I think we're going to war with Syrian rebels guys.

This will be over in a matter of weeks if not days anyway. I wouldn't really call this a war.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]

Don't republicans regularly use the whole "war's messy, and sometimes civilians get caught up in it"?

Solaryellow

I believe I asked this before but no answer was given: The United States has killed many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan from the use of drones so would it be acceptable for Russia or China to bomb some of our military installations?

The U.S does no wrong... it's the innocent people's fault for not getting out of the way....

This will be over in a matter of weeks if not days anyway. I wouldn't really call this a war.

ReadingRainbow4

[QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

This will be over in a matter of weeks if not days anyway. I wouldn't really call this a war.

MrPraline

I'm not supporting the notion, I'm just saying it most likely will be a shortly won victory.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

This will be over in a matter of weeks if not days anyway. I wouldn't really call this a war.

ReadingRainbow4

I'm not supporting the notion, I'm just saying it most likely will be a shortly won victory.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

This will be over in a matter of weeks if not days anyway. I wouldn't really call this a war.

ReadingRainbow4

I'm not supporting the notion, I'm just saying it most likely will be a shortly won victory.

Attacking another country is an act of war.  Call it what you like.  

[QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

[QUOTE="MrPraline"] Not sure an attack of this kind should be downplayed by saying it's only going to last a few weeks.deeliman

I'm not supporting the notion, I'm just saying it most likely will be a shortly won victory.

Yeah nuke em from the Sea, then Obama's just going to send in the drones for clean up. I honestly feel bad for the Syrian people, they shouldn't have to suffer just because of their asshole president.

[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

I'm not supporting the notion, I'm just saying it most likely will be a shortly won victory.

ReadingRainbow4

Yeah nuke em from the Sea, then Obama's just going to send in the drones for clean up. I honestly feel bad for the Syrian people, they shouldn't have to suffer just because of their asshole president.

Still waiting for proof that Assad's regime used the weapons.  Then waiting for an explanation as to how that poses a direct and credible threat to the US.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Anyone who's actually been paying attention knows that a Syrian intervention has been in the works for years. Years ago I was hearing that Syria was the new target, since a military conflict with Iran was increasingly unlikely. China and Russia have said in no uncertain terms that intervention in Syria could drag them into it. I'm very skeptical that the chemical weapon attack was made by the Syrian state, it's all too perfect. This is an intervention to maintain and prop up the petro-dollar, which is one of the few things keeping America's economy from imploding. This whole situation stinks to high Heaven.BossPerson

Thank you. General Wesley Clark said that something like this was in the works years ago.

I think they might be reluctant to go to war because their computer modelling is still running with Civ 4 rules where war weariness is a factor with the civics they have chosen. America should change its civics if they are planning on conquest or domination victories. Go to war less if they want diplomatic victory and spend more on research if they want space race victory. Cultural victory might be their best chance as things are but the end of the game in 2050 is fast approaching!

[QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

[QUOTE="deeliman"] Didn't Russia provide assad with sams? If that's true than they would probably have to fire a bunch of cruise missiles at those targets before they can really enforce the no fly zone. hartsickdiscipl

Yeah nuke em from the Sea, then Obama's just going to send in the drones for clean up. I honestly feel bad for the Syrian people, they shouldn't have to suffer just because of their asshole president.

Still waiting for proof that Assad's regime used the weapons.  Then waiting for an explanation as to how that poses a direct and credible threat to the US.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

Yeah nuke em from the Sea, then Obama's just going to send in the drones for clean up. I honestly feel bad for the Syrian people, they shouldn't have to suffer just because of their asshole president.

Person0

Still waiting for proof that Assad's regime used the weapons.  Then waiting for an explanation as to how that poses a direct and credible threat to the US.  

I've seen more evidence that the rebels are the ones using the chemical weapons.  Show me something.  

I've seen more evidence that the rebels are the ones using the chemical weapons. Show me something.

hartsickdiscipl

Let's see what we know about the situation.

The area was rebel controlled.

The rockets that were used have only been seen used by government forces.

The rockets came from the direction of several gov't bases.

The gov't is the only known to have chemical weapons in large enough quantities for this attack.

The gov't followed up the chemical attack with a conventional ground attack in the same area soon after.

The U.S has intercepted communications between gov't forces

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days. foreign policy

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

 

I've seen more evidence that the rebels are the ones using the chemical weapons. Show me something.

Person0

Let's see what we know about the situation.

The area was rebel controlled.

The rockets that were used have only been seen used by government forces.

The rockets came from the direction of several gov't bases.

The gov't is the only known to have chemical weapons in large enough quantities for this attack.

The gov't followed up the chemical attack with a conventional ground attack in the same area soon after.

The U.S has intercepted communications between gov't forces

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people.Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days. foreign policy

Why would the Syrian Ministry of Defense be panicked about a chemical weapons strike if it were sanctioned by the government?  That doesn't fit into the narrative at all.  There are 2 logical possiblities-

1- The "leader" of the chemical weaspons unit went rogue and wasn't ordered to use the weapons at all

2- The chemical weapons weren't deployed by the government forces 

Take your pick.  

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"] What evidence that is was the rebels?

Let's see what we know about the situation.

The area was rebel controlled.

