swgohome.com

What to do about Syria? Shot across the bow? Full blown assault? Ignore it?

I'm in the mindset of ignoring it, though I know this won't go away. I honestly don't trust this administration to handle things very well. Biased? Maybe. If Obama could show he has a plan other than wasting millions on a "shot across the bow" then maybe I could get in behind it. My time in the military saw our conflicts with Bosnia and Somolia and I can tell you that police actions are not fun for the guys who have to carry them out. I've swayed both ways on this because Asaud(sp?) is a douche and needs to die. Unfortunately the next guy will also be a douche, whoever that would end up being and that dude would alsi have to die. Right now I see where more can go wrong than can go right.

LMAO, I typed all that on my crappy phone. Holy [poo].

Really, what can we do? If we attack, we weaken the government, but that'll allow the same militant groups we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to make huge gains and possibly take over. If we don't attack, we're condoning genocide. Either choice we make, we're pretty much screwed.

believe me... it's not about morality and duty to prevent genocide. This is how I see it:

1. the syrian war has caused so much chaos that it has become an opportunity for all sorts of undesirable groups of gaining power once Assad is taken care of. It is already known that Hamas has been pretty involved lately... and if it isn't them, someone else could come to power and destabilize the region (strike Israel or strengthen ties with Hamas...). I mean, who knows what type of maniac become president (or what radical group will control the government) if the rebels win without U.S support.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/11/syria-al-qaeda-connection/2075323/

2. it is an opportunity for the french. They can get rid of Assad (who buys arms from Russia) and once war is over they have a guaranteed buyer of french weapons: the new post-rebel government. Not to mention that the syrian chaos could spread to Beirut (and Lebanon has lots of ties to France).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/19/us-syria-crisis-france-idUSBRE8AE0K620121119

The Syrian conflict is international power and politics at its finest.

It's Obama's mess, and he skillfully dumped it on Congress. If they support him, he looks like a glory boy for actually using congress versus ignoring them yet again. If they say no, then he escapes his 'red line' mess and also gets to paint Republicans as 'uncaring' for those that were killed, especially the children. Looks good either way for him toward the 2014 elections.

If he had Britains support, he would have just used 'executive authority' again, said screw congress and ordered the strike. Nothing has stopped him from using it before, but he doesn't have Britains (or anyone elses) support, and now there's supposed evidence that Assads people didn't do it. I enjoyed watching Secretary of State Kerry tap dance Obamas back-peddling the past couple days!

The thing that caught my attention about this was the release of a communication that was intercepted detailing how a General in the Syrian HQ immediately called their Chemical weapons command right after the attack and demanded to know what had happened and why those weapons were launched. By this point, Obama had already threatened a counter strike accusing Assad of doing it. To save face, he is now dumping on Congress. We need to stop this BS of being the World's Police Force. Assad may be a douche, but like said on earlier post, he can easily be replaced by Muslim radicals like in Egypt, Libya and likely Iraq.

Besides, Assad is winning, so he didnt need to resort to chemical weapons and risk drawing the ire of other Nations. I say we stay out of it. Too many questions, no unilateral support due to lack of evidence, and once you drop bombs, you may as well declare war, because Syria will! I fear our Congress is screwed either way. Brilliant move dumping on congress by Obama for his stupidity getting in that situation in the first place. Total idiot with Foreign Diplomacy.

Typed all this on my iPhone too.

I'm rarely the one to be the conspiracy theorist here, thought I'd break the mold today.

I believe the chemical weapons were used with the intention of bringing the US military in. I have literally no idea who it was, I just know who it might be. It could have been members of Assad's own hierarchy that want to see US intervention for one reason or another. It might have been any number of people and I refuse to lay blame on anyone without evidence. All I know is, Assad had no reason to use them, and we all but know it wasn't him without a doubt. Their use was way too convenient of a device to invite foreign intervention.

Couple of things from a Brit as we have decided upon our course of actions (none!) for now:

* It's yet another middle eastern conflict, one of many which happens way 2 often. Give it another 5, 10, 20 years and another dictator will be in power....rinse and repeat.
* Intervention is a costly business - discussions, positioning of forces to strike, munitions etc. If reaches the stage 'boots on the ground' then loss of life will happen.
* Radical groups are fighting with the rebels so any assistance is likely to benefit them.
* If/When this is over a void is created for radical groups to take a foot-hold. Many groups fighting each other which can cause years of civil unrest.
* Government spending to rebuild Syrian infrastructure, provide food for years to come will impact upon the tax payer.
* Another country that will hate the west when the dust has settled, assistance has been provided etc. Our perception of liberation is very different from the people of that country, take Iraq for example.
* A target is painted on a country that uses military force and before you know it we have fanatics blowing themselves and killing our own people because we help one side become the new power of the country we 'liberated'.
* It's none of our business. If they want to blow themselves up and kick the crap out of each other then leave them to it. This might sound blunt but how can we change a region that does not want it?

Whilst the West might want a democratic environment achieving this across the middle east is far from easy especially if the population of countries in that region are against the west, our way of life, ideals, freedom, religion etc. We might want to help end the violence in the Middle East but as history has shown this is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

A couple of interesting links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ing-chart/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo ... iddle_East
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/103/middle-east
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... .chap4.pdf

Kren

haasd0gg wrote:

That picture is sorta the basis for my right wing political view. That personifies everything.