So what are we going to gain from attacking Syria?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

 

I know. I just felt like sharing.

 

Do you think we have stayed in Iraq for 8 years if it weren't for the religious looneys?

Person0

Once we takes sides and only bomb Assad we getting more and more involved which never works out well in the Middle East.

Everything we get involved in escalates. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.KC_Hokie

and why? Religion.

I wonder why the US doesn't show such concern over the genocide that's happening in Africa. :)percech

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Everything we get involved in escalates. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.Jebus213

and why? Religion.

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Invading middle eastern countries would be a lot easier if they didn't blow themselves up all the time.

Jebus213

No one is invading, we are simply shooting the missiles we've already paid for and replace/maintain regularly under contract.

I know. I just felt like sharing.

Do you think we stayed in Iraq for 8 years because of the religious looneys?

Yes.

Saddam may have been a tyrant, but he didn't take any bullshit.  He repressed all the groups involved in the civil war and kept them in check through fear, violence, and intimidation.  Once we toppled his government their shit hit the fan.  We were simply cleaning that shit up for eight years.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Everything we get involved in escalates. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan...never supposed to have been in those places 10 years.

Once we takes sides and only bomb Assad we getting more and more involved which never works out well in the Middle East.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

We're sending a message with the use of military missles. We're not even invading. It's just like what was going on with Libya except Obama is asking for permission from Congress.

KC_Hokie

Doubtful. Assad isn't stupid.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Everything we get involved in escalates. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.KC_Hokie

and why? Religion.

Then why are they blowing themselves up for 72 virgins and rivers of honey?

They bomb eachother also.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Everything we get involved in escalates. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.KC_Hokie

and why? Religion.

We are the world police.  Honestly... Just f-cking deal with it.  In the wake of WW2 we built the world around ourselves and now we are stuck here... If you can't deal with that, I suggest suicide or something because it isn't changing... We are never leaving the world stage.  We are never not being the world police.  It is never ending.  Forever.  Globalization.  Deal with it.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

No one is invading, we are simply shooting the missiles we've already paid for and replace/maintain regularly under contract.

Squeets

I know. I just felt like sharing.

Do you think we stayed in Iraq for 8 years because of the religious looneys?

Yes.

Saddam may have been a tyrant, but he didn't take any bullshit.  He repressed all the groups involved in the civil war and kept them in check through fear, violence, and intimidation.  Once we toppled his government their shit hit the fan.  We were simply cleaning that shit up for eight years.

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

 

I know. I just felt like sharing.

 

Do you think we stayed in Iraq for 8 years because of the religious looneys?

Person0

Yes.

Saddam may have been a tyrant, but he didn't take any bullshit.  He repressed all the groups involved in the civil war and kept them in check through fear, violence, and intimidation.  Once we toppled his government their shit hit the fan.  We were simply cleaning that shit up for eight years.

Well yeah, and everything else. Like the police and public services. Infastructure...yeah.

Maintaining the aura of superiority and of policing the world, all while keeping the collateral damage head count up.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Squeets"]

Yes.

Saddam may have been a tyrant, but he didn't take any bullshit.  He repressed all the groups involved in the civil war and kept them in check through fear, violence, and intimidation.  Once we toppled his government their shit hit the fan.  We were simply cleaning that shit up for eight years.

Jebus213

Well yeah, and everything else. Like the police and public services. 

Now Obama wants to bomb Assad (the only functional government within most of Syria).

What could go wrong?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]

 

and why? Religion.

Squeets

We are the world police.  Honestly... Just f-cking deal with it.  In the wake of WW2 we built the world around ourselves and now we are stuck here... If you can't deal with that, I suggest suicide or something because it isn't changing... We are never leaving the world stage.  We are never not being the world police.  It is never ending.  Forever.  Globalization.  Deal with it.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Person0"] Link? Person0

Place is a huge mess and close to another civil war. Not a great example of successful intervention.

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] No. It's because we try to play world police. Doesn't work.Master_Live

We are the world police.  Honestly... Just f-cking deal with it.  In the wake of WW2 we built the world around ourselves and now we are stuck here... If you can't deal with that, I suggest suicide or something because it isn't changing... We are never leaving the world stage.  We are never not being the world police.  It is never ending.  Forever.  Globalization.  Deal with it.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]For which part? You can do an easy search for Libyan and Syrian allies. Then just search Libya....place is in a huge mess right now on the verge of another civil war.KC_Hokie

Place is a huge mess and close to another civil war. Not a great example of successful intervention.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] From what I've seen its just militias fighting, not alqaeda controlling large sections of the country.Person0

Place is a huge mess and close to another civil war. Not a great example of successful intervention.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]For which part? You can do an easy search for Libyan and Syrian allies. Then just search Libya....place is in a huge mess right now on the verge of another civil war.KC_Hokie

Place is a huge mess and close to another civil war. Not a great example of successful intervention.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] From what I've seen its just militias fighting, not alqaeda controlling large sections of the country.sherman-tank1

Place is a huge mess and close to another civil war. Not a great example of successful intervention.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Ansar Al-Sharia is ones of the brigades fighting. It's Muslim Brotherhood vs. Al-Qaeda linked groups vs. secular.

Place is a huge mess and close to another civil war. Not a great example of successful intervention.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Ansar Al-Sharia is ones of the brigades fighting. It's Muslim Brotherhood vs. Al-Qaeda linked groups vs. secular.