The rockets that were used have only been seen used by government forces.

The rockets came from the direction of several gov't bases.

The gov't is the only known to have chemical weapons in large enough quantities for this attack.

The gov't followed up the chemical attack with a conventional ground attack in the same area soon after.

The U.S has intercepted communications between gov't forces

[QUOTE="foreign policy"]Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people.Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days. hartsickdiscipl

Why would the Syrian Ministry of Defense be panicked about a chemical weapons strike if it were sanctioned by the government?  That doesn't fit into the narrative at all.  There are 2 logical possiblities-

1- The "leader" of the chemical weaspons unit went rogue and wasn't ordered to use the weapons at all

2- The chemical weapons weren't deployed by the government forces 

Take your pick.  

UK Parliament has voted against any action in Syria.

Story

UK Parliament has voted against any action in Syria.

Story

PcGamingRig

13 votes, seems a bit unlucky.

I wish the gov't would listen to it's people. We are the ones in control right? No? Dammit.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Person0"]

Person0

Why would the Syrian Ministry of Defense be panicked about a chemical weapons strike if it were sanctioned by the government?  That doesn't fit into the narrative at all.  There are 2 logical possiblities-

1- The "leader" of the chemical weaspons unit went rogue and wasn't ordered to use the weapons at all

2- The chemical weapons weren't deployed by the government forces 

Take your pick.  

That's a nice theory, but it's not likely.  If Assad is losing control of his army, that needs to be dealt with internally.  

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Why would the Syrian Ministry of Defense be panicked about a chemical weapons strike if it were sanctioned by the government?  That doesn't fit into the narrative at all.  There are 2 logical possiblities-

1- The "leader" of the chemical weaspons unit went rogue and wasn't ordered to use the weapons at all

2- The chemical weapons weren't deployed by the government forces 

Take your pick.  

hartsickdiscipl

That's a nice theory, but it's not likely.  If Assad is losing control of his army, that needs to be dealt with internally.  

It's turning into another Iraq.

Obama is going to have to do a "George W. Bush" and go in there without any approval from other nations.

The only difference is that Saddam gassed his own people decades before the US invaded Iraq while al-Assad just gassed his own people this past week.

The fact that it JUST happened and may happen again is the only justification Obama has. And even then it's quite disturbing that the rest of the world doesn't apear to give a damn about the murder of civillians by it's own government.

This whole thing is disturbing.

in a way I say no. because This a war the people need to win.

in a way i say yes.because they are using tanks and jets on their own people... 

We are not in the position to go to war right now.  Especially a war that doesn't benefit us at all.

in a way I say no. because This a war the people need to win.

in a way i say yes.because they are using tanks and jets on their own people... 

k2theswiss

1.)  Many of the Syrian rebels are terrorists.  It's that simple.

2.)  Tragic.  Now let's focus on our own problems before we start being Mr. Nice guy in Syria.

The US is finally out of a recession caused by the last military action our country got sucked into. The economy would fall apart even faster this time around if we had to pump billions into another war. Shame on the rest of the Arab world for not doing something to help their brethren. Always leaving it up to the USA to fix their problems. I'm so angry about this crap. Netherscourge

Everyone hates everyone over there.

3 good reasons not to "intervene" in the internal struggle of another nation-

1) It's non of our damn business.  

2) It makes other nations, powerful and weak, hate us.  

3) It's unconstitutional

We were fine right after Libya. That's what intervention would look like, not like Iraq.Person0

I don't agree. It would be different to both. Libya was a nation of only 6 million people. Iraq and Syria have over 20 million. Both Libya and Iraq had been disarmed of most if not all of their WMD before the interventions. Syria has not been disarmed of its WMD. Iraq was weakened from the first gulf war, civil uprisings and years of tough sanctions. Syria is in a weakened state due to the civil uprising but has backing from Russia in the way the other two nations never had and has been provided with advanced air defences. I have no idea what a conflict with Syria might look like but don't believe it would be like the Iraq or Libyan conflicts.

[QUOTE="Person0"]We were fine right after Libya. That's what intervention would look like, not like Iraq.AllanLane

I don't agree. It would be different to both. Libya was a nation of only 6 million people. Iraq and Syria have over 20 million. Both Libya and Iraq had been disarmed of most if not all of their WMD before the interventions. Syria has not been disarmed of its WMD. Iraq was weakened from the first gulf war, civil uprisings and years of tough sanctions. Syria is in a weakened state due to the civil uprising but has backing from Russia in the way the other two nations never had and has been provided with advanced air defences. I have no idea what a conflict with Syria might look like but don't believe it would be like the Iraq or Libyan conflicts.

Obama might be stuck in a bind. If he attack without Congress authorization it will be out in the open how big of a hypocrite he is. If he doesn't attack then the world will know his word means nothing. And right now I think the Obama Administration is worried of a rejection of authorization by Congress just like Cameron suffered today and be politically cripple for the rest of his 2nd term.Master_Live

It would be nice if he were concerned with doing unconstitutional things and killing people in other countries who are embroiled in their own internal conflict  :?

Shame on the rest of the Arab world for not doing something to help their brethren. Always leaving it up to the USA to fix their problems.Netherscourge

They know better. If a powerhouse like the USA can't even stabilize Iraq, why would they even bother?