Will there be American invasion in Syria?

[Stoked]

This is not about chemical weapons. This is about economics, it always is.

FWIW, driving home yesterday I was thinking about all the politicking going on in the USA. I had to laugh at the role reversal and dogged loyalty of it all. The president, who won a Nobel Prize for peace is about to start his second war, this one because chemical weapons killed indiscriminatley--but he isn't concerned that the drone strikes he orders also kill and maim indriscrimently, or that the missles he fires into Syria will kill and destroy indiscriminatley as well.

The republican talking heads who all lined up behind the Bush wars are falling over themselves to criticize OBama.

The Demo talking heads who opposed the Bush wars are now defending their guy and saying that this time it is different--its a noble war.

There is no sense of right or wrong only right vs left and it doesn't matter who is in charge the US spreads war around the world.

Meanwhile the President supports the Syrian rebels 'rights' to reform the regime through violence, while at the same time he is authorizing billions to spy on Americans who might not agree with him.

And the Christian Right is so excited to see a possible Armegeddon but mad as hell that it is democrat starting it.

If the consequences were not so grave I would be laughing my head off at the idiocy of it all.

I disagree with some of your adjetives but isn't politics grand?

 

[Stoked]

And every enemy of the USA who may want to instaigate a battle or a showdown between the USA and Russia, or Iran. Or every 'friend' of the USA who wanted to escalate the Syrian issue but needed to push the USA to become involved.

It was an open invitation to the whole world, and one of the stupidist things I've ever seen.

Didn't you know that it was not the President's red line but the worlds?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/05/context-president-obama-syria-red-line/

 

[NUMBERICA]

The world can't set a red line for **** because all other first world countries are too yellow to intervene even when they should. It's a shame that the U.S. blundered so hard on Iraq (and it was obvious to anyone paying any actual attention to the details BEFORE it all went down), because Kosovo was a noble cause. I guess the world will need another Rwanda before anyone wants to do anything about mass warfare specifically targeted against civilians.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Libya seemed to be a pretty successful engagement but I am not very learned as to why everyone thought something should be done there. My guess is that the social landscape in Libya isn't factious so making the decision to depose was easier but I really don't know.

I think air strikes in Syria are a good idea and I'm not generally a fan of half-measures. But all things considered, I think blacking Assad's eye is better than murdering him or doing nothing.

I also think that asking for congressional approval after such a strong statement of intent looks bad for Obama (if you're a macho ****head and care more about "flip-flopping" than you do about weighing critical factors and approaching situations with some sense of caution), but this would be the first time in how long that the president has (actually) lobbied the American people for military engagement in... how long? I am not exactly a historian, but I can't think of a time that that's happened off of the top of my head. I don't count lobbying for dictatorial powers (The War Powers Act IIRC) as such.

For the record, I am shooting from the hip quite a bit here.

 

[Stoked]

Libya seemed to be a pretty successful engagement but I am not very learned as to why everyone thought something should be done there. My guess is that the social landscape in Libya isn't factious so making the decision to depose was easier but I really don't know.

I think air strikes in Syria are a good idea and I'm not generally a fan of half-measures. But all things considered, I think blacking Assad's eye is better than murdering him or doing nothing.

I also think that asking for congressional approval after such a strong statement of intent looks bad for Obama (if you're a macho ****head and care more about "flip-flopping" than you do about weighing critical factors and approaching situations with some sense of caution), but this would be the first time in how long that the president has (actually) lobbied the American people for military engagement in... how long? I am not exactly a historian, but I can't think of a time that that's happened off of the top of my head. I don't count lobbying for dictatorial powers (The War Powers Act IIRC) as such.

For the record, I am shooting from the hip quite a bit here.

You are spot on with the factions nature of the Syria rebelion. It stretches from democracy minded rebels to terrorists. As for other countries being to Yellow. Israel hits anyone near them if they feel the need. They have hit Syria three times already. Not to mention Palestine and that little war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Britian bellied up on us.

France has a new aggressive stance. Mali and now Syria.

As for Rawanda, the world still does not really care. Take a look at Africa. It is still all going on. Sudan, Ethiopia that Kony warlord guy.