Place is a huge mess and close to another civil war. Not a great example of successful intervention.

KC_Hokie

Kerry says no boots on the ground unless perhaps the unlikely and unthinkable happened and the nation imploded or bad people were about to get their hands on the WMD. I don't know what catalyst might cause those scenarios to happen, surely not airstrikes. Anyway he can assure people Obama doesn't want boots on the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesxabnmsoI

Assad has ties to Iran, Russia and Hezbollah so it's understandable why the US would want him gone from a geostrategic perspective in order to break the "axis of resistance" against US interests in the ME (or "axis of evil" if you're a neo-con).  Of course there's no guarantee the rebels would be any better since it includes numerous radicals and terrorists among its ranks who hate the US.  Further it can also lead to more sectarian conflict further destabilizing the region not to mention increasing antagonisms with Russia and China. 

For why the US cares so much about intervention in the ME in general it's a mixture of factors - standing behind strategic allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey...preferential access to resources (oil and gas), general economic interests and global power projection.

Kerry says no boots on the ground unless perhaps the unlikely and unthinkable happened and the nation imploded or bad people were about to get their hands on the WMD. I don't know what catalyst might cause those scenarios to happen, surely not airstrikes. Anyway he can assure people Obama doesn't want boots on the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesxabnmsoI

AllanLane

Well, if the resolution explicitly prohibits troops on the ground then that would be that.

Kind of a agree, also Americans should understand that many of the things you are able to enjoy in the US are derive from the power of being the "world police". Can't have your cake and eat it too. Master_Live

Such as? 

I wonder why the US doesn't show such concern over the genocide that's happening in Africa. :)percech

[QUOTE="AllanLane"]

Kerry says no boots on the ground unless perhaps the unlikely and unthinkable happened and the nation imploded or bad people were about to get their hands on the WMD. I don't know what catalyst might cause those scenarios to happen, surely not airstrikes. Anyway he can assure people Obama doesn't want boots on the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesxabnmsoI

Master_Live

Well, if the resolution explicitly prohibits troops on the ground then that would be that.

Given what he said it doesn't give me too much confidence there won't be exceptions in the way they word it if national security is put at risk or however they plan to word it. What he said originally also made sense. I doubt the US would just sit back if those scenarios unfolded and you can't secure WMD with airstrikes alone. Unlike Iraq and Libya where both nations had agreed to disarmament and apparently followed through prior to intervention Syria actually has WMD. There is no debate about this fact as they aren't even signatories of the CWC. I believe that in war things don't always go to plan and much to the displeasure of some no doubt Kerry speculated what might happen if things don't go to plan before he backtracked.

The best way to ensure no American boots ever touch Syrian ground is to not bomb Syria at all. Leave Syria to the Syrians, or better yet, the Russians. Russia has more strategic interests in Syria than the US does.TruthTellers

The majority of the House is voting No, and the majority of the Senate is voting Yes. Most Democrats seem supportive where as most Republicans are against it. My guess: A No vote and no attack on Syria.

The majority of the House is voting No, and the majority of the Senate is voting Yes. Most Democrats seem supportive where as most Republicans are against it. My guess: A No vote and no attack on Syria.

leviathan91

I'd be pleasantly surprised if that happens.  As far as I've heard the house could go either way - among Republicans there are plenty of warhawks who support military action (and some Democrats who are still anti-war).  The Senate will pretty much rubberstamp it.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]

 

and why? Religion.

Jebus213

Then why are they blowing themselves up for 72 virgins and rivers of honey?

They bomb eachother also.

I don't think its a matter of gaining anything, but at this point, it seems as though we aren't the only ones who feel this is getting out of control and something has to be done. On top of it, it has turned into a proxy war. Top that off with the mere fact they they are now using chemical weapons on civilians and the neighboring country Iran, who we have been trying to prevent from making such weaponary, would only allow them to feel more inclined to continue on and make them. Its at this point where if the US doesn't do something it will give those said countries over there that are for Assad more piss and vinegar than they originally had. I don't want the US to be involved, but at what point do you say enough if enough, considering one country over there, Iseral, no matter how you feel about them and Syrian civilians who are dieing everyday, could be in for a lot of hurt if something isn't done.

It's meaningless whether the Congress authorizes force or not; Obama has already committed to attacking Syria.TruthTellers

Yes there are hints that if the vote fails Obama will authorize an attack anyway.

nothing, we'd be overthrowing a secular government from a people who demand a radical Islamic theocracylamprey263

Indeed, it's worth considering here that Assad for his faults is at least secular and that radicals amongst the rebels have already been persecuting minorities such as Christians and Alawites.

I posted something earlier somewhat regarding this topic. Let me say something, and please correct me if I'm wrong or not up to date, but they have not gotten word or authorization to be able to fire those missiles as of right now. To me it sounds like more of a threat rather than an actual attack, because why wouldn't we have fired them yet? I think they're just waiting to see if things calm down. 

I'm hoping using these missiles won't be necessary to calm things down over there. But we'll see. 

tree fiddy

nothing. another war for israel, just like in iraq

Obama authorized the fire bombing of Qadaffis home.

Qadaffi wasn't even there . . . but his grandchildren were.

They burned to death.

So according to the media - obama can set children on fire and burn them to death, but Assad can't use chemical weapons.

Why is it okay for obama to kill civilians, but it's not okay for Assad?