War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[RandallFlagg]

The saber-rattling has already begun:

The European Union Times - World News, Breaking News

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/puti...e-against-saudi-arabia-if-west-attacks-syria/

 

[dilloduck]

The saber-rattling has already begun:

The European Union Times - World News, Breaking News

Bingo----shades of the Cuban missile crisis.

 

[Desperado]

No War
No Intervention
No Cruise Missiles
No Aid to the Rebels
Nothing, nada, zip, zero

 

[Kondor3]

Just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean that we SHOULD do a thing...

At present, my own feelings about this are...

Let 'em rot... let 'em go on killing each other... let 'em have a field day... let the Euros handle it for once... it's their backyard.

I may have mentioned this elsewhere but:

And here we have all the myopic, spineless, irresponsible isolationists indulging in the easy refrain of "fuck it, it's not our problem!" Some of y'all must have the memory of a goldfish not to recall what tends to happen when we turn our backs, ignore or avoid problems and let them stew, or count on (of all people) the Europeans to "handle it."

"Spineless isolationist"???

Hardly.

I regularly argue in defense of our initial pounce upon Afghanistan while bemoaning our invasion of Iraq.

I regularly argue in defense of standing alongside our Japanese allies when they are confronted by the Russians or Chinese (ditto for the Philippines, Australia, NZ, etc.).

I regularly argue in defense of standing alongside our South Korean allies when they are confronted by the North Koreans or their backers.

I regularly argue in defense of standing alongside our European allies when they are threatened.

I regularly argue in defense of our decision to stop the slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia.

I regularly argue in defense of our decision to stand alongside Israel.

I regularly argue in defense of our decision to back the rebels in Libya, and have often argued in defense of our various airstrikes against the Qaddafi Regime years ago.

I regularly argue in defense of the modern-day adaptation of the Monroe Doctrine and oftentimes back our interventions in the Western Hemisphere as necessary evils.

I regularly argue in favor of our initial decision to intervene in Vietnam, but then switch gears and argue against the MANNER and DURATION of LACK-OF-GOALS that manifested themselves in the execution of that intervention.

I regularly argue in defense of our decision to oppose Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in the 1990-1991 timeframe and in support of the Gulf War, in general.

I regulary argue in favor of US intervention in lesser regions and conflicts, such as Somalia and Ruwanda, insofar as we can be of use in stopping genocide or rescuing Westerners caught up in their brand of madness.

Broadly speaking, I have regularly argued in favor of MOST (not all, but MOST) of our Military Adventures and alliances and sorties since WWII.

That is NOT the mark of a 'myopic, spineless iresponsible isolationist'.

==============================

But we are, at present, rather over-tired, and with a near-to-empty wallet, after prosecuting two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) in the past 12 years, while our Euro friends have only provided marginal assistance (with the Brits coming closest to being an exception) when stacked against the total need...

The Euros have been recovering under the American Military Umbrella for much of the past 68 years since the end of WWII, and have largely 'skated' and 'let George do it' - let the Americans carry the lion's share of the water - in defense of The West - throughout that entire span of history...

That's all understandable... they bled themselves white in two World Wars within a quarter-century and it decimated and bankrupted them and caused them to lose their appetites for aggression, for the most part...

But they're recovered now, and we don't need to be carrying their water any longer - or at least not all the time, with respect to small-to-medium-sized regional conflicts and the like... they're back into a condition where they can once again handle much of what needs to be handled in their own back yards, with us to back them up in the background, in case they do end-up getting-in over their heads...

Well.. we've done our bit for King and Country... and for The Alliance... and it's time we take a break... we would not be retreating from the world stage, just declining to get our tits in the wringer again before we even know what-the-hell we're getting into, or WHY, for that matter...

There is no pressing and overpowering-compelling strategic nor tactical rationale for us to engage on a substantive level...

There is no clear collection of Good Guys currently engaged in this civil war, either, and the cure might very well be just as bad as the disease...

It's OK to "take a pass" once in a while, and advocating for doing just that is NOT the same thing as 'chickening out' or abrogating our own global responsibilities or abandoning our own global interests, or acting like 'myopic, spineless isolationists'.

'Most every President has his own little (or big) war, at some point, during his Administration...

