World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[dsheinem]

There's a problem with hitting Assad though:

First, how hard? What is our ultimate goal? Just to weaken his military, depose him, or ultimately capture him and turn him over to international authorities?

Second, Syrian rebel forces are now heavily infiltrated by al-Qaeda. If we weaken Assad, will we bolster them? If we depose Assad, will they take over? What is our final goal for the country, and what is our strategy to get there?

Third, what about the international situation? There are two major international powers involved: the US and Russia. There are numerous regional powers involved: Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, along with various allies: NATO, Lebanon, Qatar, Yemen, even North Korea. If we go in, Russia will do its best to smear us, Iran will use the situation as another proxy war to hit us, Saudi Arabia will back us for a chance to weaken Iran, Yemen and Qatar may move to support al-Qaeda, so on and so forth.

Fourth, we know chemical weapons have been used, but who used them and how did they get them? We are assuming they came from Assad's military, but we do not have a 100% confirmation on that. And even if they did, did they come from Assad's explicit orders, or did someone lower on the chain of command give the order instead?

I believe these are questions we should consider, because they are questions we didn't seem to consider for the second invasion into Iraq. And any action against Assad will likely lead to troops on the ground, similar to how we ended up with troops on the ground in Libya.

I was impressed by John Kerry's speech today (a phrase rarely uttered by any man!) and persuaded from thinking that the US should do nothing to now thinking the US should conduct some surgical strikes.

It seems that a mound of evidence makes it clear that the chemical weapons were used, were ordered to be used by Assad and/or his high command, and that attempts to cover it up were made afterward. I got the distinct impression that at issue for the U.S. isn't a push for a regime change or an invasion/"boots on the ground" scenario, but rather establishing the terms under which Syria can wage its civil war through the implementing of external consequences for violating the chemical weapons ban.

I guess I'm extremely optimistic that it won't be another Iraq/Afghanistan and also mostly optimistic that it won't even be an action that's as involved as Libya was. But the point that there should be clear consequences for any government that attacks civilians with chemicals was well argued.

[o.pwuaioc]

Third, here's an example of President Obama notifying Congress of troops on the ground in Libya in order to protect US personnel and property. This particular example comes well after the military operations and overthrow of Gaddafi and relates to the immediate aftermath of Benghazi but gives an example of how our soldiers could still end up within a conflict zone:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... and-yemen/

Here's another example of four personnel being sent into Libya during the conflict. Yes, it's Fox News, so the tone is opposed to President Obama's actions, and yes, it is only an example of four soldiers being sent in. It is still US military personnel being sent into such an area:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... -confirms/

These are horrible examples. We have troops "on the ground" in Japan, too. Four soldiers in Libya — two of which are bomb detonators and two of which are security personnel — does not constitute "going in" like most people imagine it.



Dark blue = More than 1,000 US personnel
Light blue = 100-999 US personnel
Orange = Use of military facilities

Yes, there is a slight possibility that a warplane might be shot down, but the damage that would occur is minimal, and the chances aren't very likely (cf. the naval action in Libya, where no US soldiers were injured, and of the two downed aircraft, one was the result of a mechanical failure — which could happen anywhere — and one was an unmanned craft).

This is child's play, almost.

[Pulsar_t]

It's an insult to the victims that those clueless "peacenik" idiots keep harping on about false flag bullshit. The regime and its supporters have had no qualms about inflicting massive casualties on civilians. Heck the same thing happened in the 1980s in a quelled uprising, and stories of the torture and liquidation of political opponents were almost legendary. It really is disgusting and shameful. At least the "let them kill each other" crowd is frank about their racism/indifference.

[Luke]

I was impressed by John Kerry's speech today.

You said a mouthful.

International laws not reinforced are not International laws.

Rarely do I care about people who do not have foresight...but those kids...brings back the horrifying images of napalm used as antipersonnel weapons. Sometimes you need to ball up diplomacy like a poorly written letter and throw it away and go straight to action. And I hate shooting from the hip, but sometimes you need to stop things before they get worse.

I fear things will get worse. And things getting worse would be terrible.

[prfsnl_gmr]

It seems that a mound of evidence makes it clear that the chemical weapons were used, were ordered to be used by Assad and/or his high command, and that attempts to cover it up were made afterward. I got the distinct impression that at issue for the U.S. isn't a push for a regime change or an invasion/"boots on the ground" scenario, but rather establishing the terms under which Syria can wage its civil war through the implementing of external consequences for violating the chemical weapons ban.

I agree with this. Inaction in the face of mounting evidence that the regime used chemical weapons on its populace shows that there are no consequences for violating international law. This is not a message that we - or any other civilized nation - should send to the world's despots.

I am also very disappointed that other countries - which are generally more concerned with international law than the United States - do not seem to share this position and insist on the United States shouldering the responsibility (and blame) for enforcing international law.

(Finally, I am disappointed that so many nations are dependant on our very expensive military for their basic defense needs - we could probably afford a few more things at home if we did not have to spend so much defense "welfare" for other first-world countries - but that is a different issue.)

[Pulsar_t]

It seems that a mound of evidence makes it clear that the chemical weapons were used, were ordered to be used by Assad and/or his high command, and that attempts to cover it up were made afterward. I got the distinct impression that at issue for the U.S. isn't a push for a regime change or an invasion/"boots on the ground" scenario, but rather establishing the terms under which Syria can wage its civil war through the implementing of external consequences for violating the chemical weapons ban.

I agree with this. Inaction in the face of mounting evidence that the regime used chemical weapons on its populace shows that there are no consequences for violating international law. This is not a message that we - or any other civilized nation - should send to the world's despots.

I am also very disappointed that other countries - which are generally more concerned with international law than the United States - do not seem to share this position and insist on the United States shouldering the responsibility (and blame) for enforcing international law.

(Finally, I am disappointed that so many nations are dependant on our very expensive military for their basic defense needs - we could probably afford a few more things at home if we did not have to spend so much defense "welfare" for other first-world countries - but that is a different issue.)

with the russo-chinese support for rogue regimes there's no way international law could be upheld efficiently. libya was a shithole that didn't really concern moscow much so they let it slide.

[oxymoron]

I think the united sates is funding both sides. That way they kill each other and after the US can come in, clean up the mess and make a protectorate. I know Lord of War is fictional but It gives a great visual example of what I mean.

[o.pwuaioc]

I think the united sates is funding both sides. That way they kill each other and after the US can come in, clean up the mess and make a protectorate. I know Lord of War is fictional but It gives a great visual example of what I mean.

No way. Clearly the United States is worried about Russia's super-orcs, so they took down the Muslim Brotherhood in order to get rid of the ring bearer.

[Pulsar_t]

I think the united sates is funding both sides. That way they kill each other and after the US can come in, clean up the mess and make a protectorate. I know Lord of War is fictional but It gives a great visual example of what I mean.

No way. Clearly the United States is worried about Russia's super-orcs, so they took down the Muslim Brotherhood in order to get rid of the ring bearer.

You sir, win an internet. And though there are naturally parties about to gain much from any ensuing conflict, the world is a much more complicated place and such reductionism cannot be applied to this particular situation.

[RCBH928]

Tomorrow (or today in fact) my country is testing sirens just in case even though Syria is far away. Some people are speculating there might be an Iranian attack.