And you still have not won a war.
Syria
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
Agree with Jim R, this is turning into so much political masturbation on the part of Obama and Congress. The time for action, if one were to act, has long past. Most Americans could give a rats ass if the entire middle east went up in a cloud of chemical weapons. Of course, most Americans don't have a clue about foreign policy goals, consequences etc. but it speaks to a nation that is very tired of perpetual war and tired of the powderkeg that is the middle east. Very noble (and naive) of Jim C to say we must do something. Ultimately, "doing something" will likely fan the flames and result in greater use of chemical weapons and greater hatred of the US, which would be counterproductive to the goal of forbidding/preventing use of WMD in the first place. There are no winners and losers and certainly no good guys in Syria. Humanitarian aid at least wins a few friends and helps some innocents.
If (big if) we were going to do something we should have immediately gone in and retrieved the chemical weapons. That would serve our interests (and fuck Assad) and prevent their use again. That's a tall order and a large military operation but it would have accomplished the goal of preventing their use again and, more importantly, preventing them from falling into the the hands of someone who hates the US (damn near everyone in the region including the rebels and their al Qaida affiliates) and having them used on us.
Obama was arrogant enough to think no one would cross the "Lord Almighty Obama ye of the unearned Nobel Peace Prize" if he made a "red-line" threat. The dumbass didn't realize that threatening a despot with nothing to lose is foolish. He got caught with his pants down and didn't know what to do so his goal is clearly to blame lack of action on the republican-controlled House. Despite windbags Boehner and Cantor support and pressure from the Senate who will approve it before the House votes, the House will vote this down and it'll die. Without Congressional support, Obama sits and blames (maybe successfully) all the woes on those damn republicans.
If (big if) we were going to do something we should have immediately gone in and retrieved the chemical weapons. That would serve our interests (and fuck Assad) and prevent their use again. That's a tall order and a large military operation but it would have accomplished the goal of preventing their use again and, more importantly, preventing them from falling into the the hands of someone who hates the US (damn near everyone in the region including the rebels and their al Qaida affiliates) and having them used on us.
Obama was arrogant enough to think no one would cross the "Lord Almighty Obama ye of the unearned Nobel Peace Prize" if he made a "red-line" threat. The dumbass didn't realize that threatening a despot with nothing to lose is foolish. He got caught with his pants down and didn't know what to do so his goal is clearly to blame lack of action on the republican-controlled House. Despite windbags Boehner and Cantor support and pressure from the Senate who will approve it before the House votes, the House will vote this down and it'll die. Without Congressional support, Obama sits and blames (maybe successfully) all the woes on those damn republicans.
Just another view.
9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask
9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask
That is THEE best simple explanation of the whole picture I've ever read...and this may be its best factoid:
"6. Why hasn’t the United States fixed this yet?
Because it can’t. There are no viable options. Sorry.
GOOD FIND, sir!
Howard Jones
Supporter
OHHHHHHHHHH............I'm liking this Steve guy!
Jim, now now now.......I was very clear. And you are a very smart guy. I know you know what I said and again you chose to ignore most of my points.
President Jones will act ONLY in the interest of the US and our allies. President Jones will with the consent of congress and the American People decide what IS our best interest.
Some lunatic spraying WMD around willy nilly isn't good for America or our allies or anyone else for that matter. I would, in that case make one clear statement to stop, and at the VERY NEXT INDICATION OF AN INCIDENT squash him like a bug.
What is going on in Syria is a bunch of gangs fighting over turf. They are all gangsters and if they were in the US they would be slapped down immediately. The American people would never tolerate armies aligned with gangsters attacking innocent civilians and openly fighting large scale warfare in the streets. The people would demand immediate suppression of that level of gang warfare and the government WOULD suppress it in a matter of days if not hours.
The problem we have had in the Middle East is the FUCKING NATION BUILDING!!!!!!!!!!! The taliban should have been smashed, the country turned over to our allies there and we should have left them to their fate with the promise that if anybody in Afghanistan starts training up terrorist again the same thing is going to happen to them. Iraq was the same damn thing. We should have driven right into Bagdad and hung the fucker and his insaine sons the first time, left the place to the Iraqis, packed up, posted a big sign that said " don't make us come back, ya hear" and went home.
As president I would never tolerate two bit dictators threatening US interests. One warning and smack!!!! The rest would get the idea real quick.
