Get involved in Syria: Yes or No? And why/not?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
He is proving what Bin Laden said during the Clinton years - that the US is a paper tiger. These are progressive policies coming home to roost my friend. Once again, Netanyahu is going to have to do what progressives can't accomplish. No worries - he will take out Iranian nuke ability like he took out Hussein's so many years ago.

Say thank you.

You seem to be confusing Syria and Iran, unless you believe Iran's nuclear weapons capability is located in Syria.

By the way, the topic of this thread is "Get involved in Syria: Yes or No? And why/not?" What is your "yes" or "no" answer and why or why not?

[Anonymous]

Yes or no?
First, what is our purpose? To send a message? What does that mean? Are chemical weapons still going to be there? Then the answer is NO>

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
He is proving what Bin Laden said during the Clinton years - that the US is a paper tiger. These are progressive policies coming home to roost my friend. Once again, Netanyahu is going to have to do what progressives can't accomplish. No worries - he will take out Iranian nuke ability like he took out Hussein's so many years ago.

Say thank you.

You seem to be confusing Syria and Iran, unless you believe Iran's nuclear weapons capability is located in Syria.

By the way, the topic of this thread is "Get involved in Syria: Yes or No? And why/not?" What is your "yes" or "no" answer and why or why not?

Not confusing anything - I think you misread my statement, or are deliberately trying to imply I'm stupid (I'm quite sure it's the latter, btw, modus operandi when it comes to you) I was referring to the fact that the Iranians will have nukes soon and the Obama administration is not doing much about that, yet Obama talks tough about the gassing of people in Syria. He's not really good at this, is he....

I don't think we should be involved with Syria. Hussein was busy murdering his own people for years, and we did nothing. There were multiple reasons for going into Iraq, and they were damn good ones when all laid on the table. I know progressives want to make it solely about WMDs (and I do believe he moved them out of Iraq to Syria as satellite imagery seems to show), but that's really short-sighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to do this so democracy will spread through the Middle East.

Oh please. Democracy in the Mid East is a horrible idea. They elect lunatic after lunatic. Ruthless dictators are great for American interests. Destabilizing Iraq and bringing democracy to Iraq was just about the stupidest idea anyone could have come up with.

Look at how the Assad family rule dealt with an extremist uprising back in the 1982. This type of rule required in the Mid-East when ruling over a sea of powerful religious zealots. Middle Eastern values are not compatible with democracy. Stop projecting your American values. These same people in Hama, Syria back in the 70s-80s who were wrecking havoc are the same cast of characters now struggling for power in Egypt and their "Arab Spring". This cast of characters were squashed and banished from Syria and now are trying to set up shop in Egypt after being annihilated in 1982. They will be back to finish off what they left after the US idiotically topples Assad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to do this so democracy will spread through the Middle East.

Oh please. Democracy in the Mid East is a horrible idea. They elect lunatic after lunatic. Ruthless dictators are great for American interests. Destabilizing Iraq and bringing democracy to Iraq was just about the stupidest idea anyone could have come up with.

Look at how the Assad family rule dealt with an extremist uprising back in the 1982. This type of rule required in the Mid-East when ruling over a sea of powerful religious zealots. Middle Eastern values are not compatible with democracy. Stop projecting your American values. These same people in Hama, Syria back in the 70s-80s who were wrecking havoc are the same cast of characters now struggling for power in Egypt and their "Arab Spring". This cast of characters were squashed and banished from Syria and now are trying to set up shop in Egypt after being annihilated in 1982. They will be back to finish off what they left after the US idiotically topples Assad.

Wrong. This is the same excuse used all over the world, and yet democracies have been springing up left and right over the last 200 years. What you are saying is tired and cliche.

[Anonymous]

I have gone back and forth, and I think the answer is that we have to respond, not for the sake of Syria, but because chemical weapons deterrence depends upon it.

The only way that we keep chemical weapons out of the equation of war is to punish everyone who uses it. We were wrong to ignore it in Iraq in the 80's and if we let it go again, everyone facing civil war is going to use it when desperate.

Deterrence has to be backed up to have power, even if it brings no one peace.

[Anonymous]

Can't we just send a strongly worded letter from our legal department?

[Anonymous]

The only way that we keep chemical weapons out of the equation of war is to punish everyone who uses it.

That may be--but do our plans include punishment or a slap on the wrist for effect? And, is it in our interests to let the rebels--and possibly al Queda take over Syria. I don't know what is right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to do this so democracy will spread through the Middle East.

Oh please. Democracy in the Mid East is a horrible idea. They elect lunatic after lunatic. Ruthless dictators are great for American interests. Destabilizing Iraq and bringing democracy to Iraq was just about the stupidest idea anyone could have come up with.

