[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

So, read this, and then I have a question.

U.S. intercepts Iranian order for attack on U.S. interests in Iraq: report

http://news.yahoo.com/u-intercepts-iranian-order-attack-u-interests-iraq-041541423.html

So Quds has orders to attack American targets. It's estimated that those targets are in Iraq. So, say we launch these strikes, and then our embassy gets blown up in Iraq - or elsewhere by the Iranians.

What then?

Do we retaliate against Iran? How do we not retaliate against them, if they blow up one of our freaking embassies? Or attack other targets? We have pretty much no choice at that point: we are at war with Iran.

Do you still not see where this can all lead? Or how easily we can end up there, despite the "limited" nature of the strikes?

 

Oh, almost forgot, I commented on the possibility of this earlier but no one seemed to care. It matters:

Report: US strike on Syria to be 'significantly larger than expected'

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-US-strike-on-Syria-to-be-significantly-larger-than-expected-325389

ABC News: US is planning an aerial strike in addition to a salvo of Tomahawk missiles from Navy destroyers; New York Times: Obama ordered expansion of list of targets following reports Assad moved troops, equipment.

On the one hand, it's good that POTUS has apparently realized that a cruise missile strike would be absolutely pointless. On the other hand, the mission creep is already starting.

Congress really needs to end this party before it starts.

 

Unless it's spelled out how the strikes will affect Syria, and what our reactions would be to possible undesirable responses form Syria, and show how this will help curtail further chemical weapon attacks, then it will be a tough sell.

 

Let me be clear on the logic here

1. Syrians were killed - we had no issue
2. Syrians were killed with Chemical Weapons - We have to do something
3. Doing something means. . . we have to kill more Syrians . . .as more punishment?

Rocket River

 

Correct, Syrians killed Syrians, so the correct response will be to kill Syrians to keep Syrians from killing Syrians.

 

As expected, US is now pulling all non-essential staff from Lebanon and urging American citizens to leave as well. There is also a recommended voluntary withdrawal from Turkey as well...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162...-of-lebanon-as-congress-debates-syria-strike/

Rocket and Droopy, it's not just Syrians killing Syrians, it's Iranians, Libyans, Yemenis, Saudis, and Lebanese (Hezbollah), among others killing Syrians. This is no longer a Syrian civil war, this is an Islamic militants fighting the Syrian regime. They would love to do nothing less than remove what they consider to be a fake Muslim (Alawites) from power and install their own Islamic regime.

Just the other day they attacked the ancient town of Maaloula, they tore down a statue of the Virgin Mary, and launched rockets at an ancient church where a saint is buried. These aren't Syrian rebels, these are terrorists who are using the Syrians' civil war as an excuse for sectarian violence. Maaloula is one of the remaining cities that still speaks Syriac (the language of Jesus). 10% of the country is Christian, and it used to be much more than that.

The whole world doesn't give a crap unless they are being affected, it's utter BS. No one gave a damn about the Jews in WWII until it was their country being bombed, then it was omg we have to stop this!! Same thing is happening here, all the Europeans are like, let them sort it out. Ya, look how that ended up for y'all just 70 years ago.

This will not end well. The Senate Resolution approves ground forces, and this WILL boil over into Lebanon, then to Israel, and soon Iran will be involved. The proverbial **** is about to hit the fan.

 

Do you disagree? If you shoot cruise missiles at a weapons silo or an airfield and just blow up a bunch of jets and runways, do you disagree that this affects primarily the government as opposed to the Syrian population?

I didn't they *would* do that - I said it's fairly easy to do, so it just depends on what the targets are.

 

You're assuming that Iran is irrational and not bluffing, and willing to get attacked.

But what is the alternative there? Give Iran veto power on US foreign policy by just saying they will order these strikes anytime we do anything they don't like?

 

How will the government protect the people if you blow all their **** up?

 

Not all Syrians are equal. The internationally recognized line of chemical weapons was crossed so the people who committed the crime should be prosecuted. You can't round individuals up and try them in the middle of a war zone, (where they have the support of two semi-super powers) so you do what you can do, drop a bomb in them.

Me, I would avoid taking human lives as much as possible; I'd just blow up a whole lot of Russian paid for hardware. I'd also maybe flatten a palace (I'd try to miss Assad's hot wife). If I were to deliberately kill some people I might drop on the command and control center that passed the order for troops to put on gas masks.

If Russian's have proof that rebel factions used gas, they need to drop a paratrooper mission on them, take care of it and get out. I'd be fine with that.

 

If you're looking at secondary effects, then what results in the fewest total deaths is the most is for the civil war to end. That changes the equation entirely - most likely, the fewest people die if the US just obliterates one side or the other completely.

 

However
it seems to be
We think Assad has a 75 - 25 advantage
we *hope* if we blow up a bunch of his stuff it will come back to 50-50 ish
and then HOPE that at 50-50 they will negotiate
instead
of 50 - 50 ending in a perpetual stalemate of war and carnage
[which seems IMO more likely]

Rocket River

 

...and thereby help Al Qaeda. Based on evidence that would most likely not pass a "beyond reasonable doubt" test in a criminal trial. After "weapons of mass destruction". No thanks.

 

Well, perhaps it perpetuates the Syrian war and drags it out even further.

I'm kind of okay with that.

 

Which is fine, but that's a different issue than the question you were asking (about civilian deaths).

As far as the intelligence - have you seen the classified briefings? If not, I'm not sure how you can make judgment on it one way or another. For the most part, when Senators and Congresspeople have seen it, they tend to come out of those meetings more supportive of action than prior, for whatever that is worth.

As far as "weapons of mass destruction", I ask again what I asked in another thread - why have intelligence agencies at all if we aren't going to believe anything they say? It seems people are deciding their "trust" of this intelligence based on whether they want to or don't want to get involved in Syria, which is just a silly way to evaluate quality of intelligence. Why did no one say we shouldn't have gone after Bin Laden because we shouldn't have trusted the intel there?

 

You probably explained this earlier, but why?

 

Unless they pack such sites with civilians. Which these types of people are known for doing. It's another downside to telegraphing exactly what targets you intend to hit - the BGs know right where to put that "Kindergarten day tour"...

If missiles fly prepare for lots of dead civilians to be paraded across TVs in the ME.

 

Certainly true - but the benefit of an "expanded target list" and the ability to launch attacks at all hours of the day or night makes it difficult to populate all those places with civilians. You can't have a Kindergarten tour hanging out in the middle of an airfield 24/7. But I agree that it depends on the targets and how the strikes are conducted.

This is actually one reason for Obama to be a bit vague about intentions and specific goals when it comes to the public. It needs to be shared in classified briefings, but you really can't share your specific objectives or targets to the public.

 

Why would you assume that they are rational? It's a regime based around an apocalyptic death-cult. If you are expecting completely rational behavior out of them then you are going to be disappointed. And given their track record I wouldn't discount the likelihood that they will attack our assets. They're done it before. They did it for nearly a decade in Iraq.

My point here is that if you let the missiles fly in Syria you had damned well better be prepared for it to spread to other areas and you had damned well better prepare for Iran to get into the action. Assad is a huge client of Iran's and unlike the Russians he factors centrally into their plans for the region, and they will very likely go all in for him. It would be monumentally stupid to go into this thinking that there's no way they would risk getting more deeply involved. They already have troops in the ground fighting with Assad's forces. They're in this for the long haul.