0

Just curious - you think they should be left alone, no matter how many people die, no matter how many people end up fleeing as refugees?

I think the U.S. should have funneled money to the rebels long ago.

0

If a war was started it would be a little nuclear bomb here and there...

But we are not talking about starting a 'war' this is just little 'piss-ant' nations releasing WMDs. Japan has a cult that released sarin gas in their subway system. Biologic developement of weapons is fast becoming a DIY affair - or they could just break into one of the 2 labs in the world that still have smallpox samples. Nuclear war seems so 'last century' that I doubt that is a true WMD threat any more. If people can be convinced to don explosive vests, it is not a stretch to think they can be convinced to be infected with a MRSA, or TB or Pneumonic plague and have them fly around the world or just hang out in an airport and infect all the travelers.

0

If the US wants a military action they will have their military action. If they don't have evidence then they'll just make [stuff] up like they did with the Gulf of Tonkin in Viet Nam and the baby-killers in the Gulf War.

0

Incidentally, if the US does intervene, I expect the first consequence will be an immediate rise in the price of gasoline due to "uncertainty" in the supply of mideast oil. It will be immediate in spite of the claim by the oil companies that it takes three months for oil to work through the system (the justification for why prices at the pump do not drop immediately in response to a drop in the price of crude).

0

I personally think that we shouldnt get involved unless its absolutely nessesary, since there are Chemical WMDs involved - id much prefer things stay over there.

There are times when we need to sit back and carefully think - "Is this really our fight?"

1

It's just like at schools - The idiots have fights and anyone sensible will stay out of it and let them get on with it because they will get in as much trouble if they join in. Same here - There is trouble in syria and the US are trying to join the fight...

0

The only reason the US wants to take Military action is to nuke the hell out of Syria, thus killing innocent people and all to show Iran and the rest of the world what such a powerful country the US is.

The security council and the UN should come up with a peaceful resolution without getting involved.

0

The only reason the US wants to take Military action is to nuke the hell out of Syria,

Proof of that???

The security council and the UN should come up with a peaceful resolution without getting involved.

The UN is incapable of doing anything. Have you ever heard of the UN resolving any conflict anywhere in the world?

0

The security council and the UN should come up with a peaceful resolution without getting involved.

Two of the five veto-power countries in the UN's security council are open supporters of Assad's regime, that is, Russia and China. The UN is completely paralyzed in this matter. And as AD notes, it's pretty much paralyzed in all important matters.

The only reason the US wants to take Military action is to nuke the hell out of Syria, thus killing innocent people and all to show Iran and the rest of the world what such a powerful country the US is.

You're way off on that, it's a lot more calculated than that. There are certainly a number of reasons for the US high-commanders wanting to intervene, and of course, none of them are humanitarian. These reasons include defying the competing super-powers, i.e., Russia and China. Also, to send a message to Iran (i.e., that the US is still as "trigger-happy" as ever before). And, of course, Syria is an oil country not controlled by a western country, and has strategic and economic importance. Then, there are internal politics like the Democratic president not showing the "weakness" that democrats are often accused of by brain-dead pundits from the right. There's the stupid idea that a man should "walk the walk when he talked the talk". And so on, so forth.

0

The only reason the US wants to take Military action is to nuke the hell out of Syria,

There are no profits to be made by nuking Syria. The arms manufacturers get far more money if they send in a few rounds of cruise missiles and start a military occupation that drags on for years like Iraq and Afghanistan. The companies like Haliburton can make billions from government contracts to provide security and infrastructure. As Al Pacino said in The Godfather, "It's not personal. It's business."

0

The rebels are allied with Al Qaeda and very anti-US. They are probably worse than Assad. They are being strongly supported by Saudi Arabia who would like to get the US involved as well. This is no-win for the US (except maybe the arms companies who like to have the US at war with someone).

There are some claims that the rebels have used chemical weapons supplied by Saudi Arabia. If both sides were using chemical weapons, then who do you bomb? In reality, it seems like more of a pretext for involvement than anything else. It is estimated that there have been about 100,000 casualties so far. When you're dead you're dead. How much does it really matter whether it is from gas, a bullet or a bomb, especially if you are an innocent civilian.

Edited by chrishea

0

How much does it really matter whether it is from gas, a bullet or a bomb, especially if you are an innocent civilian

I think how one dies does matter -- dying from gas can be pretty painful, dying from a bullet is almost instantanous. And what does it matter whether the dead were innocent civilians or militants? Dead is dead afterall.

0

The rebels are allied with Al Qaeda and very anti-US. They are probably worse than Assad. They are being strongly supported by Saudi Arabia who would like to get the US involved as well. This is no-win for the US (except maybe the arms companies who like to have the US at war with someone).

