So How Does Syria Play Out?

[Pinky]

The same thing will happen with chemical weapons. We'll all look the other way for a million different excuses while their use becomes a norm and everyone gets comfortable with reading about the latest area blanketed with a cloud of gas and a few thousand dead. It's just another weapon, right? Iraw used them and nobody bombed them for it, roght? Well, not immediately, not until they got moved to Syria. But anyway, Pandora's box will be opened.

Never mind the fact that the history of chemical weapons contradicts this "Pandora's Box" nonsense.

[baffled]

In what bizarro world is someone who's more or less been a good neighbor to Israel and hasn't caused us too many headaches all of a sudden "incentivized" to use chemical weapons on us... on American soil because we didn't interfere in his country's affairs?

edit: phone posting mishap

[Turdacious]

When President Obama sent his war authorization resolution over to Capitol Hill he said the purpose of the military action was to "hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out."

However, the wording of the resolution reveals a back story. The most prominent purpose it announces for U.S. military action in Syria is the prevention of "the transfer [of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction] to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors."

Recall that the United States is not a neutral party to this conflict with the intent of enforcing an international rule against the use of chemical weapons. Rather the U.S. is actively supporting rebel forces and calling for the ouster of Assad. Recall as well that most all observers count both 'good' and 'bad' armed groups among the disparate rebels.

It is likely that if the U.S. achieves its policy aim of removing Assad from power his government will fall in a manner more chaotic than the preferred Geneva-negotiated accord. In that event the security of Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles will be compromised and some will likely fall into the hands of 'bad' rebel elements, not to mention Hezbollah or free agent elements of the disintegrating Syrian armed forces, previously loyal to Assad.

What is most worrisome in the broad scope of this authorization is that it gives the president full permission to take ongoing military action against potential and actual proliferation agents in and beyond Syria. U.S. military operations could extend to Lebanon and even, by some considerable stretch of potential proliferation linkages, to Iran.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-k ... 69732.html

I have no idea what they actually have in the classified intel, or how accurate it is, so I can't tell whether or not this is a realistic assessment or not. However, if boots on the ground (or even longer term missile strikes) is an option that's realistically on the table, it would seem to me that the POTUS would have to seek Congressional approval for the appropriation to make this possible.

[DARTH]

Obama knows that in a couple of years, he is going to be more hated than George W. Bush and his legacy will be a gleaming example to every "see what happens when you let a.." but he can rescue his legacy by going to war.

[The Ginger Beard Man]

It's better to ask forgiveness than permission

Obama knows that if he asks in advance for congress to sign off on full scale war, they'll say no. But if he gets permission now for "limited" strikes, and then goes beyond that, he knows congress will never refuse the necessary funding. America must support the troops.

[baffled]

Obama knows that in a couple of years, he is going to be more hated than George W. Bush and his legacy will be a gleaming example to every "see what happens when you let a.." but he can rescue his legacy by going to war.

Yeah, I'm not sure how much of the American public views a war of choice as a great way to rescue a legacy. It ruined Dubya's. Well, whatever positive legacy he could have had.

It'll ruin whatever was left of Barry's, too.

Of course, the NSA, DEA + AT&T, Fast And Furious and various other scandals did the heavy lifting.

[DARTH]

Obama knows that in a couple of years, he is going to be more hated than George W. Bush and his legacy will be a gleaming example to every "see what happens when you let a.." but he can rescue his legacy by going to war.

Yeah, I'm not sure how much of the American public views a war of choice as a great way to rescue a legacy. It ruined Dubya's. Well, whatever positive legacy he could have had.

It'll ruin whatever was left of Barry's, too.

Of course, the NSA, DEA + AT&T, Fast And Furious and various other scandals did the heavy lifting.

We always give more weight to war time Presidents in the long run. Bush will never go down asa great but he will be elevated in hindsight in 20 - 30 years. (and he already looks a little better with Barry's performance thae last month.)

Barry thinks he's a genius and can do anything and probably thinks he can launch some cruise missiles and air strikes and a few other things and be the hero of the day. He thinks Putin won;t do shit.

That's where I fear he is very wrong.

If I was Putin and I had watched the USA do what it has done the last 10 years and I looked at this micro managing pussy prick and said "Leave Assad alone" and Barry launches anyways?

I'd order my ships to jump the 6th fleet hard.

