War with Syria

[lawrocket 3]

quade

Quote

...and sure as hell won't be approved by the Security Council.

At this point, this is pure speculation on your part.

Russia is on the Security Council. Putin has made it clear how Russia would vote. The President isn't even suggesting going to the UN, is he?

The null hypothesis is that Russia and China will beto any move. So, too, will the UK, apparently.

At this point it is certain that the Security Council would veto any moves. That it would change is "pure speculation."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

yoink

***
Why isn't anyone asking where he supposedly got these chemical weapons from?

Because it doesn't matter where he got them. Having them isn't an issue. Using them is.



If they were produced by a country who supports the OCPW ban it does. Makes that country complicit.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

How do you know the Assad Government is the one responsible?

That is a big question mark now

Quote

Why isn't anyone asking where he supposedly got these chemical weapons from?

I asked very early in this thread (or the other one, I cant remember)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wayneflorida 0]

Darius11

Just curios as to what he dz.com crowd thinks.

I say stay the fuck out of it.

Agree.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Yes, because bombing has worked out so well to create a positive outcome in Libya.

[Channman 2]

Not sure...but I'll see if I can find it and post it. But the UN published a photo of over 400 children wrapped up in sheets that were killed by chemical weapons. And they used the photo as if it was taken in Syria.

I believe, but must confirm they were caught in a propaganda move as the photo was taken many years before of Kurdish children killed by chemical warfare by Sadam.

[turtlespeed 220]

Nelyubin

And what your country can?
Were trashed in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Yes everywhere.
In Syria military base of Russia. Try to be put.

Yes.

If we were given the "go ahead" and were not bound by any pollitically correctness besides the geneva convention, then, yes absolutely.

We have the technology.

We have the training.

We have the ability.

We have more than we need for Syria.

But we should just let everyone else deal with it this time.
Let the rest of the world pick up the tab this time.
Let the UN try to deal with Tyranny and illegal use of weapons.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[shropshire 0]

turtlespeed

Let the rest of the world pick up the tab this time.

True, I'm fed up of paying America every time they host a war

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[normiss 800]

How many innocent children have been murdered by US drones?
Why aren't we bombing the people responsible for those illegal killings????

[rushmc 23]

the Pres just got a big setback
McCain pulled his support

BUT!!!!!

He (McCain) wants a more agressive plan

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[yoink 321]

turtlespeed

But we should just let everyone else deal with it this time.
Let the rest of the world pick up the tab this time.
Let the UN try to deal with Tyranny and illegal use of weapons.

You do understand that the US is PART of the UN, right?


you can't say 'let the UN deal with it' and 'not the US'.

If the UN said action was approved, would you still say the US shouldn't get involved?

[quade 4]

lawrocket

Putin has made it clear how Russia would vote.

You sound pretty confident, but are you certain you're up-to-date on his feelings?

Quote

Putin says Russia could support strike on Syria

MOSCOW -- Russian President Vladimir Putin said he has not ruled out backing a U.S.-led military operation in Syria if the Kremlin gets concrete proof than an alleged chemical attack on civilians was committed by Bashar Assad’s government.

“I don’t rule this out,” Putin said during a televised interview with First Channel, a Russian federal television network, and the Associated Press. “But I want to draw your attention to one absolutely principled issue: In accordance with the current international law, a sanction to use arms against a sovereign state can be given only by the U.N. Security Council.”

Source:
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-putin-russia-syria-strike-un-20130904,0,5355559.story

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 220]

yoink

***
But we should just let everyone else deal with it this time.
Let the rest of the world pick up the tab this time.
Let the UN try to deal with Tyranny and illegal use of weapons.

You do understand that the US is PART of the UN, right?


you can't say 'let the UN deal with it' and 'not the US'.

If the UN said action was approved, would you still say the US shouldn't get involved?

Yes.

We need to stay out of it.

We don't need to be the aggressor EVERY time.

ETA:\
If the UN decides that a strike is needed, we, (US) should be the least utilized.
We should have a role about the equivalent of Liechtenstein.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 220]

Darius11

Just curios as to what he dz.com crowd thinks.

I say stay the fuck out of it.