Look at how the Assad family rule dealt with an extremist uprising back in the 1982. This type of rule required in the Mid-East when ruling over a sea of powerful religious zealots. Middle Eastern values are not compatible with democracy. Stop projecting your American values. These same people in Hama, Syria back in the 70s-80s who were wrecking havoc are the same cast of characters now struggling for power in Egypt and their "Arab Spring". This cast of characters were squashed and banished from Syria and now are trying to set up shop in Egypt after being annihilated in 1982. They will be back to finish off what they left after the US idiotically topples Assad.

Wrong. This is the same excuse used all over the world, and yet democracies have been springing up left and right over the last 200 years. What you are saying is tired and cliche.

evidence? Libya? Vietnam (oops!)? Korea?

Yea, it has been the same argument since May of 1948 and we can continued to make the same stupid mistakes by attempting to Nation Build where we have no business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have gone back and forth, and I think the answer is that we have to respond, not for the sake of Syria, but because chemical weapons deterrence depends upon it.

The only way that we keep chemical weapons out of the equation of war is to punish everyone who uses it. We were wrong to ignore it in Iraq in the 80's and if we let it go again, everyone facing civil war is going to use it when desperate.

Deterrence has to be backed up to have power, even if it brings no one peace.

Who made the US the world police? Let the UN take a vote and deal with it. That's their job.

[Anonymous]

Good Bye, Syria! Hello, Russia!

WWIII

[Anonymous]

So . . . by fighting back and killing a good chunk of the Syrian population, we'll end the use of chemical weapons like Sarin?

makes total sense to me, Pee-wee

quote=Anonymous]I have gone back and forth, and I think the answer is that we have to respond, not for the sake of Syria, but because chemical weapons deterrence depends upon it.

The only way that we keep chemical weapons out of the equation of war is to punish everyone who uses it. We were wrong to ignore it in Iraq in the 80's and if we let it go again, everyone facing civil war is going to use it when desperate.

Deterrence has to be backed up to have power, even if it brings no one peace.

[Anonymous]

My answer is yes, though I hope we're not going at this alone.

Why? Because if we don't address the abuses of the Assad regime, particularly the use of chemical weapons, it undermines our already very delicate credibility in the region. It the civil war in Syria will continue to exacerbate the instability in the region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So . . . by fighting back and killing a good chunk of the Syrian population, we'll end the use of chemical weapons like Sarin?

makes total sense to me, Pee-wee

quote=Anonymous]I have gone back and forth, and I think the answer is that we have to respond, not for the sake of Syria, but because chemical weapons deterrence depends upon it.

The only way that we keep chemical weapons out of the equation of war is to punish everyone who uses it. We were wrong to ignore it in Iraq in the 80's and if we let it go again, everyone facing civil war is going to use it when desperate.

Deterrence has to be backed up to have power, even if it brings no one peace.

If you want to belittle the strategies that have kept the most horrific weapons off the battlefield and population centers, so be it. No one likes having to enforce a ban, but the only way to prevent the use of such weapons as nerve gas or nuclear bombs is an iron clad guarantee that the world community will punish those who use them. Every nation possessing or attempting to possess these weapons is watching to see how the world responds.

FWIW I don't think we have to kill a significant chunk of the population in order to retaliate. We don't need to win a war, only to take out enough of Assad's military capability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So . . . by fighting back and killing a good chunk of the Syrian population, we'll end the use of chemical weapons like Sarin?

makes total sense to me, Pee-wee

quote=Anonymous]I have gone back and forth, and I think the answer is that we have to respond, not for the sake of Syria, but because chemical weapons deterrence depends upon it.

The only way that we keep chemical weapons out of the equation of war is to punish everyone who uses it. We were wrong to ignore it in Iraq in the 80's and if we let it go again, everyone facing civil war is going to use it when desperate.

Deterrence has to be backed up to have power, even if it brings no one peace.

If you want to belittle the strategies that have kept the most horrific weapons off the battlefield and population centers, so be it. No one likes having to enforce a ban, but the only way to prevent the use of such weapons as nerve gas or nuclear bombs is an iron clad guarantee that the world community will punish those who use them. Every nation possessing or attempting to possess these weapons is watching to see how the world responds.

FWIW I don't think we have to kill a significant chunk of the population in order to retaliate. We don't need to win a war, only to take out enough of Assad's military capability.

So who do you think takes over after Assad's ouster creates a vacuum? I honestly want to know what you think happens to the future of Syria after we have invaded their country?

Um, and last I checked Nuclear weapons are quite prolific, despite our policing activities. You are aware that China, Russia, and the US are major suppliers of chemical and nuclear weapons. In order eliminate these WMDs, we need to blow ourselves and the two other super powers off the map as well.