 

[NUMBERICA]

You are spot on with the factions nature of the Syria rebelion. It stretches from democracy minded rebels to terrorists. As for other countries being to Yellow. Israel hits anyone near them if they feel the need. They have hit Syria three times already. Not to mention Palestine and that little war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Britian bellied up on us.

France has a new aggressive stance. Mali and now Syria.

As for Rawanda, the world still does not really care. Take a look at Africa. It is still all going on. Sudan, Ethiopia that Kony warlord guy.

Well, Koney was an inspired attempt from a morally bankrupt liar to bilk money out of bleeding hearts that forget that google exists. That worked. But yeah, Liberia, Congo, Ghana, Somalia (a failed attempt), Sudan...

 

[Stoked]

Well, Koney was an inspired attempt from a morally bankrupt liar to bilk money out of bleeding hearts that forget that google exists. That worked. But yeah, Liberia, Congo, Ghana, Somalia (a failed attempt), Sudan...

Pretty much. So the whole moral obligation argument I hear from DC is shallow and hypocritical at best.

 

[mellow]

I think air strikes in Syria are a good idea and I'm not generally a fan of half-measures. But all things considered, I think blacking Assad's eye is better than murdering him or doing nothing.

How does anyone know that Assad did this? Strategically it makes no sense to use chemical weapons against his own people. Particularly after Obama's red line was drawn.

Assad is fighting a 'civil' war inside his own country. He needs to maintain as much popular support as possible or deal a heavy handed crushing defeat to the rebels. A single chemical attack on a bunch of women and children does nothing to stop the fighting--it only enrages the rebels and instills them with more resolve. He also risks having his supporters turn on him. but neither of those compares to USA red-line.

For Assad to do this he had recognize that the USA would act. So am I supposed to believe that he chose to make a chemical attack, while the UN chemical experts were in town knowing that it would not stop the rebels and would certainly escalate his little war to include the Worlds super power?

The only reasonable scenario for him doing this would be him wanting to engage the USA in a conflict he cannot win. No, I don't believe Assad did this, but as an old hermit once said: "They didn't. But we are meant to think they did."

 

[NUMBERICA]

Pretty much. So the whole moral obligation argument I hear from DC is shallow and hypocritical at best.

They haven't shied away that "interests" in the region aren't being ignored which is honest and would be a consideration for anyone. But yeah. I guess maybe when any of those countries are a threat to destabilizing a region where a massive chunk of your energy comes from then things might happen.

 

[NUMBERICA]

How does anyone know that Assad did this? Strategically it makes no sense to use chemical weapons against his own people. Particularly after Obama's red line was drawn.

Assad is fighting a 'civil' war inside his own country. He needs to maintain as much popular support as possible or deal a heavy handed crushing defeat to the rebels. A single chemical attack on a bunch of women and children does nothing to stop the fighting--it only enrages the rebels and instills them with more resolve. He also risks having his supporters turn on him. but neither of those compares to USA red-line.

For Assad to do this he had recognize that the USA would act. So am I supposed to believe that he chose to make a chemical attack, while the UN chemical experts were in town knowing that it would not stop the rebels and would certainly escalate his little war to include the Worlds super power?

The only reasonable scenario for him doing this would be him wanting to engage the USA in a conflict he cannot win. No, I don't believe Assad did this, but as an old hermit once said: "They didn't. But we are meant to think they did."

RuPaul 2012 gold standard 9/11 TRUTH infowars.com

 

[Stoked]

They haven't shied away that "interests" in the region aren't being ignored which is honest and would be a consideration for anyone. But yeah. I guess maybe when any of those countries are a threat to destabilizing a region where a massive chunk of your energy comes from then things might happen.

It is about energy and control. The Middle East is important. Africa is not.

 

[NUMBERICA]

It is about energy and control. The Middle East is important. Africa is not.

And the Middle East has nukes. And the U.S. has doggedly allied itself with the poison of the region. And they can't win no matter what they do, it seems.

Maybe the U.S. should turn its focus to controlling Africa instead. There are plenty of resources in Congo, no nukes, no Israel, and no cousin-religions whose origins can be traced to destroying the origins of the predominant religious traditions of our own nation. <--- Me being cynically advisory.