Topic: USA and allies prepare an attack on Syria

[Lelygax]

He is using a dirty tactic, like "Accept this strike or act as someone that is letting this guy kill kids". He is not even giving a more pacific option to them. A military strike means send soldiers or send missiles? I really doesnt know, thats why Im asking.

[Ratty]

At a certain point this discussion has shifted from a discussion of the necessity of intervention in Syria to a discussion where I'm explaining the importance of humanitarian intervention

Maybe you were but I'm still talking about how military intervention in other people's civil wars, especially intervention that is rushed through without so much as a "what-do-you-think-of-this-evidence" to the people who are going to have to pay for it all is at best misguided, at worst (and most likely) a cynical grab for resources or good old fashioned imperialism. And about how this manufactured outrage at these crimes is just that, manufactured in an effort to hide whatever the real motives for this action is. Because we've done worse, and worse happens all the time. Heck with our track record we might even be doing worse right now.

He is using a dirty tactic, like "Accept this strike or act as someone that is letting this guy kill kids". He is not even giving a more pacific option to them. A military strike means send soldiers or send missiles? I really doesnt know, thats why Im asking.

A military strike suggests a small precise attack, but I have difficulty seeing how even that could stop from escalating. Who does Syria have treaties with? Who's just waiting for an excuse to attack the US, or its closer ally Israel? Remember the match that lit the fuse of WW1 was the assassination of a single obscure Austrian noble.

[TheouAegis]

Heh. Speaking of that single obscure Austrian noble, has anyone else here ever seen the old movie "Assassins Bureau"? I think that was the name of it. It was an old comedy about a league of assassins hired to assassinate the leader of the Assassins Bureau. Of course the leader of the Assassins Bureau isn't too keen on being assassinated and he and the lady who put out the hit on him fall in love. It even has a battle on a zeppelin.

[Lelygax]

That austrian noble appears in this movie or it just a random mention because this movie is that good? :O

[Mooning Freddy]

Of course Obama is going to congress for support. He's supposed to, it's the law. Just because other presidents have broken the law in the past doesn't mean it should be a shock that Obama doesn't this time. Could just be a well-played tactic; I won't trust him yet. Then again, in a few more years, I won't have to trust him.

I would like to bring myself back from a normative discussion to a realist one. Journalists say that Obama fu**ed-up. Why? Because he marked a red line for Syria, the chemical weaponry line, and when Israeli intelligence informed him of the intercepts of Syrian army ordering the use of CW months ago, he did nothing. And now he appeals to the Congress even though his action is unpopular and he can act without consulting Congress. All of this makes him appear incompetent.

You can't just go around, making threats that you don't stand behind. If you mark a red line, it's a red line no matter what. If you fail to take action, your enemies would disregard any further threats. Obama didn't just draw a red line in Syria, he also did in Iran, about their nuclear program. Obama's weakness would encourage Israel to act alone against Iran. Israel did it before, destroying a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. PM Netanyahu said more than once that if the world does not take serious actions to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, Israel will, alone.
That is something USA does not want to happen.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

Why is he making 'red lines' in the first place?

This isn't a dick-waving contest.
OoooOooOooo they won't take the USA Seriously... OooOOooo...

[TheouAegis]

FOUND IT! Love IMDB.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064045/

"Assassination Bureau"

In London in the early 1900s reporter Sonya Winter (Diana Rigg) is researching the possibility of assassins using newspaper articles that serve as signals to high-profile murders that have been occurring. Winter shocked to find that businessman Ivan Dragomiloff (Oliver Reed) runs an assassination bureau, an organization that, for a price, will kill anyone in the world, but mostly certain high-profile transgressors. Sonya is a staunch supporter of womans rights and as a way of making a political statement that she can report in her newspaper, she offers to pay Ivan an enormous amount of money if he will have his bureau kill him. Ivan readily agrees thinking that the stunt will be good public relations and a boost to his business. But Lord Bostwick (Telly Savalas) wants control of the business Ivan has established and attempts to make sure that the contract is fulfilled and Ivan taken out of the way. As Winter follows Dragomiloff to report on his eventual demise, they fall in love and she finds herself reversing her feelings about his bureau, but it may be too late to avoid the onslaught of assassins.

They kill Archduke Ferdinand with a bomb hidden in his pork chop or something, I forgot.

EDIT by staff: Let's not share whole movies please.

[Ratty]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893004579057271019210230.html

Iran and radicals in Iraq already planning a retaliation if the US strikes Syria. So is Obama planning on dragging the already stretched thin US military into prolonged sandtrap wars in Syria and Iran and Iraq (again) and possibly Russia with some of it's allies? All for what? Someone (we're still not 100% sure who) killed a couple thousand civilians? To paraphrase Street Fighter's General Bison, do you know what we called it when we killed thousands of civilians in Iraq? "Tuesday"

So still not feeling any authenticity in this "righteous anger" here.

