Will Military Response to Syria Really Be "Limited"?

Then a non-violent solution occurs: Drop all foreign aid to the M.E. Problem solved(Hell, the Saudis want us to do it if their actions in Egypt is to be read literally).

I'm all for it, what do you say guys: Dropping all foreign aid and getting the hell out of that hell hole.

 

So you just admitted we're the aggressors in this whole thing? My GOD. Neocons. The vast majority of America still utterly despises what they've done to us via Iraq and by hell, even though I'm a nationalist I am not a neo-conist.

War is a last resort, a "chest" that often costs billions of dollars.

The Continental Congress went bankrupt as a result of war and our army ill-equipped and ill-prepared.

May Americans of both the left and the right learn our lesson and NEVER elect a neo-con to power, whether it be the presidency, the senate or even the freaking house.

 

He wouldn't need chemical weapons to garner support from regional neighbors to join his fight against Israel, and that still leaves Russia as a wild card. Either way the US would be the aggressor, and that would never be forgotten. Again I ask, is Syria really worth it?

 

I really don't see this happening unless Chemical Weapons Inspectors determine Assad has used Chemical Weapons.

In the event that this is determined...the U.S. would have to invade Syria as a country cannot be allowed to get away with Chemical Weapons use.

If an ultimatum is given to Assad and then Assad refused to step down from power...and perhaps he launched an attack on Israel...the U.S. would respond with overwhelming force.

AboveAlpha

 

Obama already determined it was Assad, I guess we'll see what happens next...

"We have looked at all the evidence, and we do not believe the opposition possessed nuclear weapons on -- or chemical weapons of that sort. We do not believe that, given the delivery systems, using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences," Obama told "PBS NewsHour."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/politics/us-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

The link you provided was in regards to executive orders. The only reference regarding the CIC:

I agree president in the past were overzealous and in my opinion Obama's Libya and Drone attacks have not shown him in a good light either. Syria is not a threat to us,giving the rebels arms is criminal in my opinion.

After 9/11 congress authorized Bush to attack anyone responsible 3 days after the attack. It was still almost a month before we attacked Afghanistan. After the first attack on American soil since pearl harbor.


Syria not in any position to with their civil war to be a threat to us not much if a threat even if they were not involved in a civil war. This to me seems like a Gulf of Tonkin type situation. Hurry up and attack before all fact are known.

Obama is the first president since Ford to use this aspect of the War powers resolution. However Ford did it legal since American assets had been captured. He knows the democrats in the senate will not convict him even if the house impeached him. He has no value for the rule of law. I could not stand Bush but Obama has become even worse. He is a gun running war hawk that does not respect US or international law. I know he will face no consequences his followers are to blind to see him for what he is.

My only hope is he can fire his few missiles and no response comes from Syria, or Iran and their proxys.

 

Michael Rozeff lists eight reasons for the strife in Syria and the rest of the Mid-East in an article today, a confluence of interests and bad-actors. There's probably nothing here that we don't already know or suspect, but at least he puts it concisely, and the two questions he asks at the are probably the big questions we all should be asking.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/...e-us-destabilizing-one-country-after-another/

 

Syria has these toxins because Saddam gave them to Syria in the years between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. Letting him live and not going in with a ground war after Desert Storm was a huge mistake on our part. Just as Saddam gave these WMD's to Assad, so too can Assad to any number of radical islamic fundamentalists. While I agree that what replaces Assad may actually be worse than Assad, I really think the best solution is to literally lay waste to the entire military machine in that country. Both sides - Assad and Al Qaeda; and then have a UN peacekeeping force stay in there until the unarmed citizens can democratically pick a leader and construct a secular constitution that promotes human rights.

 

You could just let the civil war continue indefinitely and get your solution without a single American bomb fired. Coincidence?

 

His silly list of motivations clearly make him out to be a loon. This civil war never had anything to do with USA and Israel. Neither Assad or Al Qaeda are operated by USA. The only true thing said in that entire blog was that Iran and Syria are an axis of evil. They sure as heck are.

 

Pro tip - I am neither going to remove you from my ignore list or view your posts. You are a permanent member of my bozo bin, just like your primary account Moon is.

 

Do you like being a troll or does it come natural? I have my own opinons(based off intellectualism and actually reading up on history and current facts). Your opinions, based on conceited arrogance shouldn't be in government, but sadly I believe there are still quite a few neo cons.

 

Even though I am generally opposed to a war when we are not attacked. I agree we should have finished the job in desert storm. Watching him kill the Kurds while we pulled out was horrific. Sadam had committed far more atrocities than Assad every dreamed of.

Do you really think Obama has the guts to fight a actual war? You can not control chemical weapons with air attacks. It would take a full scale war and Iran knowing they are next would surely join in, possible north Korea as well.

As I said if we are not attacked I am opposed to war in general. However I do not believe in fighting with our hands tied because we are scared of their allies. I do not see even a Kosovo type of war. I fell like he will fire a few missles so he can say see I told you not to use those. Make us even more enemies and looking even more foolish than the last 12 years have already. Unless something forces his hand to do more.
Then I would not be surprised to see a Somalia type situation running away with our tail tucked. I see far too many ways to lose and no way to really win. Since we will have to break international law to invade I do not see the UN nation building that would fall to us as well. NATO would help not the UN.

