[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

I look past traditional labels and cut to the core.

 

really? do you not think the CIA and covert operators based in Turkey and Jordan aren't moving in an out of Syria doing just that?

 

Yes, because that's a good rationale for getting involved in another war. Screwing with people.

So, when Iran decides to retaliate against us and Hizbollah activates its people in CONUS to "screw with us back", is it mission accomplished? I mean, at that point everyone's screwing with each other, right? It'll be like a big multinational orgy!

Er, what?!? You want to jump into the middle of a war between muslims in order to "keep Islamic focus away from places we are involved in"?

This is where the "delusional" part comes into play. We really need one of
those crazy, rotating finger at head smilies on here.

Have you not been paying attention? Have you not been reading the articles I have posted here over the last couple of days? (Of course not)

That "party" is increasingly marginalized and being overswept by the Al Qaeda affiliates. The "party" you want to negotiate an end to the war is apparently now in third place in a three-way war and has no leverage at the bargaining table.

The "party" is all in your head at this point.

As if you actually give a crap about that. But for what it's worth, the Christians in Syria tend to support Assad because they know that if the rebels take over then there will be a purge afterwards. That's what happens when the Muslim Brotherhood and/or Al Qaeda take over an area (see Egypt for reference).

Which we are in no position to do. And can't be done unless you put boots on the ground.

Which doesn't require arming Al Qaeda.

Oh, I'm sure they're trying. But by all accounts they're having a mighty difficult time separating the "moderates" (translation: Muslim Brotherhood) from the "extremists" (translation: Al Qaeda). This is why the arms shipments have come to a halt. Because even our befuddled current leadership has more sense than you do and is not so delusional as to think that arming Al Qaeda is a good idea.At least they will stop what they're doing and rethink the plan.

Again. You are delusional if you think this is a good idea.

 

Screwing with Iran drains their resources making our embargo more effective. We will continue to be an adversary with them as long as they are a theocratic autocracy that threatens Israel with destruction (though I suspect that they promote that just to keep the Islamic jingoism rational for maintaining power)

Abandoning any attempts to support moderates in Syrian dooms the opposition to be totally Islamic statist. It doesn't cost much to keep some hope for secularism and democracy alive. Again, I believe eventually those factions will settle and compromise with Assad under Russian auspices and they will resume the anti-theocratic stance that is their more natural position. Russia has it own Islamist problems. The world is awash in small arms, they don't change regimes anywhere anyway. If Al Qaeda could kill Americans with rifles and anti-aircraft weapons they would be doing it already (to a greater degree)

Our problems, the US, are still Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and though we don't admit it, Pakistan. If Islamic fighters are focused on the relatively unstrategic Syria it eases pressure on the others.

And of course the empathetic position is always the humanitarian condition.
Protecting innocents and providing care is job #1. You can't do anything toward that if you don't have a presence.

Syria is in the "news" today but it is hardly significant on the World Politics scale. You have to attend to it and tinker with it but it is not a make or break issue for the US. If you look at it in that context you will understand why we were never really threatening to be involved in a "war", like you seem to be so afraid of. There's no great military power threatening neighbors like Iraq, no state sponsorship of terrorism like Afghanistan, no nuclear weapons like Pakistan, no world transportation route like the Suez Canal or Persian Gulf, no oil like Libya, and we are not the world power of influence there.

It would have been (and still could be) a limited punitive strike, strictly about the use of chemical weapons. We will promote whatever interest we have there in a limited way but you would never see a a uniformed presence on the ground there. It's Russia's turf.

 

And again, "screwing" with someone is not a good reason to get involved in a war. If you absolutely must get us into a war why don't you advocate at least doing it for a reason that dimly relates to our national security, like blowing up Iran's nuke facilities?

Again, delusional. The "moderates" are Muslim Brotherhood. Yes, the FSA are MB. Do you not understand that they are Islamists as well? There are no good guys in that war for us to support.

As everyone should know by now, "hope" is insufficient reason to take a decisive course of action. And again, you are delusional if you think that secular democracies are going to come out of any of the Arab Spring events, Syria included. When given democracy Arabs elect outfits like the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists, Hamas, etc.

Delusional. You base this on what? Where did you get the idea that any of the opposition has an "anti-theocratic" stance? They are Muslim Brotherhood.

Yes, they do, and that hasn't stopped them from arming the Iranians and other Islamic countries, has it?