I agree that it is a no-win for the US but this quote show a complete lack of understanding of the politics of the Mid-East. I understand that sometimes nuance is difficult but you really should try it. A quick overview: Saudi Arabia is Wahabi Sunni (the Wahabi sect of the Sunni is one of the strictest), Iran is Shi'a and Syria is Sunni(74%) but the leadership is Alawite Shi'a(11%), the Druze are monotheistic ethnoreligious - they accept a little of this, a little of that, call them the Unitarians of the Mid-east(3%), 3 Shi'a subgroups of Twelver, Ismali, and Zadis comprise 2%. Don't forget the Kurds are 10%. There are also Christian and Jewish populations so totaling up all the non-Sunni we get about 16% of the population. This is only a breakdown by religion; we could breakdown the population by ethnicity, the non-Arabs such as Kurds, Turkmen, Circassians, Chechens, Bosnians and Albanians with a plethora of smaller ethnic groups. And there are the

Saying the rebels are allied with Al Qaeda is just wrong. Yes there are Al Qaeda in the fighting but that is what Al Qaeda does. The issues in Syria are myriad and 'lumping' them all together does no one any good.

Source

2

We are probably sitting on a couple of thousand cruise missiles that have a limited shelf life. So it's “usem or losem”. That should help the rebels win. The only thing is that many of the "rebels" are extreme Islamists and AQ. If the extremists take over, it will make Assad look like a Sundayschool teacher.

Edited by vegaseat

1

cruise missiles that have a limited shelf life

Cruise missiles aren't like broccoli or bananas. If they can keep ICBMs in silos for years ready to use then they can keep those cruise missiles on the shelf. They've been bought and paid for so whether they are used or not is not the issue. Unless you are the guy who makes them in which case you want them used so the government can buy some more.

0

VS: a little googling seems to imply that the shelf life of the current model of cruise missile is 10 years. After that time the probability of some part of the system to fail approaches 50%. I was not able to discern if each part of the system had a 50% probability of failure or the entire system had a 50% chance of failure. If the past is any predicter, we will create a new generation of cruise missiles and sell the 'stale' ones to our allies. Though since the old AS-15s are out there, I am sure that one nation or another can use one of them as a model from which to work.

0

Hey. Canada bought used submarines from (I believe) Great Britain. Pretty much what you would expect. They've spent most of their time being repaired. I don't know if they've ever seen service since we got them. It's a good thing we aren't in the market for discount cruise missiles.

0

Yeah. I recalled that there were major problems. I had just forgotten the gory details. Thanks for the link.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

the UN, US and all others should, for the time being, stay out of it.

last articles I read: they suspect chemical weapons to be used, yet didn't have any proof (so far) (might be out of date, haven't followed the news the last week or so)

Obama said:

We know for 100% sure, zero margin for error, that Assad has used chemical weapons, so we MUST interfere with a military action.

while those investigating the incident locally, hadn't even proven a chemical weapon was involved, let alone who would have used it.

this morning, I read an interview with Obama, in which he said

.. we presume Assad has used a chemical weapon.

so ... no longer "for 100% sure" "zero margin for error", not even: there is proof.
but in the same interview he said:

... if we don't interfere military, nobody will take the U.S. serious anymore.

ehm ... it seems his 'intelligence' on which he bases going to war is about as trustworthy as Bush's was. just replace Assad with Saddam, and we 've just gone back in time a few years.

they haven't got a clue what is going on, or who is doing what, but they are determined to "go to war against this tyrant" because of their image. (pretty sure the financial benefits 'll come in handy to forget the casualties, too).

if there is actual proof against one of the sides using chemical weapons, then: go in to protect the other party against that. but:
a. that doesn't automatically make that other party saints
b. do NOTHING without 100% proof of the guilt of the person you're going after.

at this point, the US either side with what they call a 'tyrant', or they side with Al Qaeda, so their image is probably more damaged by going to war than not, meaning that the reasons Obama brings up in his speeches are about as likely to be true, as it's likely that Assad was dumb enough to use chemical weapons during a war he was already winning, knowing it would force other countries to join in against him.

0

Why is it OK for the US to dump thousands of tons of Agent Orange on Viet Nam? Does that not constitute chemical weapons? The medical costs alone for treatment of US veterans who were exposed is staggering. The chemicals used were highly toxic and carcinogenic so merely labeling them as "defoliants" gives the impression that "We only sprayed weed killer. It's no big deal."

0

It wasn't. personally, I still don't see why the US was involved in that war in the first place.

then again, ask the American president, and, whether invading or defending, the answer 'll always be that "America is the good guy."

it's part of their culture, I guess. don't know if you've seen the remake of Red Dawn, but one of the main characters state:

"When I was in Iraq, I was the good guy, we were bringing peace to these people."

and a bit later:

"These guys invade our home", followed by something like, let's kill them all!

It seems the entire American philosophy: if we invade, we are "the good guys", we bring democracy and peace. if we are invaded, we are "the good guys", because we didn't do the invading.

this is not at all meant to insult/attack any Americans, it 's just an observation from my point of vue. their goverenment seem to use different standards, and that causes a lot of trouble.

0

Looks like “Bomber McCain” wants to see another “Shock and Awe” spectacular at tax payers expense, this time in Syria. When will those cowboys ever learn?

Edited by vegaseat

0

Apparently McCain finds online poker more interesting than the potential death of thousands. What the heck. It's not like anyone he knows is going to die.

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.