 

Which was what the Left said about Bush and Iraq.

It's amazing to me to hear the US Right flip-flop so much on the issue of war.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...0-how-come-usa-get-have-use-chem-weapons.html

 

We are fighting on the same side as AQ. And we are helping their cause by doing so.

Now here's a question for you: Why don't we attack the AQ we know to be in Syria?

If we were following the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mantra, then wouldn't we side with Assad, because AQ is our enemy, and if Assad is enemies to AQ, then we would fight alongside them against the common enemy instead?

Or to ask that another way, why is it that Assad is the HIGHER priority enemy than AQ, even though who we officially are at war with is AQ? And considering AQ killed thousands of Americans, and Assad did not.

How come Obama wages secret drone wars in many countries, claiming (with no proof) to be targeting AQ, to the point that the local populations rally against the USA and new extremists are born, and yet, curiously, not a single drone strike against any AQ in Syria even though their presence there is massive and they are even making their own country in North Syria? And yet, oddly, no strikes there, even though we're told the drone program is because of AQ?



(of course I don't condone any drone strikes anywhere and am not saying I actually want drone strikes in Syria. I don't like drones but since Obama does, it would make me wonder why he doesn't use them in Syria, that is a reason besides it's because they're on our team there, which you deny, so I wonder what your answer would be).

 

Where is the US left now? Or even the international left? They sure seem quite now. I was opposed to the Iraq war as well. However Sadam was far worse and killed far more people than Assad. I do not know Disspondent's political affiliation but I only see a few independent and libertarians like myself being loudly opposed. The war-hawks on the right are still there they have just been joined by the left's war hawks that Obama brought out of the closet. Obama is going to break US and international law. As bad as Bush was he at least followed legal procedure in the US. The right are obviously not the only hypocrites. Iraq was wrong this is far worse with far more dangerous potentially.

 

Those are different wars.

There's no congressional authorization for war against Syria.

 

I've already stated that this should be brought to the UN. The rhetoric being stated by the UK and US is likely due to the severity of the use of chemical weapons, however at this mement all it is, is rhetoric thus far.

Before people go shouting at these leaders, the leaders actually need to have done something.

 

If the US-led military action is really a warning to deter future gas attacks, the strike would be limited to places where chemical weapons are stored. However, the Western nations have been supporting the rebels in the civil war against the Syrian government forces. It won't be surprising that their agenda is not only to save the rebels from defeat but also to weaken the Syrian military as much as possible to pave the way for the eventual victory of the rebels.

Thus the so-called "limited" strike won't be limited in scope and destructive fire power. The US will try to inflict as much damage as possible on the Syrian government forces. The little nudge could end up as a big bang with a heavy fist. Instead of sending "a shot across the bow", Obama could end up sending "a heavy downpour of arrows" over the whole of Syria. Hence, Assad, if you have a brain like the rebels, you should better find a deep hole to hide yourself now.

In my opinion, the US intervention in the Syrian civil war could end up as a "protracted engagement like Iraq" for the following reasons:

1. Whenever the rebels are on the verge of defeat, the US will enter the conflict to help turn the tables for the rebel forces.

2. The rebels are no idiots. They should know what to do to provide as many good excuses as possible to the US and other Western nations to strike repeatedly at the Syrian government forces. Hence, Obama's "tailored, limited" strike would not be able to deter future use of chemical weapons. (You can guess who.)

It is laughable to claim that the strike aims at preventing the Syrian chemical weapons from falling into "the wrong hands". It is naive to think that the rebels did not get hold of any weapon, whether conventional or chemical, when they captured a city, a town or a military base from the government forces.

P.S. I hope my prediction won't turn up to be true.

Obama lays out case for 'tailored' strike against Syria: PBS
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-syria-crisis-usa-obama-idUSBRE97R1A920130828

 

Has there been any reports that the Scuds that are allegedly pointed at Israel are loaded with chemical warheads?

 

If there is, then it would be Israel's problem.

 

I respect and agree with your opinion, but you know of course with Russia and China they will receive no resolution. Same thing happened with Iraq Sadam use of chemical weapons and genocide was far worse than anything in Syria. Albeit many years before. We should not have given weapons to the rebels however if we had not done that there would not have been a chemical attack more than likely.

I do not believe in bluffing. If peaceful negotiating with Iran has a chance over the nuclear issue we need our words to be believable.

I disagree if we wait to scream when it happens it will be to late to change anything. I do not want another war we have enough problems already.

Good news however it seems as if the UN staying in Syria will delay the attack at least a little longer.

 

After they " have done something" in this case will be to late. Unless you think you can bring back to life people that are going to die from our bombs.

 

This is a quality, thoughtful post!!

If they were to attack the chem weapon supplies, wouldn't there be risk of environmental release of all these toxins? Could that cause problems? I don't even know to be honest.