Uh... What? Rifles are the foundation of all modern warfare, and Al Qaeda has killed quite a few Americans with rifles over the past decade.

So, basically your response to questioning the wisdom of supplying arms to Al Qaeda is "Eh, it's no big deal, don't worry about it"?!? Really?

I have to keep saying this. You are delusional.

I don't think you understand what their goal is. It is, and always has been, to re-establish the caliphate. Their prophesy states that such an effort will begin in Syria, and then spread across the world from there. They are energized by what is going on in Syria. They are amassing an army there. It is just the beginning as far as they are concerned.

You can;t separate what's going on in Syria from the rest of the region. It is central to their plans.

Oh, so you do want American boots on the ground in Syria? Well, why didn't you just say so?

Again, I don't think you understand what is going on here. "Eh, it's no big deal, don't worry about it" again...

And by "tinker" you mean arm Al Qaeda and help them carve out their little caliphate nucleus?

Well, sure, I can understand how a person carrying as many delusions as we are witnessing here would think that they could get away with intervening in a civil war without any consequences..

Right. Because it's not like Al Qaeda would threaten any other governments in the region were it to get its little proto-caliphate. No way that would happen.

Which would still be pointless, and impossible to calibrate perfectly to achieve the desired effects.

Promise that. You can't.

Delusional.

 

no, I'm not delusional
have a nice day

 

So... anybody hear anything new? Like, oh, I dunno, proposals excluding force provisions at the UN? Or maybe one of the heads of the Christian church in Syria basically saying the West is crazy for supporting the rebels at this point? Or how about this little gem:

Key Syria Islamist rebels say do not recognise National Coalition

http://news.yahoo.com/key-syria-islamist-rebels-not-recognise-national-coalition-222754171.html;_ylt=A2KLOzLGEkJSBA4A.aXQtDMD

Long story short, the bulk of the main rebel fighting forces just rejected the main "secular" body that the West is backing, because:

"These forces call on all military and civilian groups to unite in a clear Islamic context that... is based on sharia (Islamic) law, making it the sole source of legislation," they said... They called for "unity" and "to reject division... putting the interest of the (Islamic) nation over the interest of (each) group".

So. Are we still thinking that these are the guys we should send weapons to? Remind me again. Who are the "good guys" here?

 

Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons begins, U.N. says
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/world/meast/syria-chemical-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

CNN) -- Syrians began destroying their country's chemical weapons program Sunday, according to an international team tasked with overseeing the effort.

Syrian personnel are using "cutting torches and angle grinders to destroy or disable a range of items," a news release from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said Sunday. "This included missile warheads, aerial bombs and mixing and filling equipment."

The OPCW team, which arrived in Damascus on Tuesday, "are monitoring, verifying and reporting on Syria's compliance with international demands to destroy chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities," the release said.

"The process will continue in the coming days," it said. The inspectors plan to visit nearly 50 sites as part of the mission, the OPCW said.

Some are not convinced the plan will work.

A defected Syrian general told CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will never give up its chemical stockpile.

"The locations of most of the scientific research centers in Syria and the storage facilities are known and under surveillance, thus, he will give up those centers and facilities for sure without lying. That said, however, Bashar al-Assad will not give up the chemical stockpile," said Syrian Brig. Gen. Zaher al-Sakat.

Al-Sakat said that he defected from the Syrian military after he was ordered to use chemical agents. He said he swapped the chemicals out for something non-toxic to fool his commanders.

The general said that in addition to four secret locations within Syria, the regime is currently transferring chemical weapons to Iraq and Lebanon, an allegation that the commander of the opposition Free Syrian Army, Gen. Salim Idriss, also recently made to Amanpour.

Lebanon and Iraq denied the claims at the time, and CNN's Barbara Starr reported that, if true, the claim would fundamentally shift the assessments of U.S. intelligence officials.

The U.N. Security Council, capping a dramatic month of diplomacy, voted unanimously September 27 to require Syria to eliminate its arsenal of chemical weapons -- or face consequences.

"Today's resolution will ensure that the elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons program happens as soon as possible and with the utmost transparency and accountability," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.

The U.N. resolution was based on a deal struck this month between the United States and Russia that averted an American military strike over allegations the Syrian government used sarin nerve gas in an August 21 attack on a Damascus suburb. U.S. officials said it left at least 1,400 people dead.

 

As I said before this is about the best of bad solutions.