The Gathering Storm in Syria

[xoxoxoBruce]

Side up hell, we're America and they better pay attention, dad-gum-it.

We condescend everybody, always have, always will.

[Griff]

Hooray! We've got ourselves a proxy war with Russia! Interestingly, we're the ones arming Al Q. We must have lost the coin toss.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-rus...145729405.html

[Lamplighter]

"But you said next Tuesday.
.... That's today, not a week from today"

[piercehawkeye45]

What arms? Is this different than what Obama said he would do a month or so back?

[ZenGum]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-rus...145729405.html

... gives a story under the same picture that Lamp posted about current developments.

[Lamplighter]

Z, Sorry to step on your post.

I was tired and I reverted to one of my favorite Russian calendar farces
... about the Battle of Ulm, Wednesday, Oct 16, 1805.

[piercehawkeye45]

If this continues to unfold, I wonder how important coastal cities will become? Where are the resources? What happens to Kurds in Turkey and Iraq?

[Griff]

So the new plan is to use cruise missiles but not to hit anything/anybody important, because we have to show we're serious... in our support of Al Q er... moderate elements. This is where our policy of perpetual involvement gets silly. We know it won't do a thing but we have to do something. No we don't. There is no place to lead the world on this.

[glatt]

Saving face is a flaw human beings, organizations, and governments have.

We're going to drop a hand grenade on the place to save face. Stupid.

[Lamplighter]

With Russia and China already opposed to military action on Syria,
and now with the British Parliament voting against it,
and a large percentage of the US population opposed it too,
Obama is obviously in a hard spot.

IMO, his "red line" statement was appropriate and needs to be enforced,
not just as a "face saving" devise, but as the "right thing to do" when
it comes to gas- and germ-warfare.

If Obama were to take my advice, he would identify, locate, and target
with cruise missiles several of those specific military commanders and units
who were directly involved with the military's use of illegal WMD.
I think this would be an appropriate and limited action which would be
accepted by the world and specifically the US population,
and might prevent the Republican House from initiating impeachment.

Anything else will be politically "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't"

[Sundae]

I'm a bit cross with the British press.
Nothing new there then, although I usually toe the BBC line.

They keep talking about Parliament's "failure" to pass a mandate to start airstrikes on Syria. Now I'm torn on the issue personally, but Parliament haven't failed. They have made a decision based partly on public opinion and partly on reaction to previous conflicts.

Right or wrong it is a decision, not a failure.

And no, I do not like the words "punish" and "send a message" either.
That's reactionary talk, vigilante talk.
Don't bomb the f**k out of a country to teach it a lesson. Because guess what? Doesn't work.
Oops. Maybe I do have an opinion on this after all.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Sundae

They keep talking about Parliament's "failure" to pass a mandate to start airstrikes on Syria. Now I'm torn on the issue personally, but Parliament haven't failed.

Perspective. Failure was from the Prime Minister's perspective.

You really cannot blame Parliament. Since 2000, America lied and decieved the UK repeatedly. Even surrendered to the Taliban and then dragged NATO into the second Afganistan war. Lied completely about Saddam's WMDs - it should have been called treason. And then created an insurgency by violating the most basic military concepts. Even dragged the UK into that useless and unnecessary war. With Tony Blair all but wanting to be lied to.

Comments from Gen Dannatt so long ago accurately defined a morass that America had put the UK into. And what the UK had to do to get out. Of course, back then, it was too early for most layman to appreciate who the real enemy was. Or how right Dannatt was. Back then, when facts were so obvious, still many layman refused to admit they were brainwashed by Mission Accomplished and other intentional lies.

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

Reason for military action must be rock solid and unquestionable. Since we are all still living the destructive legacy of George Jr / Cheney, then many who make decisions only on feelings will be gun shy. You cannot blame so many UK citizens and Parliament.

Well, all of Nato could not "bomb the f**k out of a country to teach it a lesson." Bombing is only pin pricks. However pin pricks accurately placed can have significant attitude consequences IF directed by an intelligent leader and management. We know Clinton in 1998 defanged Saddam. We just did not know it then. His accurate use of all of our cruise missiles left Saddam to invent mythical WMDs. Myths were his last remaining defense. Bombing can be that powerful by limiting or focusing it to specific objectives.

In Syria, objectives are obvious and simple. All his chemical weapons depots and facilities necessary to make them useable. It will make everyone nervous. It will create much yelling. The wackos will spread more lies and insults. But at the end of the month, Assad will not do it again. Since he (nobody else matters) he suddenly appreciates the consequences. As Saddam did after Clinton took care of him.

[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).

[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."

[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.