Quote

Poll: War with Syria
We should attack (as president sees fit)
We should attack but here is how (explain)
We should stay out of it
We should do this! Other (explain)

When you ask "WE" who is "WE"?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[shropshire 0]

yoink

***
But we should just let everyone else deal with it this time.
Let the rest of the world pick up the tab this time.
Let the UN try to deal with Tyranny and illegal use of weapons.

You do understand that the US is PART of the UN, right?


you can't say 'let the UN deal with it' and 'not the US'.


+1

P.S are they up to date with their subs yet?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[muff528 3]

We should ONLY be ready to provide defensive support for our allies in the region in the event that the conflict in Syria spills over any their borders. We should get pre-approval from Congress ONLY to provide the ability, at our discretion, to deal swift, overwhelming, asymmetric, retaliatory strikes against any entity that uses the Syrian civil war as an excuse to attack those allies. We should not now be seeking approval from Congress for strikes on Syria for the alleged chemical attacks. Too late for that. I'm against the US attacking anyone at any time to "send messages" of any kind. The whole concept of a "measured" military response is ridiculous. ...IMO

[turtlespeed 220]

muff528

We should ONLY be ready to provide defensive support for our allies in the region in the event that the conflict in Syria spills over any their borders. We should get pre-approval from Congress ONLY to provide the ability, at our discretion, to deal swift, overwhelming, asymmetric, retaliatory strikes against any entity that uses the Syrian civil war as an excuse to attack those allies. We should not now be seeking approval from Congress for strikes on Syria for the alleged chemical attacks. Too late for that. I'm against the US attacking anyone at any time to "send messages" of any kind. The whole concept of a "measured" military response is ridiculous. ...IMO

I agree.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[ryoder 1,590]

Here is an interesting argument:

If a US strike weakens the Assad regime, and it is toppled by the rebels, with no US boots on the ground, that puts Syria's 1000 tons of chemical weapons in the hands of the rebels, including Al-Queda.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/277953-syria-strikes-would-risk-loss-of-control-of-chemical-weapons/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[shropshire 0]

Don't be coming here with you logic and sound arguments .....we don't need to be confused by no facts.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[DanG 1]

Quote

If a US strike weakens the Assad regime, and it is toppled by the rebels, with no US boots on the ground, that puts Syria's 1000 tons of chemical weapons in the hands of the rebels, including Al-Queda.

And if the US does nothing and the rebels win, then they still have control over the weapons. The only difference being they won't have the recent memory of Assad getting rocketed for using them.

The proposed strike is nt about securing the chemical weapons. It is about punishing their use.

- Dan G

[Andy9o8 2]

DanG

Quote

If a US strike weakens the Assad regime, and it is toppled by the rebels, with no US boots on the ground, that puts Syria's 1000 tons of chemical weapons in the hands of the rebels, including Al-Queda.

And if the US does nothing and the rebels win, then they still have control over the weapons. The only difference being they won't have the recent memory of Assad getting rocketed for using them.

The proposed strike is nt about securing the chemical weapons. It is about punishing their use.

I'm still disgusted that the tripwire has not been the fact of a ruler's mass-murder of his own people while (successfully!) hiding behind the abstract shield of "national sovereignty", but merely the mode of weaponry. The implicit message it sends to other current and future despots is beyond appalling.

[quade 4]

The problem there, Andy, is internationally you have to allow for civil wars to take place. The US and other governments can't take sides on strictly internal civil wars.

The use of NBC weapons is different. Vastly different.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 800]

Why is that a surprise?
We ignored it when Saddam did it.

This feels exactly like Bush Sr. all over again.

From Panama to Syria, lies, false witnesses, every last bit of it.

Meh. We only killed 100,000 or so children on the first round of ass kicking in Iraq and look how beautifully we orchestrated that country.

[Andy9o8 2]

quade

The problem there, Andy, is internationally you have to allow for civil wars to take place. The US and other governments can't take sides on strictly internal civil wars.

The use of NBC weapons is different. Vastly different.

Same dodge, different verbiage. Deliberate mass murder of one's own civilians under cover of "civil war" (Syria), "fighting terrorism" (Russia/Kosovo), etc. is still mass murder of non-combatants.

[Andy9o8 2]

normiss

Why is that a surprise?
We ignored it when Saddam did it.

Worse - apparently we facilitated it - by giving Iraq valuable tactical intelligence about Iran. But that's ok, because it was the enemy of our enemy.