General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsdionysus
(26,467 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)That's why comparisons between Iraq and Syria are silly.
But saying 'Iraq' will get an emotional response out of people and that's why folks do it.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Knocking down a couple buildings is not going to do anything to stop Assad. He may even become emboldened and think that if that's all the US will do, he'll just continue using the chemical weapons. And then what do we do? The next step would be full war and regime change. Iraq 2.0.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Which makes a missle strike a futile gesture. It will not affect Assad's ability to fight the rebels. It will not damage any military infrastructure the Russians can't replace in a few days. It will not eliminate chemical weapons or prevent their future use. In short, there is no military strategic or tactical purpose to be accomplished by a missle strike alone. It is merely a face-saving political statement, one that will result in civilian deaths and likely escalate the war and extend it outside Syria's borders.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)easy peasy
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Do you have a clue? Do you realize the Russians are all in with Assad? We'd have to wage war against the Russians....who are determined to keep a Syrian pipeline from delivering ME gas to Europe, where Russia has a monopoly. I think they'd also like to hang on to their Mediteranean naval base in Syria.
And suppose we do wage a war against Russia in Syria and win...then what? Start fighting the AQ supported rebels, who are backed by Saudi Arabia?
The Syrian situation is a clusterfuck. Involving ourselves in that mess would be a quagmire that would dwarf Iraq and Afghanistan.
"easy peasy"...NOT!
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Involving ourselves in a military way is not the answer. Stealing Assad is easy.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)They already have a monopoly on Europes gas and dont want competition. Saudis are backing the rebels b/c they hope to build a pipeline to bring middle east gas supplies to Europe. That the rebels are AQ-backed is of no matter to them. Neither side represents a "win" for US interests. And nabbing Assad wont be easy, nor can the consequences be predicted....except it violates intl treaty and would lead to ICC trial for Obama.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)He doesn't want to start a war, you see.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You know how that works.
delrem
(9,688 posts)It's not "war", y'know -- since none of Xs blood was shed. So not only is X's act supremely moral, no retaliation of any kind is likely.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This whole thing will be over quickly. I'm sure of it.
--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002
"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"
-- Donald Rumsfeld, February 7, 2003
"I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months."
-- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003
"No one is talking about occupying Iraq for five to ten years."
-- Richard Perle, March 9, 2003
Source: The War in Quotes, by G.B. Trudeau, p. 40-41 Oct 1, 2008
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Doonesbury_Quotes_Donald_Rumsfeld.htm
delrem
(9,688 posts)Pres. Obama doesn't mind war, but doesn't think "boots on the ground" are the way to wage it. "Boots on the ground"="American deaths". He is in fact directing a followup to GWB w.r.t. PNAC planning, but with tactical differences. The Libya "adventure" (perfectly consistent with the PNAC plan) hasn't hurt the US admin much, even though only Satan himself would say that the situation in Libya is "better". There were no US casualties. However, there was a bit of a mistake in strategic terms, since NATO went far beyond the parameters of any international agreement and in fact bombed the "rag tag army of rebel freedom fighters" a fast track into Tripoli. Of course this was wholly unnatural, if one thinks in terms of civil wars of liberation. It was no such thing. This didn't bother the corporate MSM, which hardly mentioned it, but it bothered other world powers.
This causes Obama problems w.r.t. Syria. He's itching to re-do Libya in Syria, but the international community has caught on. After all, it's a very obvious pattern that's been delivered in writing for over a decade.
Autumn
(44,743 posts)worth of our fantastic top of the line superb high dollar fireworks, kill some innocent people (civilians will get in the way) and give the rebels a hand, and from everything I have read they are no better than Assad. Make a mess and later wonder why the hell people hate us.
delrem
(9,688 posts)The fundamentalist regimes they impose on their "liberated" territories are just what you'd expect from the most extreme and most bloodthirsty of terrorists.
Autumn
(44,743 posts)and give al-Qaeda a hand up in winning that civil war. I don't get it.
delrem
(9,688 posts)But it does seem to me that the US strategy hasn't changed an iota since GWB ushered in the new PNAC century. Some tactics changed, but not strategy.
I don't think the PNAC strategy, and aim, will win out. I don't think it *can* win out. But I think it can do a whole hell of a lot of damage before self-destruction is complete.
rug
(82,333 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)What we're looking at this week and next is a quick slugging with cruise missiles.
No boots on the ground.
At least not this year.
Though if our politicians continue to act like douchebags, an invasion could be down the road, maybe 5-10 years from now...