Are we (the USA) really going to launch an unprovoked attack upon Syria? Really

1. 67

   Missing Linkposted 11 years ago

   Are we (the USA) really going to launch an unprovoked attack upon Syria?  Really?
   
   Obama said a long time ago if the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in Syria it would cross a line.   The last thing Asaad wanted was to have USA involvement.   So, it makes no sense whatsoever that his regime would use chemical weapons. I agree with Vladimir Putin who has said this defies all logic.  So, there must be another explanation like someone else or some other country manipulated this to happen, perhaps it was an accident of some sort, etc.
   
   I'm not convinced at all that we (the USA) are in possession of ironclad evidence that it was a purposeful attack by the Asaad regime.

   report
2. 48

   Ericdierkerposted 11 years ago

   My friend. We are already boots on the ground there. We are already manipulating and actively involved. This is what we do. The tide is already shifting. What you should concern yourself with is how damn fast we can get out. By the time you read a "news" report about our involvement, some of our people are already extracted.
   Sometimes I shake my head in wonder that people think we send in combat forces like ducks. We have been doing this stuff since the 40's of the last century.
   By the time you think you have enough intelligence to get belligerent it is de facto and done.
   Before Congress acts publicly our major role there will be done. Our hard part will be deciding whether to leave it alone or try to help shape the reformation. Our people already have that scenario done.
   Assad is killing children. War kills children. War is bad. Syria is not a place for "arms dealers" of importance to make money. End of conflict,, it does no one well.
   Syria needs to be resolved. It is ruining commerce. Syria needs to be resolved it is killing children.
   We are the Ugly Americans. Get over it!  You watch. This deal is done within 90 days. Assad is gone already. We are already in Iran and that "civil" conflict will begin in that time. We have got to destabilize regimes that become rogue.
   North Korea and Iran are destabilizing to prosperity. Syria was but Syria is like the last quarter of a football game with one team ahead by 40 points.
   It is more important for us to end Syria because of Iran than because of Syria.
   But Children are dying and that is not part of the plan. Just like girls getting to go to school. There is a bottom line. Assad is a dead man walking. He just blew it and let it go on too long. So Russia and China will diplomatic speak but not intervene.

   report
   1. 40

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Its all done at the whim of the big shadow masters who run the multinational corporations that make their fortunes from war. Like Halliburton, the Federal Reserve, hidden with names like Black Water. It all about money as is NATO and the UN and WMF

      report
   2. 67

      Missing Linkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You seem cynical but I suspect you are also right on.  Part of me thinks like you do plus I have connections who say similar things as you.   
      There was a mass uprising a few years ago in Iran---wonder why we did not help more then?

      report
   3. 37

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly right Borsia - but people don't want to see that, they still see this as some "moral" issue we have to step in. How moral of us was it to kill all those Iraqi people over WMD's that don't exist? what people believe still baffles me.

      report
   4. 48

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Lunar Landing, Holocaust, schools bombed in Afghanistan because girls attend --- all hoax's?  I have never heard an Iraqi complain about liberation. But I will make sure to tell the sailors I see today that they are just stooges.

      report
   5. 37

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Don't go there with me Eric, my family is all military. They know Iraq was a farce because some were there - were you? didn't think so.

      report
   6. 48

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well yes I have been there. But I do not think It is relevant. But you beat me hands down --- anyone who can call 100,000+ dead a "farce" is way above my pay grade.

      report
   7. 85

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I am afraid it is you who don't know what you are talking about @Christin or at least how to clearly state it. Iraq was no farce to the people who fought and died in it, you disrespect them, they weren't laughing, just as I wasn't laughing in Vietnam

      report
   8. 48

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you my friend for serving along side My father and uncles in law. Perhaps my wife would not be alive if not for your service.

      report
   9. 37

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I don't dishonor their service, I disrespect a government that lied to send them to die for no good reason. Tell my sister her best friend had to die of suicide after returning home - he never belonged there none of them did.

