Menu
What's new

The situation in Syria

no i'm active, we'll go first. from what i saw the last deployment the reserves and guard just went to the super fobs.
 
Anytime there is use of chemical weapons on any group of individuals regardless of why or who they are tends to raise some eyebrows in the rest of the world as letting that kind of thing get swept under the carpet can lead to other more serious problems. I don't see any "official" reaction coming unless we see another reported use of chemical weapons but what is "official" and what actually in fact happens is two different things as there are a lot of thing that go on in a covert ops perspective that very few would know about with out knowing what to look for in the news.
 
The sad part is that most people are more concerned about Ben Affleck or Miley Cyrus rather than committing more troops to the next conflict in the Middle East.

We do have an interest in Syria unfortunately: oil. And when that Texas Tea is involved, you can bet that some powerful lobbies are behind forcing the hands of outside government actors.
 
I don't believe this war in about oil in western eyes. These countries in the middle east have a major crisis at the moment. The US is increasing oil and shale production and smarter policies on regulation. The need to control oil is not as dire. But you can be sure to bet oil prices skyrocket when the powder keg goes boom in a couple of weeks.

Assad's army control most of the water in the country, the rebels control mostly desert. That's the future of warfare in the middle east, the need to control the water.

The problem with attacking Syria is what happens after. Does Iran get involved, Hezbollah or Israel? Factor in France, UK, Russia, Turkey and Lebanon throw in some Al Qaeda sauce and you'll see that's a good recipe for a world war. So is this the precursor to destroying Iran's nuclear plants?

It really is a sticky situation because of the second Iraq war. In all likelihood these chemical weapons are probably Saddam's that got out of Iraq before US invasion. Likely they set aside Sunni and Shiite bullshit for a chance to make the Americans look like assholes. Bush and cabinet probably realized it early in the war. (I remember seeing a news story early in the war with the reporter saying they found tracks of Iraqi trucks leaving into Syria as the US invaded.) At that point they couldn't justify invading Syria for having the chemical weapons. That's why we got Operation Iraqi Freedom and 300 million Americans wondering wtf happened.

In the end I feel Assad is a bully and the US is the kid that backs down the bully to the back of the bus. But at the same time I don't think we should be bombing another country, especially since we do it all the time with Pakistan and Yemen (which I have no problem with) using predator drones. Libya just a couple years ago had a similar uprising happen and we made sure Gaddafi got to meet some of his angry citizens.

Although I voted Obama, I wonder how things would have transpired with McCain as commander and chief. The circumstances would of been different, but his responses to most issues are hawkish.

Hopefully Assad falls in time and Syria avoids falling into the same chaos that plagues Iraq and Egypt showcasing what often happens when a dictatorship ends in MENA.

I think we are justified to attack, I'm just concerned about what could happen after. Hopefully Assad is killed by a bunch of his people but they spare his hot wife and his kids, unless one of them spoiled brats actually taunted US forces on facebook. Hopefully its a seemingly peaceful restoration to Syria with the US not wasting much effort or further damaging public perception. One can only hope.

Or pray, because like religious people probably do that.
 
Hamas Fatah said:
I don't believe this war in about oil in western eyes. These countries in the middle east have a major crisis at the moment. The US is increasing oil and shale production and smarter policies on regulation. The need to control oil is not as dire. But you can be sure to bet oil prices skyrocket when the powder keg goes boom in a couple of weeks.

Assad's army control most of the water in the country, the rebels control mostly desert. That's the future of warfare in the middle east, the need to control the water.

The problem with attacking Syria is what happens after. Does Iran get involved, Hezbollah or Israel? Factor in France, UK, Russia, Turkey and Lebanon throw in some Al Qaeda sauce and you'll see that's a good recipe for a world war. So is this the precursor to destroying Iran's nuclear plants?

It really is a sticky situation because of the second Iraq war. In all likelihood these chemical weapons are probably Saddam's that got out of Iraq before US invasion. Likely they set aside Sunni and Shiite bullshit for a chance to make the Americans look like assholes. Bush and cabinet probably realized it early in the war. (I remember seeing a news story early in the war with the reporter saying they found tracks of Iraqi trucks leaving into Syria as the US invaded.) At that point they couldn't justify invading Syria for having the chemical weapons. That's why we got Operation Iraqi Freedom and 300 million Americans wondering wtf happened.