At that point either the US commander on scene has full control or Washington sticks it's nose in it like Benghazi and whether the CO puts up with it.

[milosz]

If I was Putin and I had watched the USA do what it has done the last 10 years and I looked at this micro managing pussy prick and said "Leave Assad alone" and Barry launches anyways?

I'd order my ships to jump the 6th fleet hard.

You live in a fantasy world.

[DARTH]

No, it's you who continue the common delusion that things will go on as always and that people don't jumo down each other when everything says it's a bad idea, and often times they win.

[Turdacious]

It's better to ask forgiveness than permission

Obama knows that if he asks in advance for congress to sign off on full scale war, they'll say no. But if he gets permission now for "limited" strikes, and then goes beyond that, he knows congress will never refuse the necessary funding. America must support the troops.

But will have to gore some oxen to do so. That's where it gets difficult, it's a big issue now.

[tough old man]

I am still considering this a "civil war" by Syrians for Syrians. I would keep my and everyone else's asses out of it

[Batboy2/75]

Two things:

1) It seems the government's argument and explanation to their constituents has changed a bit and is now squarely in the "fuck you, that's why" school of reasoning:

"It's conceivable that, at the end of the day, I don't persuade a majority of the American people that it's the right thing to do," Obama said in response to a question from ABC News during a solo press conference at the conclusion of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

But, Obama said, members of Congress need to consider the lessons of World War II and their own consciences and vote 'yes' to authorize the use of force, even if it means going against the opinion of the majority of their constituents.

"Each member of Congress is going to have to decide if [they] think it's the right thing to do for America's national security and the world's national security," Obama said. "Ultimately, you listen to your constituents, but you've got to make some decisions about what you believe is right for America."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presiden ... d=20178022

2) I'm pretty sure nafod drools into his own lap and shouldn't be allowed to use a fork for fear he may lose an eye.

Americans sat around scratching their nuts for 15 years while Al Qaeda kept trying to score big on US territory. It took 9-11 to rouse us to overreaction. The same thing will happen with chemical weapons. We'll all look the other way for a million different excuses while their use becomes a norm and everyone gets comfortable with reading about the latest area blanketed with a cloud of gas and a few thousand dead. It's just another weapon, right? Iraw used them and nobody bombed them for it, roght? Well, not immediately, not until they got moved to Syria. But anyway, Pandora's box will be opened. Then they will arrive here eventually. Too easy a target.

So your answer is to help Al-Queda to take over Syria???

[milosz]

No, it's you who continue the common delusion that things will go on as always and that people don't jumo down each other when everything says it's a bad idea, and often times they win.

Incomprehensible as usual.

Let's backtrack to Putin starting WW III over Syria, tell us more.

[nafod]

In what bizarro world is someone who's more or less been a good neighbor to Israel and hasn't caused us too many headaches all of a sudden "incentivized" to use chemical weapons on us... on American soil because we didn't interfere in his country's affairs?

It's the proliferation, stupid.

So your answer is to help Al-Queda to take over Syria???

No, its stupid to even suggest that. The plan is make Assad see using chem weps as a net negative. Not all rebels are Al Qaeda, by the way.

I'd order my ships to jump the 6th fleet hard.

You mean like they did when we bombed the shit out of their Best Friends Forever the Serbs for a prolonged period? Syrians are just business relations. It's be stupid to think they'll go to war with us over Assad getting spanked.

Obama knows that if he asks in advance for congress to sign off on full scale war, they'll say no. But if he gets permission now for "limited" strikes, and then goes beyond that, he knows congress will never refuse the necessary funding. America must support the troops.

Obama got us out of Iraq, is getting us out of Afghanistan, never got troops into Libya, and gladly kills folks remotely in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and a few other places. You'd have to be stupid to think he's angling to get us into a land war in Asia.

[Turdacious]

So your answer is to help Al-Queda to take over Syria???

No, its stupid to even suggest that. The plan is make Assad see using chem weps as a net negative. Not all rebels are Al Qaeda, by the way.

Well organized, capitalized, and disciplined minority rebel groups tend to have outsized influence.
I really hope our political leaders make the correct call on this.

[nafod]

So your answer is to help Al-Queda to take over Syria???

No, its stupid to even suggest that. The plan is make Assad see using chem weps as a net negative. Not all rebels are Al Qaeda, by the way.

