Last edited by shrubnose; 08-26-13 at 06:07 PM.
Or say he stops using chemical munitions for two months, then starts up again. I don't think most people would consider that a new problem to deal with. Any more than the current situation is to previously reported chemical use. It's all one of the same.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating we do anything. We had some of the very same conditions listed in our reasons for war with Iraq and the left acted like they never existed, all for political reasons. What's going on in Syria could become very tough going and the left has a proven track record of the stunts they will do when the going gets tough. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble for America and especially our troops even if it's the right thing to do.
"“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama
Western leaders mull military response in Syria
Western leaders are discussing whether to stage a military response to last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. France and Germany, which refused to support the 2003 Iraq invasion, suggested Monday they may take part. Russia said any such intervention would violate international law.
Secretary of State John Kerry says chemical weapons were used in Syria, accuses President Bashar Assad of destroying evidence, and says the U.S. has additional information about the attack and will soon make it public. Kerry calls the attack a "moral obscenity" that should shock the conscience of the world.
"They cannot produce evidence, but keep on saying that the 'red line' has been crossed and they cannot wait any longer," he said at a Moscow news conference.....snip~
Western leaders mull military response in Syria
Furthermore intervention in Syria will look a lot more like Kurdistan 1992 than Iraq 2003, no one worth their salt is considering an armed occupation.
Last edited by Red_Dave; 08-26-13 at 06:54 PM.
Russia's two-and-a-half year dispute with the West over the conflict in Syria hit a new peak Monday as Moscow warned against military action without UN approval and cast doubt over the regime's involvement in a claimed chemical weapons attack.
A telephone call Monday between Russian President Vladimir Putin and British Prime Minister David Cameron underlined how far apart Moscow and the West were.
With clamour growing in Western states for military action against Assad, Russia warned such intervention would destabilise the entire Middle East and be based on false reasoning.
"If force is used without a UN resolution it will lead to very serious consequences in relations between Russia and the United States and its NATO partners," said Alexander Filonik, a Middle East expert at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
At a hastily called news conference Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said any use of force against Syria without UN approval would be a "very grave violation of international law."
He said ideas floated in the West about knocking out the regime's military infrastructure and helping hand victory to rebels were not just an "illusion" but a "grave mistake that will not lead to any peace, but only mark a new, even bloodier stage of the war in Syria."
Taking military action against Assad would be a clear sign from the West that it does not want to take account of Moscow's opinion, Maria Lipman of the Carnegie Centre in Moscow told AFP.
"Moscow could not let that go by without a response," she said, adding that Russia could hit back by strengthening military cooperation with the Assad regime.
"London and Washington... just need a guilty verdict (on Assad). Any other verdict will be rejected," the head of the lower house of Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee, Alexei Pushkov, wrote on Twitter.....snip~
Russia, West on collision course over Syria
AFP – 4 hrs ago <<<<< More here.
Honestly, I could care less if Syrians chem each other. Let 'em. It doesn't threaten us in one single way. Idk where we get off being the moral police of the world but apparently, regardless of party, every POTUS believes we are. Almost every lefty on this thread wants to say that cruise missiles are different from troops. I'm pretty sure the Syrian mom/child on the other end of the ordinance would disagree. Both kill someone we shouldn't put ourselves in position to kill. Period. But, I wouldn't expect Pres Obama to receive the same treatment. When GW Bush wanted to go to Iraq for Desert Storm, only 11 Dems voted for it. The rest vehemently opposed. His son wanted to go to Iraq as well. After the initial "forced" vote that they had to do because of 9/11, they all switched up on him and began criticizing. Haven't heard that much with Pres Obama. Haven't heard the back biting on his partial surge in Afghanistan that didn't work. Haven't heard much about him dropping Hellfires on civilians. Didn't hear much about him bombing Libya and putting Delta Force in there. Didn't hear much about him violating Pakistan's sovereignty to get Bin Laden (to be fair, I was all about that as well). And now we're poised to go down the same road with Syria as we did with Iraq. Not hearing much about that. If anything should give us pause, it's that the war mongering John McCain is all about us doing something to Syria. I rest my case.
“Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
I don't trust the Saudis, Qatar or the Frogs. After over four years of one lie after another lie I can no longer trust a word coming from the Obama administration. It's pretty bad when you can't even trust the accuracy of when the unemployment and GDP numbers are released. "It was all about a video." How stupid does Obama think Americans are ? Only 52 % of Americans are stupid.
Where are our carriers ? Why isn't their a CSG in the 6th Fleet AOR ? The past eleven Presidents always were able to keep a carrier in the Med 24/7. One carrier in on station in the 5th Fleet AOR. One is not where it's suppose to be, but is in the 7th Fleet AOR because the carrier that is suppose to be assigned to the 7th Fleet is broken down in Japan.
Earlier last month I listened to the Chief of Naval Operations explain how bad of shape our Navy is in under Obama, that the Navy's carrier that is suppose to be the "surge" carrier in case WW lll broke out can't "surge" (deploy) because the sailors aren't up to par in training for deployment. I suppose instead of training for deployment they find themselves sitting in classrooms attending mandatory sensitivity training instead of training for war.
This is ridiculous to for us to try and get involved in this. But Johnny Quest McCain and Corker are thinking surgical strike.