      report
   10. 48

       Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Nope I will tell the girl Now twenty who just graduated from school. I will tell the little boy who now has clean drinking water. And I will tell the Vet who got shot carrying a little girl out of an IED explosion. I will tell them they are dupes.

       report
   11. 40

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I love it when somehow seeing Vietnam or Iraq for what they were is disrespectful of those who served there, like they had a choice.
       McNamara admitted on his death bed that the Gulf of Tonka was fabricated and the war was a horrible mistake.

       report
   12. 48

       Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Sorry buddy I have a wife and a child that would not be alive if not for our "conflict" in Vietnam. Call it as you see it. But I sure love this lady born there in the 70's

       report
   13. 85

       My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were farces, many times over.  Iraq was a war we weren't supposed to be in, but in it we were.  Once committed, we should have conducted it like it was WW II, instead, they toyed with it like it was Granada.

       report
   14. 40

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       You can't fight a full scale mechanized war against a gruella foe.
       This is why we lost the war in Vietnam, and really haven't won in Iraq even though we took out the official Iraqi military in something like 2 months. Things are going back to chaos.

       report
   15. 85

       My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       @Borsia, of course you are right.  I was more referring to the "in it to win it" concept of WW II, regardless of the strategy needed.  The one Bush, et al used was wrong.  Gen Petraeus  and Obama, in his support of his concept, were right.

       report
   16. 40

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The only ones who can possibly win in such a situation are the people of the country. But it has to be their doing not the act of a foreign power.
       The USSR failed in Afghanistan and they went "all in" with no holds barred.
       Its just not winnable.

       report
   17. 85

       My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       That is how we finally got the upper hand in Iraq.  Instead of fighting against the Sunni's and a lot of Shi'ites; Petraeus, through diplomacy, civic actions, and bribes peeled them away from al Qaeda and over to our effort rather than fighting us.

       report
   18. 40

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       We won against the Iraqi military but Iraq lost. Now we are leaving it is falling back into the hands of the extremists. Terrorist acts are way up infighting among the different groups is running rampant and there is no reason to see improvement.

       report
   19. 85

       My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It depends on where you sit, doesn't it.  Kurds would probably not agree with you, the families of the 250,000 - 1,000,000 Hussein gassed or whisked off in the dead of night to kill, probably wouldn't agree either.  Ba'athists would, however.

       report
   20. 40

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The fractions will continue to kill each other just as they have for the last millennium.
       We directly and indirectly killed more than Saddam did and they in worse shape now than when we attacked them.
       Regardless it wasn't our problem or business

       report
3. 37

   ChristinSposted 11 years ago

   It wasn't. It is a lie just like Iraq was and it's for profit and control of the oil fields - that's all it is, all it has ever been about. America doesn't get involved in humanitarian crises in a country unless it's of some benefit to them. It is a sad state of affairs that I wish people would wake up and see is true.  Fortunately, this time I think more people are highly skeptical after the antics of the Bush years. They saw that it was a pack of lies and are much more aware this time they are being sold a bill of goods.

   report
   1. 48

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Oh missy -- look up the USS Hope and USS Comfort (AH-6) and USS Mercy (AH-8)  Those babies are bad ass. They sail so fast and so far. They got weapons of mass love and humanity. Where there is a tsunami, where there is famine. This horrible ships are

      report
   2. 85

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Great points @Erick

      report
   3. 67

      Missing Linkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The Iraq WMD thing is hanging over our heads.

      report
   4. 48

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ah -- no it is not -- only in American Mass Media. If some talking head is still saying we should not have gone into Iraq Wow!! I would really like a link -- missing or otherwise to that fine guru. I want to forward it to the women have graduated.

      report
4. 73

   chuckd7138posted 11 years ago

   I really don't have an answer per se, but I do have this question.
   
   If Obama voted against going to war in Iraq in 2003 and has spent his entire tenure in the Oval Office with an agenda of bringing home the troops and ending our involvement in the War on Terror, why then would he speak of an "unprovoked" military action against Syria?
   
