That is very likely the case. Also those Cruise missiles are probably more expensive than $20 million a piece.
I have no evidence. Then again, I haven't seen the evidence that Assad was responsible either. I am not saying there isn't any, I just haven't seen it for myself yet. It's not like we didn't catch rebels with Sarin gas just a few months ago. There is a possibility that foreign rebels would attack Syrian opposition controlled areas to simulate an attack on the regime to provoke an American response that would: a) Decapitate the Syrian regime b) Make way for their own regime c) Perpetuate the image of American interference in Arab issues It's a lose-lose situation, imo. However, like I said, 100,000+ deaths? Where is the red-line for action if not the use of indiscriminate chemical weapon attacks? 200,000? 1 Million?
You're way off, Judo, my friend. It's about $1.5 million each for Tomahawk cruise missiles. Not "cheap," but not remotely as expensive as you think. For my thoughts on this topic, check KingCheetah's thread. edit: Boner Supports 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. "I am going to support the president's call for action,” he told reporters. "I believe my colleagues should support this call for action." http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...er-says-hell-back-obama-on-syria-strikes?lite
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/03/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 *sigh* Looks like war it is . . . Rocket River
Was Clinton lobbing a few missiles at Saddam a "war"? Please. I'm ambivalent about this mess, but I know that we're not sending soldiers into Syria, or anything like that. That is obvious.
Weren't we sequestering tours of the white house due to no funding? Glad the government found some money so now we can get back to what we do best.. fighting other peoples wars and being the world police.
Dude, don't worry...we got France! I didn't realize they still had any interest in the area. I know a lot of the Christian Lebanese wanted them to annex the country way back when, but I thought the whole Levant-French connection was gone by now.
Well, technically aren't these missiles already bought and paid for? The ships are going to be out using fuel somewhere, it's already paid for in the defense budget, so might as well use them. I am glad Obama got congressional approval, and if this is what Congress thinks is appropriate, so be it. However, I think it is absolutely ridiculous he drew a red-line with seemingly no strategy in place of what to do when said line was crossed. He has had a year to work with Congress, the UN and the international community, it put us in a very bad position to wait like this. Also, hasn't there been several "credible" reports of chemical weapons use in the last year? Why are we just now reacting. And lastly, what are we going to attack and what difference is it going to make? I just don't think a few missile strikes at some obscure facility are going to do anything but cause a few civilian causalities. Next thing you know we will see Assad out there in some crater with a dead baby in his hands saying look what the Americans have done? Doesn't matter how truthful it is, we can not wage a propaganda war from 7,000 miles away and win.
The evidence from what I have heard so far that Assad used the chemical weapons is this: 1. It is already known that Assad has them. 2. According to most witnesses and to US satellite tracking the shells where launched from regime controlled areas into opposition areas. 3. The vast amount of casualties are among the rebels. 4. According to US intelligence there are intercepted calls of Assad forces talking about using chemical weapons. I am not ruling out the possibility that the rebels used chemical weapons but I have seen any direct evidence that links them to it. There was a report that the Saudis gave the rebels some and some rebels were killed in an accidental discharge but that report would only account for a dozen rebels while hundreds were killed in the latest attack. The evidence for the rebel use seems speculative at best and while you outline three reasons why the rebels would do so that isn't proof that they did. I agree this is pretty much a lose lose situation which is why I don't have a solid opinion either way. There are some big problems with taking action, there are some big problems not taking action. There are some big problems with very limited strikes, there are some big problems with much stronger strikes.
I am surprised conservatives are against action since usually this is exactly the type of thing they would support. But as for me, the main problem with this thing is that it actually hurts our standing in the middle east. What we really should be trying to do is work with Russia to put an end to this war. If we went to Russia and said, hey - either you help us end this war or we will bomb the crap out of assad and tip the balance towards the rebels - they would work with us. There is no reason that we can not put together a compromise that gives all sides some level of power. Why can't you have Assad as a president and the rebels make up the legislature and then let democracy slowly take over in the course of decades. Why couldn't you create assurances that no minority would ever be out of power or oppressed? These things can be done. We don't need to fire a missile to do it. We just have to get to the brink - now we have the context. We just have to bluff and scare Russia into thinking an attack is imminent and let them be the ones who save the day by forcing Assad to the negotiating table. That is the only solution here. The only one that can get the world behind it, the only one that actually stops the slaughter of civilians, the only one that will result in stability. The problem in the middle east isn't an issue of moderates versus extremism - that of majority x and minorty y - it's about the idea that there is only absolutes. That there is sharing of power. But the reality is that you can construct a gov't made up of different factions and a bill of rights and court system that protects all minorities from what they fear most. We did here in America. Democracy isn't just about free elections - and that's what we learned in Egypt. It's about preventing oppression. That's why we have a bill of rights and constitution. And Syria is an opportunity for us to lead - not with missiles but with a pen. We need to partner with Russia and force all sides to a settlement - not "elections", but a power sharing agreement that addresses their concerns.
here is what I would tell all rebels from now on, you want US support guarantee me a secular democracy
I would take that one step further and suggest that to the whole damn middle east. But we all know that our suggestions will NEVER EVER happen there.
Assad has no reason to go to the negotiating table because (a) he's winning and (b) there seems to be little will among the international community to actually do anything. Unless someone demonstrates an actual willingness to intervene, there's no pressure on Assad to change anything. If the US chooses not to intervene, that gives him more reason to believe that.
I'm still puzzled at why Assad used chemical weapons,, he was winning using conventional warfare already.
