Syrian Strike Vote

[nazz]

The US doesn't seem to have the best track record when dealing with other countries civil wars. Just saying. Since when were we crowned "World Cop"?

We have the means. And with those means come responsibilities.

 

[Draka]

We have the means. And with those means come responsibilities.

We aren't Spiderman either.

 

[metis]

See post #74 in this same thread.

Thanks for the heads up. I went back and read it, however as much thought as I believe you put into it, which I commend you on, it has about 0% a chance of working even if such a coalition could be put together. Assad is in a fight for his life, and there simply is no wiggle room for him or the rebels to compromise. If Assad wins, they're dead; and if they win, Assad and his associates are dead; and both sides know this.

Therefore, given the opportunity to get away with it again, Assad will use gas. Even if we do attack, he will probably use it, especially if he sees the possibility of losing control. Therefore, the only real amelioration of the situation is to diminish his strategic forces prior to him being able to using these weapons on a larger scale, and this is what Kerry was alluding to whereas he told one senator to come to the closed-door meeting held yesterday.

 

[LuisDantas]

We have the means. And with those means come responsibilities.

You do? Sorry for being blunt, but I doubt it.

One can't help but notice that those means do not seem to have been employed to any good effect in either Iran, Iraq, Afeghanistan, Vietnam or Korea.

 

[Revoltingest]

We aren't Spiderman either.

Add the symbiant Carnage or Venom, & then we are!

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for the heads up. I went back and read it, however as much thought as I believe you put into it, which I commend you on, it has about 0% a chance of working even if such a coalition could be put together.

Thanks. I don't even mind it having no chance of working, truth be told. It bothers me that it won't even be attempted, despite little else being worth the effort.

Assad is in a fight for his life, and there simply is no wiggle room for him or the rebels to compromise.

Yep. That is what must change.

If Assad wins, they're dead; and if they win, Assad and his associates are dead; and both sides know this.

They may very well have convinced themselves that it is truly impossible to build a third way.

They are wrong, although I am not betting that they can be shown so.

Therefore, given the opportunity to get away with it again, Assad will use gas.

We have no way of truly knowing that, and we do have a duty of not assuming so.

Even if we do attack, he will probably use it, especially if he sees the possibility of losing control. Therefore, the only real amelioration of the situation is to diminish his strategic forces prior to him being able to using these weapons on a larger scale, and this is what Kerry was alluding to whereas he told one senator to come to the closed-door meeting held yesterday.

That is quite pointless even if it works as planned, sorry.

 

[LuisDantas]

Add the symbiant Carnage or Venom, & then we are!

Carnage is beginning to sound just right, unfortunately.

 

[nazz]

Thanks for the heads up. I went back and read it, however as much thought as I believe you put into it, which I commend you on, it has about 0% a chance of working even if such a coalition could be put together. Assad is in a fight for his life, and there simply is no wiggle room for him or the rebels to compromise. If Assad wins, they're dead; and if they win, Assad and his associates are dead; and both sides know this.

Therefore, given the opportunity to get away with it again, Assad will use gas. Even if we do attack, he will probably use it, especially if he sees the possibility of losing control. Therefore, the only real amelioration of the situation is to diminish his strategic forces prior to him being able to using these weapons on a larger scale, and this is what Kerry was alluding to whereas he told one senator to come to the closed-door meeting held yesterday.

Exactly

 

[nazz]

You do? Sorry for being blunt, but I doubt it.

One can't help but notice that those means do not seem to have been employed to any good effect in either Iran, Iraq, Afeghanistan, Vietnam or Korea.

Again, very different situations with very different objectives

 

[Draka]

Add the symbiant Carnage or Venom, & then we are!

Well, perhaps there might be something to the Spiderman thing after all. I mean, with the constant obsession we seem to have over going into desert lands filled with sand...we must be looking for Sandman right?

 

[LuisDantas]

Again, very different situations with very different objectives

I just don't see it. Would you like to tell me some about the significant differences?

 

[nazz]

We have no way of truly knowing that, and we do have a duty of not assuming so.

We do? On what basis? Assad has repeatedly shown he has no problem committing mass murder of his own people. Just as his father did.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We have the means. And with those means come responsibilities.

No we don't. We cannot fix that mess, and we are helping by not getting involved militarily.

 

[nazz]

I just don't see it. Would you like to tell me some about the significant differences?

Well for one thing most of those were protracted wars, not the sort of limited engagement the President is considering. In Vietnam we tried to fight a conventional war against guerrilla forces in an attempt to prop up a corrupt dictatorship. Very similar to the Afghan situation. In Iraq we went in with the goal of regime change, and we did accomplish that, only to end up mired down in a protracted civil war.

 

[metis]

That is quite pointless even if it works as planned, sorry.

I hope it doesn't work out that way, but it could-- it's an area with few guarantees.

BTW, did you notice my term "amelioration"? Notice it was not "solution"? As Americans, we often tend to fall into dualistic thinking in that if we somehow cannot 100% solve a problem, then there's no chance in even attempting to do so.

However, when dealing with situations in the M,E,, permanent "solutions" are very rare but ameliorations" are very much possible. What are the chances we'll solve the problems there? 0. What are the chances we may be able to ameliorate it somewhat? Possibly quite good, imo.

 

[nazz]

No we don't. We cannot fix that mess, and we are helping by not getting involved militarily.

I agree we can't fix it. There is no good outcome. But we can help minimize the loss of life.

 

[LuisDantas]

We do? On what basis? Assad has repeatedly shown he has no problem committing mass murder of his own people. Just as his father did.

That seems to be true. But it is still no reason to just decree that he can not be convinced to surrender or repent.

 

[nazz]

That seems to be true. But it is still no reason to just decree that he can not be convinced to surrender or repent.

I think the only realistic way that will happen is if he is forced to do so. If we can weaken his defenses he might be willing to negotiate with the rebels just to save his own skin. But even that is a long shot.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the only realistic way that will happen is if he is forced to do so. If we can weaken his defenses he might be willing to negotiate with the rebels just to save his own skin. But even that is a long shot.

Is there even a point in trying?

 

[metis]

That seems to be true. But it is still no reason to just decree that he can not be convinced to surrender or repent.

But it isn't just him. He has to also consider the Alawite community whereas he's considered their leader, and their fear of being wiped out by Sunnis, Wahhabist militants, and even fellow Shi'i. He well knows he cannot give up.