[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

And MSM finally catches up...

USS Nimitz carrier group sails into Red Sea in 'prudent' move

http://news.yahoo.com/uss-nimitz-carrier-moves-red-sea-134600633.html

There is so much idiocy with telegraphing this strike, I have never seen anything like it. We have announced what assets we have in the area, we have announced how many missiles those assets have, we have said that it will be a "limited" operation, we have even put out likely targets and how many missiles for each target. This is freaking ridiculous.

Needless to say, if strikes do occur, there will be NO element of surprise. Every significant asset Assad has will have already been moved if possible, and fixed sites will probably end up either completely empty or packed full of civilians for the martyr effect.

I have never in all of my life seen, read, or heard of such a telegraphed military strike in all of human history. Unless this is all a big ruse, this is simple... I don't even know the word for it. It goes beyond "ridiculous".

 

Getting a little crowded over there , talk about a flashpoint for ww3 .. so what are the french bringing to this party ?


Let congress know the american people want no part in a muslim war

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

 

Anguished consideration of a set of "no win" options does not look weak; it looks rational. I think everyone in the world knows we can bomb the crap out of them with impunity if we so choose. And the threat just hanging out there is the best motivator for diplomacy, though I see no real endgame. Maybe Russia guarantees the security of Syria's WMD's.

The cold hard fact is, chaos in Syria is actually a net positive for the US in world politics. It occupies and kills off Islamic radicals and keeps them focused on the internal struggle of Shia and Sunni instead of Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel, it drains resources from Iran, vilifies Russia as a supporter of genocide, an it's not our fault. We can be heroes by just being benevolent humanitarians,

 

I agree with much of your post, although some of us follow things like the movements of carrier battle groups. Also, anyone could look up how many Tomahawks an Arleigh Burke typically carries. It's no secret. Putting that aside, here's my opinion. We should have expected Assad and his minions to do something like expanding the use of his chemical weapons arsenal, and hit him as soon as we found out about this latest atrocity. We could have. We have to know where those assets are. Instead, we waited for the "international coalition" to form, which surprisingly became problematic with Cameron's humiliation in Parliament. So yes, Obama could have handled this better.

Unlike many of my fellow liberals, I also believe we should punish Assad for using chemical weapons. Preventing the illegal use of chemical weapons, in my opinion, is a liberal viewpoint, although both "sides" can agree on foreign policy from time to time.

The use of chemical weapons in war is banned under the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which states that parties "will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the" agreement. Iraq never ratified the protocol; the United States did in 1975.

(see link below for source)

In the end, assuming Congress approves a strike against Syria (now that Obama has decided to ask for approval... he didn't have to, but I'm OK with him doing that), I expect the strike to be much heavier than expected by either the media, or the Syrians themselves. Why? The President has painted himself into a corner. Had we struck Syria immediately after they had used chemical weapons in this latest atrocity, the message would have been delivered, and we could have awaited events to follow. Now? I think the President feels that we will have to do more, and I won't be surprised when he does. I expect a strike at least as extensive as that ordered by President Clinton (along with Great Britain), and conducted against Iraq in December, 1998.

There are some major differences between the 1998 strike, and a strike against Syria today. Iraq's anti-air capability was weak, never having really recovered from the first Gulf War. Syria has a massive anti-air capability. Also, the 1998 strike was aimed more at destablizing Saddam's government and reducing both his anti-air capability (this was during the days of the "No Fly Zone") and the bases of the Republican Guard in Southern Iraq, further reducing the possibility of a repeat of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. While WMD targets were hit, they weren't the main focus, regardless of what was said at the time by the Clinton Administration. Naturally, much of this is my opinion, although this information is no secret.

I'm not even mentioning President Reagan's complicity in the Iraqi use of chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...rica_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran?page=0,0

 

Sorry for the double post, but this is news.

Boner Endorses Strike Against Syria

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on Tuesday endorsed President Barack Obama’s call for military action in Syria.


Following a meeting with President Obama and other key congressional leaders on Syria, Speaker John Boehner says, "I'm going to support the president's call for action."

The top elected Republican in Washington, Boehner said following a meeting at the White House that he intended to support Obama’s plan for limited strikes against the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...er-says-hell-back-obama-on-syria-strikes?lite

"I am going to support the president's call for action,” he told reporters. "I believe my colleagues should support this call for action."