Time to break the recent pattern, and show some restraint for once, and give our military a chance to disengage from the one major war that we're still fighting, and to catch its breath, and to give our pocketbooks a rest as well, at a point in history where we're cutting back domestically, left and right...

Let the Syrians rot... let the Euros spend THEIR blood and treasure for once... we can meet any related NATO obligations (if any) by providing mere logistical support and political cover in the UN for once, rather than actively participating on any significant scale... let the Syrians rot.

 

[deltex1]

No on US war. Yes on international heavy response. Any response from Iran or anyone else...turn the Israelis loose with our support. Target Assad would be my number one option.

 

[dilloduck]

The saber-rattling has already begun:

The European Union Times - World News, Breaking News

Bingo----shades of the Cuban missile crisis.

From the same article

“The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.

The cost of Qatar’s intervention, its latest push to back an Arab revolt, amounts to a fraction of its international investment portfolio. But its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.

Qatar [also] has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).”

 

[R.C. Christian]

The executive branch and it's controllers are completely uninterested in the fact that 91% of Americans are against this stupidity.

 

[dilloduck]

Apparently it's all about oil again too.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The executive branch and it's controllers are completely uninterested in the fact that 91% of Americans are against this stupidity.

I have often wondered how it is, that when a sitting presidents' "polls" begin to go into the toliet, some sort of International "crisis" always rears it's ugly head.

Barry is finished. He is a lame duck now. All he is working toward now, is his supposed "legacy". This can be a very dangerous thing. ALL these past presidents care a great deal about how they will be perceived in history. They ALL want to leave their mark.

Funny. Barry's poll numbers are now down around 35%........

 

[Samson]

If someone says yes they better explain themselves.

You've intimidated the entire USMB membership.

Yea's = 0
Nea's = 41

 

[R.C. Christian]

Apparently it's all about oil again too.

You're close, but it's much bigger.

 

[skye]

All out war? NO

Destroy in a surgical way the chemical facilities so these savages can not use them again? YES

 

[R.C. Christian]

There is no way Obama is going to back any large scale ground forces in Syria. He has talked himself out of that option. He will authorize a few missile strikes, declare a no-fly zone that will probably be unenforced, put US weapons on French planes to fly around for the cameras, and spend more time worrying about Putin than the people of Syria.

Whenever you speak, it embarrasses me. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The executive branch and it's controllers are completely uninterested in the fact that 91% of Americans are against this stupidity.

I have often wondered how it is, that when a sitting presidents' "polls" begin to go into the toliet, some sort of International "crisis" always rears it's ugly head.

Barry is finished. He is a lame duck now. All he is working toward now, is his supposed "legacy". This can be a very dangerous thing. ALL these past presidents care a great deal about how they will be perceived in history. They ALL want to leave their mark.

Funny. Barry's poll numbers are now down around 35%........

Using the Kosovo model as our judge, we'll see this unpopular fiasco turn into an impeachment proceeding. This all assumes a regional nuclear war doesn't happen first. No good can come of this.

 

[dilloduck]

Apparently it's all about oil again too.

You're close, but it's much bigger.

petrodollars

 

[Samson]

Apparently it's all about oil again too.

You're close, but it's much bigger.

It's all about what Miley Cyrus wore during her VMA performance?

 

[Contumacious]

Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.

In the future include a FUCK, nay option.

Thanks.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Apparently it's all about oil again too.

You're close, but it's much bigger.

It's all about what Miley Cyrus wore during her VMA performance?

Miley Cyrus For Prez

.

 

[RandallFlagg]

All out war? NO

Destroy in a surgical way the chemical facilities so these savages can not use them again? YES

Those chemical facilities are in Russia. The stockpiles are (most likely) in hardened bunkers 100-200 feet down in Syria. Remember, there is an 80-20%
certainty that those weapons came from plants within Russia.

 

[Contumacious]

All out war? NO

Destroy in a surgical way the chemical facilities so these savages can not use them again? YES

Those chemical facilities are in Russia. The stockpiles are (most likely) in hardened bunkers 100-200 feet down in Syria. Remember, there is an 80-20%
certainty that those weapons came from plants within Russia.

Are you one of Bibi's boys posting bullshit for Shekels?!?!?!?!

.