Will the United States engage in war with Syria

[Currahee]

won't be because of the chemical weapon use that will just be an excuse to try and go get oil

 

[Nous]

According to my research, it's being implied that the Rebels are the ones that attacked with Chemical Weapon, not Assad's Govt.

OT: The US has wanted to get into Iran and Syria for a while so probably yes. Sad, nobody wants another war..

 

[Penguin]

I hope no war is started.

 

[Netferarri]

We gonna win!

 

[Aim64C]

According to my research, it's being implied that the Rebels are the ones that attacked with Chemical Weapon, not Assad's Govt.

OT: The US has wanted to get into Iran and Syria for a while so probably yes. Sad, nobody wants another war..

You'll find this interesting:

[video=youtube;TY2DKzastu8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8[/video]

Our 'foreign policy' decisions make a lot more sense after reviewing this.

I'm of the opinion that the 'chemical weapon attack' was perpetrated by rogue members of the resistance fighters. There's hardly ever any solid organization behind such actions (the fact that there is a focused effort by the established regime to break up rebel leadership has a lot to do with this). So it's no surprise that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing - and the mouth of their group just says whatever the hell.

For the established regime to use chemical weapons for a mere 100 people after U.S. warnings is just stupid. People -that- incompetent don't gain control of nations (that takes a special degree of incompetency that can only be brought about through birth right).

Now - if we want to put our tin-foil hats on, it is also worth considering that Mossad and/or the CIA could have instigated the issue in order to force what one or the other sees as favorable foreign policy. That doesn't necessarily mean they -perpetrated- the act... but could have done just about everything but pulled the trigger (for plausible deniability).

Regardless - from what General (Retired) Wes Clark was saying... it sounds like it's water under the bridge. A considerable portion of people were simply waiting for something to use as the word "go" and now it's happened.

Because it's okay to shoot a thousand people.

But if a hundred die from chemical weapons, it's now justifiable to invade.

There's a reason we don't use chemical weapons. They don't work very well and are sad excuses for "weapons of mass destruction." They're scary as shit in what they can do to you - but they dissipate too quickly in open atmospheres and under exposure to UV from the sun (meaning the best time for aerosol chemical and biological attacks is just after sun-down).

Bio-weapons are where the real scary shit is. You can weaponize forms of the flu that can take a kilogram of virus particles and wipe out 20% of the people across a thousand square miles. Secondary infections will not necessarily be as deadly as the primary (because of differences in natural propagation versus weaponized dispersal) - but you're still looking at a more devastating result than a multi-million dollar megaton-yield nuclear device... out of something that you can literally develop in a garage and a couple hundred thousand dollars.

Anyway - it would seem to me that military action on our part was a foregone conclusion. It was just a matter of time before something happened that we could use for justification.

.... Empires will do what empires do... It's just that Egypt and other examples stand out that illustrate these people making the decisions do not fully grasp what they are doing.

If we're going to invade, kill people, and put our service members in danger... doing so with clear goals and methods to achieving the objectives are the least our leadership can do. I fear history will eventually recount these last few moves by our nation's military leaders to be... errant.

Though, personally, I think we're getting way too involved in the politics of other nations. They've been killing and overthrowing each other for centuries. Believing that we can stop that when we have states beginning to seriously consider secession is ... well... ignorant.

 

[Eclipsingon]

I hear America has been gathering ancient technology and not oil from such places and in process America owes trillion of dolla

 

[Shunsin no Shisui]

F*ck the USA, they are the biggest criminals in the world, you can not deny the fact, that they have killed more civilians than another countries in the last years. And the terrorist attacks aimed at United States are just inevitable results from your agression.

I understand that you are upset and angry at the same time, but please don't blame the US as a whole. There are also some innocent people that live in the US and my family is also there. I'm sorry don't get the wrong idea because I am also upset for what the US is doing. But this should not be placed on the head of all Americans just because the leaders have been doing bad things.

I support the US because i believe that people that use chemical weapons should be punished but i really hope they wont fight.