   All I am trying to do is present a different angle. If a guy has spent his whole political career as an anti-war, anti-conflict advocate (and hell, even anti-military in some of his words), where is the logic in him starting a war/military action just for grins and giggles? So, it might not be "unprovoked". The message could be seen as "If you violate the rules/laws of war, you will face the consequences of it."
   
   And as for Putin, he comes from the Communist Soviet Union. Yes, he is President of the Russian Republic now, but he has made it very clear time and again that he still believes in Soviet Communism. He hates democracy, hates capitalism, and hates the USA. So, of course he will find every opportunity to criticize us and anything we do in regards to foreign affairs.

   report
   1. 40

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      He has a history of saying one thing while doing another and has always been in the pockets of big money.

      report
   2. 67

      Missing Linkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I hear u.  I think our establishment sees it like this---we r the global police with the most power and means to punish.  Obama should not have said awhile back that  using a chem attack would cross a line cause now it has happened--.

      report
   3. 40

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Obama has always been a "talk first, think later" kinda guy

      report
5. 85

   My Esotericposted 11 years ago

   From the phrasing of your question, it sounds like you would sit ideally by while Russian invaded Canada; so long as they stayed off of American soil, we are not "provoked", therefore no harm no foul.
   
   Of course Assad would use chemical weapons.  He assumed the world has no balls or gonads, plus he has got the Russians in his hip pocket.  The English only proved his point that he can use chemical weapons to his hearts content and people with your political persuasion are happy to let him do it. 
   
   Assad knows all of this.  He also knows he was, or maybe is, losing.  He certainly was until his terrorist group the Hezbollah bailed him out a few weeks ago.  Assad has all of the reason in the world to use WMD.

   report
   1. 67

      Missing Linkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You have some good points but why us?   What do you think about the USA not going thru the UN when we always tell others to take it to the UN.  We are saying heck with UN---we will do what we want to do---I think much of the world resents that.

      report
6. 60

   duffsmomposted 11 years ago

   I'm not sure that I would agree with the term unprovoked.  I don't think a strike on Syria is the answer but quite honestly I don't know what is.   If Syria used chemical weapons on their own people, why doesn't the Saudi military get in there and do something...why does it have to be the US?
   
   And what are the consequences of our involvement with regard to retaliation against Jordan and Israel?  Wish I knew what was right.

   report
   1. 67

      Missing Linkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Right!  Why doesn't someone else closer do something?  Why us?  The Arab League has suspended Syria from the league...  We are not going thru the UN which I also don't like---we always tell others they have to go thru the UN...

      report
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

   If any of you can stand by as they deliver  a chemical death to a child and not be , even blindingly angry and resolute in its  ending ,  I feel sorry for your naiveté', ......remember a guy named Hitler ? Hmmm? .....bring on the "controversy "!

   report
   1. 85

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I just listened to Sen Rand Paul embarrass himself answer SefDef's rhetorical question to him "Is it more or less likely Assad will use WMD if we do nothing", to which Paul responds "No one knows for sure"!!  What an idiot.

      report
   2. 37

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Rwanda, Darfur, apparently our country can turn a blind eye when it doesn't benefit their financial agenda. It's not that I don't personally care, I mind that we are being lied to about the real motive.

      report
   3. 0

      CalebSparksposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The US doesn't have solid proof that chem. weapons were used or who used them. Read this:  http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/08 … g-roberts/

      report
   4. 85

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Chem puts mass murder into a whole new realm and requires immediate response, as odd as that sounds.  As I understand it, several nations now regret their inaction in Rwanda and wish they had chosen differently. Darfur, million tears; diplomatic end

      report
   5. 48

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well now ahorseback and My esoteric are you two do not know what you are talkiing about. I live in a town where battle fatigues are more normal than ties. All Volunteer and two were pumping there hands up and yelling Syria Hoorah Syria Hoorah.

      report
   6. 85

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Not sure what you mean @Eric

      report
   7. 67

      Missing Linkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Caleb--I did read article-thanks!  We do seem selective n which atrocity we get involved n but makes sense too...or does it? I also did not get Eric's comment..  Horseback-we ain't sure who did what though but I hear ya.

