[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.

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

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.

Look at Egypt, Mohammed got kicked out, yet there is still death going on over there, same with Iraq and Libya. Mickeyminime

Yeah if a full invasion of Iraq and billions spent on nation building can't produce good results after all these years I doubt firing some cruise missiles into Syria can do much. It might even prompt Assad to use more chemical weapons out of desperation (if he did indeed use them) and if that happened what then? Put boots on the ground? The public wouldn't go for that and I don't think any western nation is in the position to afford it. The Iraq war destroyed the will to engage in intervention and nation building and after the 2008 economic crisis there is less money available for such endeavours. Just today in Iraq 23 died in attacks and 56 yesterday, this is after a decade in that nation trying to stabilise the situation.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

[QUOTE="AllanLane"]

That isn't the case that is being made at all. No one is claiming Syria is a threat to the US. The case for war is to stop future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government if they have used such weapons though I'm not sure how these strikes will do that as you can't hit these sites without collateral if they even knew where they all were.

Solaryellow

Ok. I stand corrected. I actually had not read the national security angle being pushed yet. 

That's right. Our involvement is because the chemical weapons in Syria's possession are harmful to our country......or so our leaders say. Didn't we hear this a while ago from another President?Solaryellow

That isn't the case that is being made at all. No one is claiming Syria is a threat to the US. The case for war is to stop future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government if they have used such weapons though I'm not sure how these strikes will do that as you can't hit these sites without collateral if they even knew where they all were.

That could be the case. I'm not exactly in any position to know one way or the other. I just think it might be wise to give the UN the time it's asking for to investigate this time if the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government is what the case for war is being based on.