Glib, maybe, but no, not sarcastic. It seems apparent that the Syrian regime f****d up an killed more people in the attack then they wanted to, and have been wetting their pants since Kerry made his statements about holding them accountable. They have a lot to lose if the US strikes. Iran and Syria might be trying to deter a strike by threatening Israel, but if the US does act, and they bomb Israel, what would there be to gain? Israel could f*** them up, and we'd probably be committed to doing the same. What would Syria or Iran have to gain?
On the other hand, the Syrian regime could take the hit and choose to not antagonize the U.S. further. They know that they can go back to indiscriminately slaughtering civilians as long as they don't use CW. I just think they're rational enough to realize that.
Last edited by Captain Adverse; 09-02-13 at 02:16 AM.
If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.
The reason I think Iran retaliating against Israel is unlikely is because of how close we are to going to war with them anyway. Netanyahu's already drawn his red line, but he'd be up for fighting them before then if he's given the chance. I guess I'm just being optimistic in supposing that the parties involved are aware that WWIII could erupt over this if they overreact, and have enough rational self-interest to avoid that.
I don't know that conviction is the right word. Pragmatic, perhaps. A measured response. One strategy might be to take out Assad's telecommunications, his air fields, his missle launch sites, his palaces, a few newspaper and television stations, etc. However, it might not be a good idea to strike the chemical plants because if the plant isn't totally obliverated then some of the chemical gases could escape and kill thousands more than Assad did. That wouldn't look good, either.
Lets face it, both sides are bad. To take Assad out (regime change) is almost guarrentee that fundamental extremists will fill the void. I don't think the Russians want the latter to happen. Anyway, I think there is another option and that is to separate Syria into two countries. In a nut shell...We have only two options: 1) go in with overwhelming force to secure chem weapons (or achieve some other quantifiable objective), or 2) stay out completely
I vote 2, because we're not sure who are the good guys vice the bad guys in this. Likely both sides are both.
Assad has everything to lose and the rebels have nothing to lose.
Imo, separating Syria into two countries might be Assad's best option simply because its better than nothing which is what he will have if he keeps fighting. Diviidning Syria will at least leave Assad with a country to control albeit much smaller and the rebels who had nothing will also have something. Imo, that option opens the door to diplomatic intervention and solution.
I don't quite think that WWIII is on the horizon, but I do think that Iran could attack Israel indirectly through Hezbollah or Syria if they calculate that we are unwilling to step in. And we've pretty much told them that.
Either way, we have to ask ourselves if we are willing to accept the possibility if it's realistic...and that's a decision the president must make.
and thank you for the like - I know that I'm new on here, but extremely happy that I can have conversation with people that care about these issues.
Last edited by SBu; 09-02-13 at 03:29 AM. Reason: courtesy
Your suggestions about target are almost certainly among the top. However, how does that resolve the reasons for getting involved in the first place? More importantly, what is the next step IF escalation occurs?
I think getting both sides to agree to a "two-state solution" is unrealistic. Please google a map of rebel held syrian areas on a map, then respond to how likely a two state solution is.
Lastly, despite our passionate disagreement, thank you.