[TheouAegis]

Doesn't help Obama's case when word's leaking out that his supporters in congress are being bribed to back him.

[DoctaMario]

I would like to bring myself back from a normative discussion to a realist one. Journalists say that Obama fu**ed-up. Why? Because he marked a red line for Syria, the chemical weaponry line, and when Israeli intelligence informed him of the intercepts of Syrian army ordering the use of CW months ago, he did nothing. And now he appeals to the Congress even though his action is unpopular and he can act without consulting Congress. All of this makes him appear incompetent.

You can't just go around, making threats that you don't stand behind. If you mark a red line, it's a red line no matter what. If you fail to take action, your enemies would disregard any further threats. Obama didn't just draw a red line in Syria, he also did in Iran, about their nuclear program. Obama's weakness would encourage Israel to act alone against Iran. Israel did it before, destroying a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. PM Netanyahu said more than once that if the world does not take serious actions to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, Israel will, alone.
That is something USA does not want to happen.

I think the big issue is that no one's sure if this is REALLY a humanitarian intervention, or just another resources grab like Iraq. Plus, with the allies Syria has (Russia being a big one) this whole thing has the possibility to turn into something far worse.

I don't know why everyone turns things like this into a dick waving contest. Oooh, "red lines." Obama should have kept his mouth shut and instead of offering military aid, offered food, water, medical supplies, etc. Our presence there is only going to make the entire situation worse just like it has in Iraq.

But going to back to one of your earlier posts about this generation "not caring," I don't think it's so much that, it's just that we're exhausted. We've been in Iraq for over 10 years. And we've come to find out that that war was started on the basis of a lie. I don't know where you're from, but getting constantly bombarded with coverage about the war, seeing what it does to the troops who are involved in it, and knowing who's profiting from it, it wears you down. The US isn't the only country in the world with a competent military. Let the worthless UN or someone else do some of the heavy lifting for once. That, and every war/conflict being about reaction/counter-reaction. Things like Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Bay of Pigs, etc weren't things that came out of the blue, there was a series of events that lead up to them. We're TOLD they came out of the blue, but it's just public opinion being manipulated. And after being manipulated for so long, you start to tune out. "Oh, gee, another war? Great." For us, more military action is just another day in the US. So if people seem cynical about the whole thing, that's part of the reason why.


Israel needs to shut the fuck up and simmer down too, but that's a whole other thread.

[Lelygax]

What they really need to do is talk with another countries and try to stop importation and exportation to Syria if its not food related, Then they will feel pressure and stop this shit. Also this means that no weapons or ammunition will enter this country, not even disassembled ones.


They export these kind of toys to them and then after they are like "HURR DURR why they are using guns?". They are only child of man like any other country that thinks that war is a solution. Without guns these childs cant do this amount of destruction.

[Mooning Freddy]

What they really need to do is talk with another countries and try to stop importation and exportation to Syria if its not food related, Then they will feel pressure and stop this shit. Also this means that no weapons or ammunition will enter this country, not even disassembled ones.

Good luck saying that to Russia, the biggest weaponry exporter to Syria, which is basically the reason they are the greatest opponent to taking ANY action against their "ally".

Don't get me wrong, the Russians would probably do nothing if Syria is attacked, at least not anything that could effect USA. Putin may be incredibly corrupt and turned applying double standards into a friggin' art, but he's not stupid.

Every time I am amazed by how much of shameless hypocrites the Russian government is. The way they suddenly start crying about international law and about how every military action must be legitimized by the Security Council. 
They sure didn't give a damn about the Security Council when they bombed the hell out of Georgia in 2008.

[Lelygax]

Russian blood flow in my veins, so if thats truth I'll feel seriously ashamed.

[TheouAegis]

Wasn't Putin former KGB? I liked they made a big deal about how he's handling Syria, but of course he'll be like, "Dudes messed up over there. I want nothing more to do with them; they'll just drag us down. Sever ties with them now."

[Ratty]

Russian blood flow in my veins, so if thats truth I'll feel seriously ashamed.

Don't, your national ancestry doesn't lay any blame on you for what the government of a country does. Besides it's all just about controlling the region to control the flow of oil. Russia doesn't want America to have complete control of the region so they strengthen countries which resist US influence.
America doesn't want to lose control of oil because it would be devastating to the US economy/dollar. It's basically the same reason that when Russia went to Afghanistan in the 1980s the US sent money and weapons to "freedom fighters" there (we even sent Rambo there in the propaganda-tastic "Rambo III") who we then wound up fighting ourselves in 2001.

PS- http://news.yahoo.com/leaked-iranian-letter-warned-us-syrian-rebels-chemical-184400423.html I wonder if America would be so against Syria and Iran if they agreed to tie their oil prices to the US dollar?