The Gathering Storm in Syria

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

DejaVue Nam. We have met the enemy and he is us.

At some point, you're going to have to get with the times and start saying "DejaVue Iraq."

[infinite monkey]

The UK is the new France.

*snicker*

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

We know Clinton in 1998 defanged Saddam. We just did not know it then.

But we will surely know it's been successful this time, because (actual reason has been left as an exercise for the reader).

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

At some point, you're going to have to get with the times and start saying "DejaVue Iraq."

DejaVue Mission Accomplished.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

The UK is the new France.

*snicker*

Heard on radio

Henceforth, English muffins shall be known as "Freedom Muffins".

[sexobon]

Obama might attack Syria just to piss off Putin for not giving Snowden back.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

The UK is the new France.
*snicker*

Yeahyeahyeah. I'll snicker your arse lady.

No, no idea what I mean either. Visions of Marianne Faithful, ewwww.

Originally Posted by BigV

Heard on radio
Henceforth, English muffins shall be known as "Freedom Muffins".

You're on report. And your radio. And your little dog too.

Tell you what made me seriously bray with laughter the other day.
War-hungry talking head on Sky News. The worry is that the UK has removed itself from the world stage. France is now America's closest ally.
And this (somehow) paves the way for America to ally itself to more powerful nations. Example given, the burgeoning power of China. Yeah, good luck with that one. Communist state who alongside Russia currently has its foot on the UN's neck regarding any action against Syria.

That is not my opinion on world politics.
It's just me being annoyed with British media. They do talk up some crap.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Obama might attack Syria just to piss off Putin for not giving Snowden back.

That is clearly the reason.

[sexobon]

The sad thing is that resorting to violence is unnecessary. Bashar al-Assad is a doctor and Barack Obama is a lawyer. Obama should just bring a class action malpractice suit against al-Assad, for inappropriately dispensing harmful chemicals, on behalf of the Syrian people. Shades of Michael Jackson.

[piercehawkeye45]

I would also like to see Obama attack Assad through non-military means - a class action malpractice suit would be hilarious - but the likely limited attack on Assad will accomplish two goals for Obama:

1) Attacking Assad for purely humanitarian reasons is one thing (something I disagree with) but once WMDs get involved then it is viewed differently. I do not feel as strongly but there are many policy makers that strongly believe any WMD use should be punished. Obama set the red line at chemical weapons (WMD) because of that - plus other reasons IMO - and now he must act on it. I'm not comfortable with our retaliation but allowing WMDs to be used is a potential slippery slope that many policy makers do not want to go down.

2) I think this attack will have as much realpolitik intentions as humanitarian. Right now our two biggest enemies in the Middle East, Al-Qaeda Islamist and Iran, are heavily invested in this civil war. While it is not in our (U.S.) interests to get involved right now, it is in our interests to make sure these two groups keep pouring their attention and money into the civil war instead of other activities. Lately, Assad has been gaining the upper advantage and a limited strike may balance the playing field. Also, on a side note, peace or balkanization is only possible if both sides feel they will not win alright so it also in our humanitarian interests to keep a level playing field.

[piercehawkeye45]

While I do not believe Syria or Iran is dumb enough to retaliate against a US/French attack, this article shows the military buildup around Syria right now.

While the United States is ready to strike a handful of targets on the ground in Syria, any international conflict there will take place on a much larger stage. The entire region is full of a witches' brew of military hardware from more than half a dozen nations with interests in the Syrian conflict.

The United States and France are prepared to strike the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from the Mediterranean Sea and a ring of air bases surrounding Syria. Meanwhile, three of America's most powerful military allies -- Britain, Turkey, and Israel -- are publicly staying on the sidelines, albeit with their militaries primed to defend against any Syrian counterattack. Then there are Assad's friends, Russia and Iran, both of which have military personnel on the ground in Syria.

Here's a look at the mix of military forces facing Assad -- and each other -- in and around the Levant.

...

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/...yrias_doorstep

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

... the likely limited attack on Assad will accomplish two goals for Obama ...

But, but it dashes my plans to set up shops on the borders and sell gas masks to tourists!

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

... I do not feel as strongly but there are many policy makers that strongly believe any WMD use should be punished. ...

As long as it's understood that it's just punishment and not deterrence. We took out Saddam; but, that didn't deter Bashar. It would be interesting to see what those policy makers would do if Russia or Israel used WMD on someone other than us.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

... Right now our two biggest enemies in the Middle East, Al-Qaeda Islamist and Iran, are heavily invested in this civil war. While it is not in our (U.S.) interests to get involved right now, it is in our interests to make sure these two groups keep pouring their attention and money into the civil war instead of other activities. Lately, Assad has been gaining the upper advantage and a limited strike may balance the playing field. ...

Ah, so we're just using the Syrian people as patsies by maintaining an even keel and WMD is a red herring. Well, why doesn't the Prez should just say so and let us all sleep better at night? [rhetorical]

[piercehawkeye45]

If you want to interpret it that way...

[Lamplighter]

Obama's bright red line for Syria...

[tw]

Well first extremists were screaming that Obama was letting hundreds of thousands be massacred in Syria. Then he decides to attack what Assad should not have and illegally used. Then those extremists complained that Obama was getting us into another Mission Accomplished.

So Obama said to extremists, "OK, you vote on it." What does a dumb dog do once he has caught the car? How many dogs thought it out?