But back to the middle east............Those who don't screw with us don't get killed. Those who do ..........do. Screw with us means, threatening to close the straits of hormuz, attacking our treaty partners, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Israel, Turkey, and others and aiding or allowing their country to be used as a base for terrorists to plan, train and attack us or our friends. If the rest want to confine their killing to each other they by all means do so.
Iran, is a special case. (We can, and have, gotten the Chinese to contain N Korea) They must not have nukes. They have already threatened us and our allies, including stating very clearly and in public that they will use them on Israel when they go operational. Therefor they are already in the crosshairs. Very soon, and I mean real soon, their nuke capability MUST get removed, with force if neccesary. Maybe if they believed we WOULD do it they might be worried we WILL do it. BOB will never remove Irans nukes. We will however have to cope with Israel doing it. And that will be a HUGE MESS!
Cold blooded..........you're damn right. We are not responsible for everybody on the planet because we CAN'T BE. We should do what we can that is aligned with our national conscience but there are limits to what can be done most of the time. We must recognize that and concentrate on the stuff that is most important to the US and our allies.
The muslims will have to figure out how to live in peace with each other and the rest of the world or the rest of the world will have to defend itself from them. THAT will be ugly.
Jim, now now now.......I was very clear. And you are a very smart guy. I know you know what I said and again you chose to ignore most of my points.
President Jones will act ONLY in the interest of the US and our allies. President Jones will with the consent of congress and the American People decide what IS our best interest.
Some lunatic spraying WMD around willy nilly isn't good for America or our allies or anyone else for that matter. I would, in that case make one clear statement to stop, and at the VERY NEXT INDICATION OF AN INCIDENT squash him like a bug.
What is going on in Syria is a bunch of gangs fighting over turf. They are all gangsters and if they were in the US they would be slapped down immediately. The American people would never tolerate armies aligned with gangsters attacking innocent civilians and openly fighting large scale warfare in the streets. The people would demand immediate suppression of that level of gang warfare and the government WOULD suppress it in a matter of days if not hours.
The problem we have had in the Middle East is the FUCKING NATION BUILDING!!!!!!!!!!! The taliban should have been smashed, the country turned over to our allies there and we should have left them to their fate with the promise that if anybody in Afghanistan starts training up terrorist again the same thing is going to happen to them. Iraq was the same damn thing. We should have driven right into Bagdad and hung the fucker and his insaine sons the first time, left the place to the Iraqis, packed up, posted a big sign that said " don't make us come back, ya hear" and went home.
As president I would never tolerate two bit dictators threatening US interests. One warning and smack!!!! The rest would get the idea real quick.
But back to the middle east............Those who don't screw with us don't get killed. Those who do ..........do. Screw with us means, threatening to close the straits of hormuz, attacking our treaty partners, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Israel, Turkey, and others and aiding or allowing their country to be used as a base for terrorists to plan, train and attack us or our friends. If the rest want to confine their killing to each other they by all means do so.
Iran, is a special case. (We can, and have, gotten the Chinese to contain N Korea) They must not have nukes. They have already threatened us and our allies, including stating very clearly and in public that they will use them on Israel when they go operational. Therefor they are already in the crosshairs. Very soon, and I mean real soon, their nuke capability MUST get removed, with force if neccesary. Maybe if they believed we WOULD do it they might be worried we WILL do it. BOB will never remove Irans nukes. We will however have to cope with Israel doing it. And that will be a HUGE MESS!
Cold blooded..........you're damn right. We are not responsible for everybody on the planet because we CAN'T BE. We should do what we can that is aligned with our national conscience but there are limits to what can be done most of the time. We must recognize that and concentrate on the stuff that is most important to the US and our allies.
The muslims will have to figure out how to live in peace with each other and the rest of the world or the rest of the world will have to defend itself from them. THAT will be ugly.
Last edited:
Okay...here's my view on this whole WMD situation...in Syria or wherever (not that anyone has ASKED - or gives a darn):
Whomever orders the launch of such an attack has signed his own death warrant. Period. Black ops personnel WILL be dispatched and he WILL be "killed until he dies from it" [my eldest daughter's favorite expression of frustration!]) No exceptions, no kidding. "Unintended consequences" be darned. That WILL be the guy's fate.
The way I see it there's no danged reason untold thousands of OTHER people need to die to get rid of these pukes.
Sue me.
Whomever orders the launch of such an attack has signed his own death warrant. Period. Black ops personnel WILL be dispatched and he WILL be "killed until he dies from it" [my eldest daughter's favorite expression of frustration!]) No exceptions, no kidding. "Unintended consequences" be darned. That WILL be the guy's fate.
