No, at bare minimum this will destabilize the entire middle east, and depending on how much russia defends Assad, could quite literally spiral into a world war.
Meanwhile, the stupid rebels released te video of them launching the weapons, and talking about loadin up the sarin gas. Then the supposed "proof" is actually of the generals and all greaking out about who had launched the attack, who had authorized it and just generally freaking out; the exact opposite reaction you would expect if they had done it. BUT for the benefit of doubt let's say there is no real evidence, but the mere fact that chemical weapons have been used is justification enough.
This literally is aiding Alquaida and their allies, or have we forgotten that already?
I say Congress should vote no, and Obama should go it alone. Let him show his true colors.
I agree there should action. The quesion is...against who? Why didnt the administration demand action after the attacks in May? I suspect the biggest problem is that it is the O-buddies that are the ones using the chemical weapons and thats why he didnt demand action last time.
I admit, what I've outlined to you privately may well seem rather farfetched, but if you would read the linked articles in view of my concerns maybe you'd see the possibility of things getting out of hand in somewhat the same way as I do.
U.N. weapons inspectors return from Syria as clock ticks
How Revolution in Syria could act as NKorea tipping point
Syria allies: Why Russia, Iran and China are standing by the regime
The President is saying the right things concerning having a small footprint in Syria's civil striff, i.e., limit involvement, no boots on the ground, no regime change, but if this thing should escalate and other nation's get involved who aren't part of a U.N.-sponsored coalition, I think things could turn out really bad.
The U.N. inspectors have all but confirmed that chemical weapons were used; they just haven't (or can't) confirm who used them - the Syria Army, the rebel forces or the "third head of the snack" that is Islamic insurgents. So, IMO, it would be foolish to launch an aerial attack when you really don't know who launched the chemical weapons. From a purely "limited" involvement standpoint, I firmly believe it would be better to arm the opposition force against Assad who U.S./U.N. believes is best equipped to defeat Assad but would not cause further destabilization of the area should he be removed from power. Otherwise, you stand to leave another part of the Middle-East in a leaderless vacuum.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-01-13 at 01:39 PM.
"A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground
How do we choose where we intervene militarily?
I know Syria is all the rage right now because of the use of chemical weapons, but why not anywhere else atrocities are being committed by regimes against their own people?
Why not Mogadishu in Somalia?
Why not any number of African nations where religious and or tribal atrocities are occurring everyday?
We speak of the US filling the role of "world policeman" is that really the role? Police solve crimes, we are not and have never done that. More accurately for the last nearly 70 years we have been the worlds military - a role much different than that of police.
I remember in the 1960's a commercial that said "what if there was a war and no one showed up?
Call me isolationist, but it is time we stopped showing up.
in unspoken fears.
Where he really missed the boat is turning to congress. He SHOULD have turn back to the UN. He ought to be banging the drum LOUDLY, daily, and calling for UN involvement due to the use of the chemical weapons and shaming them for their inaction.
The plausibility of Syrian attacks beyond its borders is also very low but it is the only possible option that you mentioned which passes the most basic plausibility test.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
1. It will almost certainly not destabilize the Middle East. The goal of Assad is to win the Civil War and keep his regime in power. Lashing out at his neighbors will *possible* is a sure fire way to provoke a devastating response that would lead to the crumpling of his regime and possibly his death. He has thus far not responded to Israeli air strikes, not responded to Gulf sponsorship of rebel battalions, not responded to Turkish sheltering of the FSA or its own counter-barrages, and not responded to Kurdish infiltration of north-western Syria. Why? Because he wants to stay in power. The Syrian government has been extremely careful not to provoke any of its neighbors or give an excuse for intervention. This chemical attack was either an attempt to test the limits of Western commitment in Syria or the activity of a rogue brigade commander.
2. There is no chance that Russia will launch military action on behalf of Syria. None. Zilch. Nada. Not only because such an action would be ludicrous from a political perspective, but ludicrous from a military perspective. Oh and everyone from Lavrov to Putin has pretty much outlined the limits of Russian involvement. This is a fiction.
The world is not a Tom Clancy book and too many DP'ers don't seem to realize that.
Why? I see no benefit in going to war. The reality here is that going to war helps China and Russia. Why? China and Russia are more active in selling arms to the Mid East, and we come out looking like bad guys for stopping the guys they sell the guns too.
Maybe we ought to stay the hell out and let the Russians and Chinese take the heat for intervention?
The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.