best possible results," wouldn't you?

Well, in theory, identifying the least jihadist groups, giving them aid (well the gop won't allow that) and setting up humanitarian corridors similar to what we did in Iraq, would have been preferential. Possibly a no fly zone over the entire country, though that's not just money, that's very likely gonna lose some planes and pilots.

But, we always come back to the point where Assad was in Israel's best interests, as was Mubarak. So, you take out Assad .... it isn't gonna be good.

Obama's dealt a loser hand. We want Assad gone, killing as few on the way out as possible, but not leaving a al queda safe haven behind ... or a real threat to Israel.