Do you think that chemical weapons are the worst things to exist? :| Do you not know of any other weapon that is considered an atrocity to life? It's the nuclear weapon, which is not only known to cause devastating impact but also leaves permenent scars and bruises on the face of the Earth. Yes, nuclear radiation is like curse brought down from Hell. U_U

I dont even believe in religion - this is some stuff I read 3 or 4 years ago in some religion website, I just found it little crazy that the usa and syria might go to war so I post this. I'm sure what ever military action happens to syria will come from the un. not the usa alone but I hope peace will be reach

Why do I get the strong suspicion that if there were to be a war between Syria and the US, it would be much more to do with religion than politics this time. :dunno:

USA being the only superpower in the world benefits the US more than any other country in the world so I don't see why you are complaining

there will always be a superpower as long as there are countries and I personally think we are quite lucky that that position is currently being filled by the USA and that we (for now) only have one superpower, imagine the USSR being the only superpower in the world, every country would do similar stuff to what the US is doing only chances are that if the position was filled with a country that isn't a democracy or does not have a long democratic tradition and a strong presence of freedom and democracy things might be worse

Why do people keep making it a big deal if the US is the superpower. The Russia is also a superpower. So is China and maybe the Britian as well

OT: I wouldn't be surprised either way. Economically I can't recall any benefit from Syria unlike Egypt. However, we have a cultural screen image of being a world police for s greater good...so to protect that image it is possible.

Who ever said that there was no such thing as "corrupt police". In fact no one would even think of such a thing to exist, but if we look at India, Russia, Mexico, some European countries and even in the US.

Engage? Didn't they cause this chaos to begin with? As they did in Libiya, Afghanistan, Irak, Iran and Vietnam.
Emperialism. That's all.

Damn, that is soo true. It's blunt but true. :yeah:

 

[Turson]

Obama is as poor leader as you can get. His foreign policy is based not on logic and pragmatism, but on ideology. Does he really think that he will take out Asads regime with Tomahawks? Asad (along with chemical weapon) is hiding is some bunker in Syria.

It wont be even show of strenght, it will be show of stupidity. Not to mention that backing up muslim fanatics from Free Syrian Army is simply retardet.

 

[Aim64C]

What are the chances Obama is going to get approval from Congress and/or the U.N? Or go in without congressional approval again?

Relatively high, I would estimate.

They are going to try and sell us a "limited stand-off strike" role. The argument will be that we can change the world for the better by sitting out in the Gulf/Med/wherever-conflict-happens-to-be and launching missiles and/or dropping bombs onto things.

We can topple governments on a whim. A single carrier can overwhelm even most developed nations. We can wipe out a country for the cost of a joint exercise and minimum flight qualifications.

The real challenge is in piecing things back together after we get done breaking them.

Remember - we'll be dealing with people who got their way by choosing to kill people (rebels - regardless of their cause, that is the mentality they have been operating with for a while; disagree = kaboom). Establishing yourself as 'in charge' and 'we're going to put things back together for you' is easier said than done.

It's this way with any rebellion. People can easily come to agreement on what they don't like. But it's much harder to come into agreement about what they like. They unify under the idea of "we don't want this guy in charge" - and support anything that furthers the accomplishment of their goals related to getting rid of the guy in charge. Then it comes time to figure out what to do next - and you find out that some people wanted a more extreme form of this guy in office... others wanted a more mellow guy... some want a communist system (with varying preferences on the exact governmental structure for this system)... others want democracy and don't care about the economics... others want a free market and something close to anarchy...

But then here's this foreign country telling you how things are going to go down.

"Well - we can't agree on what we want... other than we don't want those guys telling us what we're going to do. Kill the interlopers!"

Which is why it's always nasty getting involved in revolutions/rebellions.

As Stalin said... you cannot have a rebellion while wearing silk gloves.

Obama is starting to remind me of a certain past president that went to war over WMDs.

Honestly, I think it's a lot of the bureaucracy that acts as the eyes and ears of the President. Bush wouldn't have needed as much prodding to commit to military action in the Middle East. Someone like Obama needs to be fed a certain view of the situation to get him to go along. He's a bleeding-heart liberal and needs to be convinced that he's facing off against another Hitler.

There are people in unelected offices that are not as easy to 'clean out' who are trying to steer this country's foreign policy in ways that it shouldn't be.

The previous President was more in alignment with these goals, while our current President is simply too fool to resist it.

Though that's par for the course.