      report
   8. 48

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry about that comment. I think my boy came in and jumped in my lap with a Popsicle instead of delete submit got hit..I know I wanted to make the point that our military -- grunts that is, are behind taking action. Their lives not mine.

      report
   9. 85

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      As soon as I read "... the US puppet, Cameron, who ..." in the article @Caleb posted, I knew this was a piece of comedic satire and not to be taken seriously, so I stopped wasting my time..

      report
8. 40

   Borsiaposted 11 years ago

   One thing that isn't mentioned in the American media is the question of whether it isn't just as likely, or even more likely, that the "rebel fighters", most of who are Islamic extremists like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Taliban did it?
   We know that these groups have no  regard for human life and this is who Obama is talking about aiding, our sworn enemies who have vowed to the destruction of the West especially America.
   
   Having the US & NATO get involved plays right into their hands and is probably the last thing the Syrian government would want to see happen.
   
   Look at history such as WWII when the Soviets under Stalin dressed in captured German uniforms and terrorized Eastern Europe murdering, raping and torturing hundreds of thousands then playing it for all they could against Germany.
   
   The US should stay out of it completely, for that matter we should get out of the Middle East completely.
   
   None of it is in America's best interest. It is ALL for the profiteers and they don't care who wins or looses or how many die or have their lives destroyed so long as they fill their pockets.
   Obama is in league with them and always has been.
   
   The problem with history is that we never learn a single thing from it! It just keeps on repeating and so long as the Democrats and Republicans are in control America will continue to fall in their wake.
   
   For those who love to harp on Hitler and WWII I suggest you watch this documentary about what really happened politically leading up to the war and during it.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thxwswhq6d4
   
   Stop looking at one side of every coin and thinking you are seeing the whole picture. You are only seeing the views that those who won want you to see!
   
   Until you have lived outside the US you will never realize how much your government controls what you see, hear and think!!!

   report
   1. 67

      Missing Linkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I am not convinced at all that the chemical attack was purposely done by the Asaad regime.  I do not believe our USA politicians who say they are sure.  It looks like we are going to attack though.  Hope we are doing the right thing--what a mess!

      report
   2. 40

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Just remember how they were so sure before we attacked Iraq and all their WMDs.
      These people, and I use the term vaguely, will do anything to serve their puppet masters. They are OWNED !!!

      report
   3. 37

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I live in the US and still understand - but that's because I open my eyes and look at sources outside the US for my info. I agree with you about this, it's about money always has been, always will be.

      report
   4. 67

      Missing Linkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Borsia,
      
      I don't agree with everything you say here but agree with enough of it  to reward you with the best answer.  Congrats!  Thank you everybody for having participated and further comments, if possible once best answer is chosen, are welcome.

      report
9. 0

   delleaposted 11 years ago

   This video offers significant evidence and a good answer to your question...
   http://youtu.be/6Wh_j981T0c

   report
   1. 67

      Missing Linkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      but it does not address my question per chemical attack, etc., the rebels are a patchwork of groups, one cannibal nut case does not represent all of them no more than Jeffrey Dahmer represents all Americans, I hear you though--I do

      report
10. 67

    Missing Linkposted 11 years ago

    Since my initial post, it does appear more that it was Asaad who launched the attack but I'm still not totally sure---who is?
    
    But I still don't think we should attack and here are just a few reasons.  We have no significant UN resolutions.  The British voted no on getting involved.   A majority of Americans don't want us to attack.  A great many (a  majority??) of or politicians don't want to attack.  We will see what the official vote is sometime in the next week per Congress, etc.  If our political body votes not to attack then Obama will be a nut case if he goes ahead and does it.  If he does do it, without any backing, then it is aggression by us in my opinion.  Sorry for those who have died there.
    
    Now if we bomb and it turns out great, Asaad leaves,  a functioning govt takes hold, etc.  that would be nice....I don't see that happening though  do you??  It would still be aggression by us though if Obama does it without any backing. 
    
    I think the Soviets are getting more upset also at us---not good.
    
    Let them fight and let's fix things here in the USA.

    report