The way I see it there's no danged reason untold thousands of OTHER people need to die to get rid of these pukes.
Sue me.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Larry,
That exactly what I have been saying!
Although I care vary much about people caught up in a revolution and I'm all for sending medical/food aid to folks who need it, particulary the hundreds of thousands of refugees in the surrounding countries. But sending troupes, not a chance.
All that said, use WMDs, you die! No excuses!
We bomb him into the ground, send Seal Teams (ala Ben Laden) and do not stop until he is dead or turned over to the World Court.
I'm very supprised as some of the folks here who take the opinion that as long as they don't gas us or our friends, then Chemical Weapons are OK.
That has to be one of the most short sighted, selfish attitudes I have ever heard!
That exactly what I have been saying!
Although I care vary much about people caught up in a revolution and I'm all for sending medical/food aid to folks who need it, particulary the hundreds of thousands of refugees in the surrounding countries. But sending troupes, not a chance.
All that said, use WMDs, you die! No excuses!
We bomb him into the ground, send Seal Teams (ala Ben Laden) and do not stop until he is dead or turned over to the World Court.
I'm very supprised as some of the folks here who take the opinion that as long as they don't gas us or our friends, then Chemical Weapons are OK.
That has to be one of the most short sighted, selfish attitudes I have ever heard!
For cryin' out the window, Jim, I guess then 'MEBBE' I owe you a drink!!! 'Never though that would EVER be possible! LOL!
Yeeeeeeep! I do! 'Not really a 'comfortable' situation, izzit, sir!
Anyone remember the classic line from Bridge on the River Kwai when the Japanese Commandant slaps the ever so old fashioned British Colonel Nicholson around the face, in response to the Colonel pointing out that "forcing officers to do manual labour was against the Geneva Convention"
The Commandant shouted "This is WAR, not a game of Cricket!"
I first saw that movie at 10 years old and for some reason I have never forgotten that line.
Having a set of rules when you are setting out to kill and dominate each other is really really weird when you think about it.
Are rules just a fop to a mistaken sense of humanity? Because in those scenarios rules make no SENSE.
If you had the freedom to start over - would you ban war & killing or just make better rules?
How can a people insist on rules of warfare for others when they themselves are guilty of the mass killing of civilians?
Because there was no gas in the bombs?
I am not advocating ANY weapons here - merely playing devil's advocate.
Like another poster, I do not see the difference between excruciating death cause by an FAE device, napalm or a chemical attack.
The Commandant shouted "This is WAR, not a game of Cricket!"
I first saw that movie at 10 years old and for some reason I have never forgotten that line.
Having a set of rules when you are setting out to kill and dominate each other is really really weird when you think about it.
Are rules just a fop to a mistaken sense of humanity? Because in those scenarios rules make no SENSE.
If you had the freedom to start over - would you ban war & killing or just make better rules?
How can a people insist on rules of warfare for others when they themselves are guilty of the mass killing of civilians?
Because there was no gas in the bombs?
I am not advocating ANY weapons here - merely playing devil's advocate.
Like another poster, I do not see the difference between excruciating death cause by an FAE device, napalm or a chemical attack.
Howard Jones
Supporter
Ok what if the Syrians had NAPALM'ed those 1500-2500 people? Is that over the "red line" or not? It certainly was not over the BOB line. He said WMD's, specifically chemical weapons use, was over the line.
So I'm a dictator, and I want to kill everybody in a village because the opfor force is in that village. NAPALM, long duration artillary bombardment, sustained air strike, lots of ways to do this guys.
This is why you don't say things llike "red line".
"Intentional killing of civilians is not exceptable to the civillized world and we will do what we must to rally the world community to punish you if you do." If BOB had said THAT and began to organizse our allies and friends along with others who might just abstain many months ago, this more than likely would not have happened.
So we have some responsibility here because we fucked up the threat and then did nothing as they used nerve gas at least a dozen times in much smaller quanitys. If I was President that would not have happened. Now we need to get the gas away from those ass holes and it's gonna be a mess, but the stated goal must be to remove the chemical weapons. By force if necessary. If force is required then the stakes must go up and that means the dictator must go also.
You make that the rules of the game and a lot less dictators will do shit like this in the future.
So I'm a dictator, and I want to kill everybody in a village because the opfor force is in that village. NAPALM, long duration artillary bombardment, sustained air strike, lots of ways to do this guys.
This is why you don't say things llike "red line".
