The Syrian Civil War Thread - part 2

[Condottiere 40K]

Especially if the normal political calculus tells them that they should be gifted the White House in the next election cycle.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Oh well, let me know when you're interested in discussing the real issue instead of retarded comebacks and misleading arguments.

Talk about real issues yet you were speaking "hypothetically" concerning Assad supporting global terrorism if he won the war? I see a contradiction.

[Gaius Marius Maximus]

the deployment of naval forces near the syrian coast 03 sep 2013.

[PointOfViewGun]

The congress debate is now live on C-SPAN.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Hilarious that Kerry is now beating the war drums after being so critical of Bush's war in Iraq where we KNEW Saddam gassed the Kurds. How hypocritical.

[hellheaven1987]

Yes I do find Kerry's super aggressive attitude in past few months quite unusual.

[Thorn777]

So the Boener is now endorsing the war as well. Wonder what goodies Obama gave him in exchange. Some social-security cuts maybe. Maybe some foodstamp cuts. Maybe some more chained CPI scheming.

What murderes and thieves they are...the lot of them. "Showbusiness for ugly people".

[Gaidin]

Yes I do find Kerry's super aggressive attitude in past few months quite unusual.

Hilarious that Kerry is now beating the war drums after being so critical of Bush's war in Iraq where we KNEW Saddam gassed the Kurds. How hypocritical.

You guys might find this a bit odd to grasp, but this isn't Kerry's presidency, nor is it twenty years after the chemical weapons were used.

[Carpathian Wolf]

So what?

[Col. Tartleton]

We should not allow ourselves to get in these positions where best case scenario if we act we have little to gain and where if we do not act we have much to lose.

If we do nothing we have to deal with the consequences of our false promises and generally shafting "the good guys" to the neutral position that favors "the bad guys."

As far as I'm concerned it's in Syria's best interest to end this war quickly and have Assad bring stability back, with minimal reprisals against the insurgency and the people of Syria.

Obama's plan as it exists is to kill a relatively few people and destroy some materiel for no strategic or even tactical gain, merely to "do something" about Syria. He's screwed this scenario up so badly for himself. If Congress doesn't approve this mission, which worse they don't have to approve, he may as well resign. His second term will be ruined.

This is a shameful display.

[Gaidin]

So what?

Try this one on for size, Kerry doesn't peddle his own policy when it's not his Presidency, genius. He advises, but this is Obama's policy for him to enact at the State Department. If that means Kerry gets hyper aggressive about making a case about Syria using chemical weapons, guess what Kerry does.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Try this one one for size "genius" (as you put it), nobody said other wise so your arguing with the wind. Figure out some basic English comprehension before you call people names "genius."

[Kitsunegari]

Gawd, Kerry sounds so dumb, well he supposedly had worse grades than Bush at Yale.

[Kitsunegari]

So why is Turkey not on board ? Kind of odd.

[Col. Tartleton]

So why is Turkey not on board ? Kind of odd.

Realistically? Because if we, the superpower based thousands of miles away start chucking rockets in all willy nilly at paper targets with our sea assets the US isn't really committing to this, but Turkey will have to deal with the ground conflict that will inevitably emerge from a Turkish move.

Now, if we were going in to destroy the chemical weapons and kill anyone loyalist, rebel, terrorist or otherwise who wants a piece, then yeah, Turkey would move their forces in I imagine.

But that'd be a competent (militarily) if hugely expensive and unpopular move, so I think we can say that is off the table.

[Roma_Victrix]

Hilarious that Kerry is now beating the war drums after being so critical of Bush's war in Iraq where we KNEW Saddam gassed the Kurds. How hypocritical.

Damn. That is a really good point! There's also that uncomfortable fact that during Reagan's administration in the 80s we silently approved Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War. When it was used against people we Americans didn't particularly like for booting out our embassy a few years prior, we had no problem with it and certainly didn't point to the Geneva Convention.

I sympathize with the millions of Syrian refugees and certainly the millions still stuck in the crossfire of civil war, but what would a limited air strike actually do to help their plight? Not much, I would imagine, unless we repeatedly pounded the living hell out of Assad's infrastructure on a countrywide basis. I don't think the American people even have the stomach for that.

[PointOfViewGun]

So why is Turkey not on board ? Kind of odd.

Turkey, more correctly AKP government is on board, probably before U.S. was. They simply don't have the same capabilities to strike Syria without risking Turkish soldiers or pilots. Instead they supply the rebels.

[Sphere]

Hilarious that Kerry is now beating the war drums after being so critical of Bush's war in Iraq where we KNEW Saddam gassed the Kurds. How hypocritical.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

You are awfully brave to be throwing around the word hypocrisy when you are suggesting that western inaction when Saddam used chemical weapons to clear out rebellious population centers was wrong, but now when Assad is doing the same thing inaction is the correct course to take. It is an impossible argument to make but you seem to take it up without hesitation.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Where did i say western inaction was wrong? I simply pointed out how Kerry bad mouthed the Iraq War even though by his standards it has more justification than a war in Syria. And BTW we don't know that it was Assad that used the chemical weapons. Stop speaking as if it's fact.

[hellheaven1987]

You guys might find this a bit odd to grasp, but this isn't Kerry's presidency, nor is it twenty years after the chemical weapons were used.

So he constantly dragged Obama into stupid things also is part of Obama's policies (like, you know, happily announced White House was the one back-stabbed Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and supported the coup)?

Kerry's actions in past few months show that he loves to push too far using overaggressive words, and hence left little flexibility when things turn out not what Obama wished.