Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

[KevinNYC]

thats a crazy characterization kevin, but you've been misconstrued as well so forget that. since you're pretty much the insidehoops posterboy for unqualified acquiescence of obama administration policy, lemme as you a few questions

So you feel free to misconstrue as well?

[RidonKs]

So you feel free to misconstrue as well?

i think that's a pretty apt characterization of how the majority if insidehoops feels about you, regardless of its accuracy... which is why i aimed those questions at you, as well as the fact that i reckon you'll give a coherent response. i'm also curious whether you've just been playing devils advocate through most of this thread, which is like 90% anti-intervention, or if you really do support a retaliation of some sort. so im curious what that retaliation might actually look like, what you feel justifies it, and how predictable you feel are the outcomes.

[KevinNYC]

but if so, on what basis do you support them?

I do on balance support military strikes against Syria. I think keeping the international taboo on chemical weapons is a big deal.

Let me ask you, if it's proven to your satisfaction that Assad did order this chemical attack on civiliains, what should be the response of the US/international community.

I burned the sausages by the way.

EDIT: I should say the Syrian army not Assad, because supposedly the intercepted communications show part of Syrian government freaking out about the attacks to another part of the Syrian government.

[gigantes]

@bdreason,
i was with you until you recommended israel deal with this on their own... that israel send the bombs / drones / whatnot over instead of the US. okay, that would almost be like committing suicide for israel from what i understand of that region. it just looks allah-awful.


@NYCdude,
yikes, saturated fat alert! but earlier i treated myself to an open-faced turkey reuben today... no cheese, no dressing and combined it with a chopped veggie salad. so far, so good. then i see it came with fries. and as i walked them over to the trash i wound up eating half of them.


@most people here,
it looks like NYCdude is responding directly to your complaints to me. possibly asking you to entertain a couple new facts or his reasoning in most cases. most of you sound pretty bitter about that. go figure.

btw, apart from the fact that i still don't know this situation very well, i certainly don't like obama's desired action. to me, the UN voted against it. britain voted against it. syria used sarin gas missiles...? okay, that's life! they got away with this one... let it go. they would obviously be insane to do so again, since the UN would probably vote for retaliation next time. let it go, mister obama. this isn't a perfect world.

now, is there some other factor(s) i'm not considering?

[HarryCallahan]

The policy being proposed is not intervention. It's a response to use of chemical weapons. Whatever you think of Obama, given that the civil war with Syria has been going on for 2.5 years, it's not fair to say he's raging to intervene.

-If two guys are fighting in a bar and I kick one in the balls, i'm intervening. No?
-Obama's intervention was/is inevitable. Romney/McCain/Hillary would all have done the same. Most likely soon, so i'll credit him there.

As for the bolded; The US claiming some sort of position of World Police, acting on behalf of the world is ridiculous when so many nations are warning of the potentially catastrophic outcomes. The US cannot cite enforcement of the chemical weapons treaty because:
a) Syria is not a signatory.
b) The treaty does not include a provision that declares non-signers as outlaws, nor the US as world policeman.

Even if the U.S. has accurately identified a world moral condemnation of a Syrian gas attack, it does not follow that bombing Syria is itself a moral method of altering Syrian behavior.

[RidonKs]

okay, that would almost be like committing suicide for israel from what i understand of that region.

israel invaded lebanon just seven years ago killing thousands, and twenty years ago killing tens of thousands. its also bombed multiple russian shipments in syrian territory heading to hizballah just in the past few months. it shouldn't (nor would it) be thrilled with a rebel victory in syria, but since its regional nemesis is iran, it currently favours the side with overwhelming strategic and military dominance... that includes qatar, saudi arabia, turkey, the united states, france, england, etc etc etc.

and then there's the fact that it's currently got the strongest conventional force in the region and holds the only nukes as well, making it a death sentence for any sovereign government that actually attempts to fight it.

oh and additionally, if any conceivable threat came to israel, the united states would jump in immediately, no hesitations, and probably with the support of a reasonably number of americans.

israel is in very little danger here even if they did take an aggressive position like punishing assad itself

which of course it would never do so its a moot point lol

[HarryCallahan]

@bdreason,
i was with you until you recommended israel deal with this on their own... that israel send the bombs / drones / whatnot over instead of the US. okay, that would almost be like committing suicide for israel from what i understand of that region. it just looks allah-awful.

Then you have very little knowledge on the area.

Syria has a modest military, as evidenced by the fact that a loosely organised coalition of terrorists and sunni militias managed to make a lot of gains, and even took a number of major cities.

Israel is one of the worlds greatest military super-powers. The conscript youth for mandatory service, so they have numbers. They get discounted military equipment from the US, which combined with the aid they also get and their bloated military budget means they are well armed. Israel has the "Iron Dome" missile defence system. Israel has nuclear ICBM's, and a President who will use them.

[gigantes]

israel's attack capability is not my point. has nothing to do with my point.

same for the threat of the US swooping in. not my point either.

AFAIK israel's previous military actions in the region have all been more strategically defensible and restrained. maybe i'm wrong about that, though.

my point is-- given the situation, it seems like it might well enrage the surrounding region. i mean, israel's precariousness and blood pressure is already not a good situation. they're not doing so hot overall from what i know, both economically and in terms of alert state and relations.


no reason i know of for israel to do something like that if the US can pull the action. US likely pays for it either way, and the clusterf-ck factor is certainly reduced.

[ace23]

What's going on in Syria again?

[HarryCallahan]

What's going on in Syria again?

[ace23]

I know rebels are doing some shit. Idk

[gigantes]

What's going on in Syria again?

nothing much.

it's just the latest reality show, and viewer response has been great so far. might get renewed at this rate.

[B-hoop]

Nothing will be done, i really doubt Obama will really send the missiles at Syria this week or anytime soon. They were very careful to say that they will consult with Congress before any action and that missiles may be sent "today, tomorrow, in a month" which mean they will wait until the UN has decided if a chemical weapon was used and who used it.

They have absolutely no support for an attack from any nation other than Israel.

If an attack is launched before the UN's declaration it will be extremely irresponsible from a diplomatical viewpoint. As Putin said, if there is proof that the attack was launched by the Syrian government then show it to the Security Council.

[KevinNYC]

israel invaded lebanon

My in-laws are Syrian and Lebanese too.

[KevinNYC]

They have absolutely no support for an attack from any nation other than Israel.

France is for it and has said they will offer military support. The 22 nation Arab League is for it. Even the UK's vote against it, was discussed in the House of Commons was framed as let's wait to see what the UN testing show. Turkey is for it. It's universal support, but it's not just Israel. But the good news it we can eat French fries again.

As to the comment earlier that the UN voted it down....I don't think the UN has taken any vote, it just that Russia which has close ties to Syria for decades make it a sure thing they would veto any Security Council resolution.