"Intentional killing of civilians is not exceptable to the civillized world and we will do what we must to rally the world community to punish you if you do." If BOB had said THAT and began to organizse our allies and friends along with others who might just abstain many months ago, this more than likely would not have happened.
So we have some responsibility here because we fucked up the threat and then did nothing as they used nerve gas at least a dozen times in much smaller quanitys. If I was President that would not have happened. Now we need to get the gas away from those ass holes and it's gonna be a mess, but the stated goal must be to remove the chemical weapons. By force if necessary. If force is required then the stakes must go up and that means the dictator must go also.
You make that the rules of the game and a lot less dictators will do shit like this in the future.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
The problem with the idea of "we have to do something!" is that it isn't sound thinking. We are talking about bombing another country; it will inevitably cause civilian deaths which will be blamed on us. There is a political difference between the killing of Syrian citizens by Syrians and the killing of Syrian citizens by Americans and American allies. I don't like that, but it's true.
I am not in favor of "doing nothing", as I've been accused here of being. I AM opposed to meaningless acts of political theatre ESPECIALLY when they are carried out with bombs and other munitions. No one has been able to convince me that any proposed missiles strikes on Syria are going to be effective in either 1) discouraging the use of any WMDs and 2) degrading the military capability of Asshat's forces. Syria isn't a small place and I suspect that Asshat has already moved to hide weapons and support for those weapons in population centers where they can't be attacked without causing civilian casualties.
Obama is playing into Asshat's hands here. Why should Asshat kill his own citizens when he can get us to do it for him?
There is NO such thing as a "precision surgical military strike". The very phrase is actually an insult to surgery, a humanitarian medical art refined over centuries for the benefit of the sick and injured. People who blithely talk about precision surgical bombing etc know nothing about bombing and they certainly don't know anything about surgery. When you have an enemy who is trying to hide weapons and weapons control systems in populated areas, so that they can't be destroyed without killing civilians, then you are very likely indeed to give him what he wants- the killing of his citizens by a foreign power determined to teach him a lesson.
We all saw the photos of Syrian people dead from the gas attacks. If we bomb Syria, we will see many more photos of Syrians who died in those bombardments, trust me. And, as I said, Asshat doesn't have to kill his own people if he can trick us into doing it for him. The US military is the best in the world, but Asshat is a very devious and desperate man, who would like nothing more than to be able to accuse Obama of killing Syrian women and children.
I am not in favor of "doing nothing", as I've been accused here of being. I AM opposed to meaningless acts of political theatre ESPECIALLY when they are carried out with bombs and other munitions. No one has been able to convince me that any proposed missiles strikes on Syria are going to be effective in either 1) discouraging the use of any WMDs and 2) degrading the military capability of Asshat's forces. Syria isn't a small place and I suspect that Asshat has already moved to hide weapons and support for those weapons in population centers where they can't be attacked without causing civilian casualties.
Obama is playing into Asshat's hands here. Why should Asshat kill his own citizens when he can get us to do it for him?
There is NO such thing as a "precision surgical military strike". The very phrase is actually an insult to surgery, a humanitarian medical art refined over centuries for the benefit of the sick and injured. People who blithely talk about precision surgical bombing etc know nothing about bombing and they certainly don't know anything about surgery. When you have an enemy who is trying to hide weapons and weapons control systems in populated areas, so that they can't be destroyed without killing civilians, then you are very likely indeed to give him what he wants- the killing of his citizens by a foreign power determined to teach him a lesson.
We all saw the photos of Syrian people dead from the gas attacks. If we bomb Syria, we will see many more photos of Syrians who died in those bombardments, trust me. And, as I said, Asshat doesn't have to kill his own people if he can trick us into doing it for him. The US military is the best in the world, but Asshat is a very devious and desperate man, who would like nothing more than to be able to accuse Obama of killing Syrian women and children.
Let's see - the US needs to take part in a conflict between two factions who hate us and make sure that one side wins but does so fairly and according to "the rules". And the reason is why? Do I care if they all dye duking it out - no. Oh and lets see the UN is for what? Oh I see we don't like the way they are handling things so we will just do it our way. Then why do we support the UN? What a bunch of bull. Syria is becoming just another place to waste our tax dollars for a no result finish. We have not been appointed God or Head of the World. If they threaten us, have at them. If they threaten our neighbors and allies ask if they want our help - if the answer is yes, have at them. This is a UN problem, as the world is structured today. Let them deal with it. If you don't like that change the system for a new direction but quit being the bully in someone else's fight!
Lets move the UN to France and do what you suggested.
(posted to late)
Similar threads