Well organized, capitalized, and disciplined minority rebel groups tend to have outsized influence.
I really hope our political leaders make the correct call on this.

This is probably the best layman's description that I have seen on what is going on over there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... s=og.likes

[Andy83]

So your answer is to help Al-Queda to take over Syria???

What difference does it make? They are muslims. Assad's people are all muslims. Muslims are all bad people. Kill 'em all or there can never be peace.

[The Ginger Beard Man]

Obama got us out of Iraq, is getting us out of Afghanistan, never got troops into Libya, and gladly kills folks remotely in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and a few other places. You'd have to be stupid to think he's angling to get us into a land war in Asia.

You'd have to be stupid to discount the possibility of it happening.

[The Ginger Beard Man]

Let's backtrack to Putin starting WW III over Syria, tell us more.

I suggested the possibility a few pages back.
I don't think it's likely, but I don't see how you get into a war without considering the worst case scenario.
Last week I waited on a former advisor to Bill Clinton, a European diplomat to the UN, and two tv journalists. They talked about Syria extensively. The ex Clinton advisor said, "I don't like the way this unravels. It unravels like WW I."

What I see as much more likely, is that we get bogged down in Syria and somewhere in the not too distant future Putin swats us, by proxie, somewhere else. Maybe somewhere closer to home.

[Pinky]

So your answer is to help Al-Queda to take over Syria???

No, its stupid to even suggest that. The plan is make Assad see using chem weps as a net negative. Not all rebels are Al Qaeda, by the way.

Well organized, capitalized, and disciplined minority rebel groups tend to have outsized influence.
I really hope our political leaders make the correct call on this.

This is probably the best layman's description that I have seen on what is going on over there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... s=og.likes

This is really the most relevant part:

Here’s the deal: ....the reason that the world got together in 1925 for the Geneva Convention to ban chemical weapons is because this stuff is really, really good at killing civilians but not actually very good at the conventional aim of warfare, which is to defeat the other side.

This is why all Pandora's-box arguments are bullshit. Since the end of WWI chemical weapons have not been viewed as an effective weapon of war, and that's why Hitler didn't use them. (The idea that he didn't use them because he cared about international norms is absurd.) Chemical weapons are weapons of terror or desperation. There is no reason to believe that failing to "punish" a state for using them will result in their widespread use in future wars.

A more legitimate concern is that, as Assad's grip on Syria weakens, the chemical weapons he now controls might fall into even worse hands. But no one's talking about that. If anything, all of the advocates of intervention seem intent on weakening Assad's regime. That's bad news if your concern is proliferation. (It's also not clear that it would help if your concern is humanitarian.)

[Turdacious]

This is really the most relevant part:

Here’s the deal: ....the reason that the world got together in 1925 for the Geneva Convention to ban chemical weapons is because this stuff is really, really good at killing civilians but not actually very good at the conventional aim of warfare, which is to defeat the other side.

This is why all Pandora's-box arguments are bullshit. Since the end of WWI chemical weapons have not been viewed as an effective weapon of war, and that's why Hitler didn't use them. (The idea that he didn't use them because he cared about international norms is absurd.) Chemical weapons are weapons of terror or desperation.

All depends on the delivery system and the nature of the battlefield.

[Kazuya Mishima]

How does this play out? I'm betting on the guy with the sharp suits and the air superiority.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KgoXdxUyjQ[/youtube]

[Batboy2/75]

So much for Smart Diplomacy.

Sec Lurch and the President had their asses handed to them on all fronts and had to be bailed out by Putin. Hell, even crazy old McCain wasn't on board for the President's hair brained limited stikes idea. However, I have to admit that McCain is even crazier than the Adminsitration and wants us to go "All In"; blood and treasure be damned!

So we went from Cowboy Bush with everyone fearing the USA (but respecting us), to the Presdient of Russian running circles around the annointed ones? The left has some serious work ahead of them moving them goal posts.

[TerryB]

How does this play out? I'm betting on the guy with the sharp suits and the air superiority.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KgoXdxUyjQ[/youtube]

I hope everyone is ok

[DrDonkeyLove]

How does this play out? I'm betting on the guy with the sharp suits and the air superiority.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KgoXdxUyjQ[/youtube]

I hope everyone is ok

Were those the good rebels, the bad rebels, or the in between rebels?