 

Darn RINOs... should be opposing Obama no matter what the President says or does.

 

The President has orchestrated this perfectly. Everyone will be on record now. You can't hide behind party lines since this issue effects left and right. Israel is for the strike as well.

 

No, absolutely not, it is a civil war, enough said. When will be learn to mind our own business. Iraq was a disaster, why even flirt with a repeat.

 

Without hesitation, No.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend in this case.

The UN should handle this. And if they don't why the hell should we care. And that attitude stems from being tired of being the world police while the world constantly tries to rip us a new one.

Now, if we can just take out Assad....different story.

 

Why we should not attack:
1. My understanding is that Syria (with the abominable Assad regime in place) is currently in a war against a rebel force with the backing of Al Qaeda. If that's the case, why would we support either side? Our enemies are essentially killing each other.
2. We do not know for sure who carried out the chemical weapons attack. Evidence points to the Assad regime, but it very well could have been the rebels who released the chemical agent on a stolen Syrian dispersal system.

Bottom line: The release of chemical weapons in Syria is heinous and unjustifiable. However, it makes little sense for the United States to get involved at this point with the information we do know. I feel terrible for the Syrian people, but I just don't see the benefits of United States intervention.

 

Spoiler

<object height="340" width="545" data="http://l3cdn.iqmediacorp.com/SWFs/iqmedia_player_resize_cdn_v1.1.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" name="HYETA" id="HUY"><param value="http://l3cdn.iqmediacorp.com/SWFs/iqmedia_player_resize_cdn_v1.1.swf" name="movie"><param value="true" name="allowfullscreen"><param value="always" name="allowscriptaccess"><param value="high" name="quality"><param value="transparent" name="wmode"><param value="embedId=6da1efff-f26e-42d6-875e-dfddef0509c2&amp;autoPlayback=false" name="flashvars"></object>

 

imo this is going to take us into the beginnings of WWIII. Russia isn't backing down and they have a lot of assets in the area.

 

I highly doubt Russia will go to war with the US over Syria particularly if the strikes are very limited.

I also don't expect any of the strikes to be anything remotely like Iraq in 2003. These strikes are going to be somewhere between what was used against the Sudan and Iraq in the late 1990's. There could also be the possibility of special forces strikes but for obvious reasons the Admin. isn't going to talk about them. Beyond that though there won't be boots in any level comparable to Iraq in 1991 and 2003, Afghanistan or even in Somalia.

Also please don't embed self-playing videos.

 

No kidding. Besides, Paul is an idiot.

 

Hardly.

The Brookings Institute noted that Russia certainly doesn't want the West dealing with Syria, but according to them, they don't think Russia will risk anything for Assad. And I'll certainly take their word over the moonbats who think war will occur.

 

Dude, why don't you contribute to ClutchFans, so you can edit your stupid posts?

 

And from the "No Sh^t, Sherlock" files, this is why you don't telegraph military operations:

Syria is said to be hiding weapons, moving troops

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-said-hiding-weapons-moving-troops-174149887.html

So... If they move everything that we want to hit, position their asserts that we want to hit in civilian areas, and bring in civilians to act as human shields in fixed sites, what, exactly, are we going to accomplish with these "limited" strikes? I still haven't heard a good answer to this.

If you're going to do it then you do it without telling the enemy what you're going to do, and then giving him time to move everything that worries you.

If we send 100 or so Tomahawks Assad's way and the damage is minimal, and Assad gives us the finger by launching another CBW attack, then what? If a Tomahawk hits a building packed with civilians, then what? If we get a lucky Tomahawk that takes Assad out, and Al Nusra/Nusra Front (Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, one of the most powerful rebel groups) takes the reigns, then what? If by hitting Assad's C4I they end up losing control of their CBW weapons, and AQ-linked rebels seize control of those weapons, then what?

These are all very plausible (some even likely) scenarios that could play out. I haven't heard any remotely good answers from the administration to these if/then questions.

This whole episode is a complete crock of sh^t and an embarrassment to the nation and to the office of POTUS. This is just pathetic.

 

treeman, I would not say "our" moves here are without precedent.

 

Let the other Arab countries sort out Syria. Called both gene Greene and Ted poe on their stance over a strike on Syria, neither had a comment on it. Does not look good.

 

That's a pretty silly comparison, B-Bob. Really. Nowhere close.

This is incompetence on display for all the world to see.