In the end I feel Assad is a bully and the US is the kid that backs down the bully to the back of the bus. But at the same time I don't think we should be bombing another country, especially since we do it all the time with Pakistan and Yemen (which I have no problem with) using predator drones. Libya just a couple years ago had a similar uprising happen and we made sure Gaddafi got to meet some of his angry citizens.

Although I voted Obama, I wonder how things would have transpired with McCain as commander and chief. The circumstances would of been different, but his responses to most issues are hawkish.

Hopefully Assad falls in time and Syria avoids falling into the same chaos that plagues Iraq and Egypt showcasing what often happens when a dictatorship ends in MENA.

I think we are justified to attack, I'm just concerned about what could happen after. Hopefully Assad is killed by a bunch of his people but they spare his hot wife and his kids, unless one of them spoiled brats actually taunted US forces on facebook. Hopefully its a seemingly peaceful restoration to Syria with the US not wasting much effort or further damaging public perception. One can only hope.

Or pray, because like religious people probably do that.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's about oil either, for the reasons you said, but also because, as far as I'm aware, we didn't exactly come out of the recent conflicts with all that much. Also, potentially destabilizing a region sounds bad for getting oil (nevermind that Obama is not exactly fond of the resource).

I also remember rumors that many of Saddam's weapons made their way to Syria.

While it makes the US look weaker, it really shouldn't matter. now, I don't doubt that McCain would do something. He seems to be in favor of sending troops and resources everywhere.

There is no good reason to get involved. Humanitarian efforts are great and all, but in the end it wouldn't help anything. If the US helps remove Assad, the most likely replacement government is one similar to Libya or Egypt, namely, crackpots who are worse than the dictators they replaced. Now Egypt has a relatively independent military that helped stop that, but they are still in turmoil over there. An excellent example is the treatment of Christians in these newly "freed" countries. It's not pretty. So unless we go in to Syria and actually flush ALL the wackos out (which would require miring us in another war) the replacement to Assad would be just as bad, if not worse. (IMO.)

And of course there is Russia and China. While I really wish we could just stick it to them, I think in this case it's best to just do as they say (though not because they said it, but because staying out of it really is the best option.)
 
Hamas Fatah said:
I wonder how Obama proceeds if Congress disapproves of action?
Click to expand...

I don't think he'll do anything if they refuse to authorize. For one, the debate is planned for what? The 9th? That's so long from now. Second, he has now said he would ask, to ignore Congress would be the worst move he could make politically. If he fails to garner support and goes in anyway, just imagine how much further his approval rating will sink... to me it seems clear he really doesn't care about Congress, but he has resigned himself to their consent, either as an out (so he doesn't have to do anything now) or as a way to maintain his poll numbers.

I also wonder how the continuing resolution fight comes into this, that is coming up soon, and it looks likes Congress would rather discuss Syria than deal with that.

I would be surprised if the situation in Syria remains the same and he still goes in.
 
For Obama, this is a a rock and a hard place situation.

In one hand, he kind of swore he would go in if chemical weapons were used. According to Kerry, "traces" of Sarin were found. I don't know about that since I'm no chemical expert, nor am I there. However, if that is the case, if you make a promise you gotta stick with it.

On the other hand, he probably doesn't want to go in for what you guys have been saying: (1) no Congressional consent; and (2) public dissatisfaction with entangling ourselves in other people's problems.

It's actually a little amusing if you want to talking heads on the matter because they all seem to think he should go in only because he drew that line in the sand regarding the use of chemical weapons on your own populace.

I mean the primary motivator here is not oil, but prices for oil dropped after it was discovered that the U.S. would not take action in Syria just yet.
 
Thanks to everyone for their input about this topic, its nice to be able to read differing opinions on the situation without having to filter through all the Obama hate and liberal/conservative bullshit that plagues every comments section of news sites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top