The Syrian gas attack

Curious what that would solve and who are you targeting?

So now we should just assinate foreign leaders? I thought there was a law against that. If you accept the premise of the original post the gas attack isn't even true. And I thought the rebels were all wacky Muslim extremists anyway and deserved to die. Yeah, there are lots of easy answers.

So, your analysis of the Syria civil war, is simply Military=bad guys, Rebels=equal good guys? If we just "take out" Assad, everything will be all right?

Have we not not seen that what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, etc etc., where there are very few good guys - only bad guys and really bad guys, many who are not even Syrian? Every trouble maker in the world (almost) wants a piece of the action in Syria.

World View: War Between Syria's Rebel Groups Threatens Wider Proxy War


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...ider-proxy-war

Any Military action we take, will just be a more lame version, of Iraq/Afghanistan, IMO. We will only make things worse.

I agree there isn't much we can do or should do. Obama's mistake was setting his "red line" when there was no way he was going to do anything and he knew it. You just don't draw a line in the sand and then back away. It makes him and us look weak. Better if he had just kept his mouth shut.

__________________
Dear Math, it is time you grew up and solved your own problems.

So why did Obama make the declaration? To sound tough? It makes him look weak. I wouldn't support any intervention in Syria but our president is nothing more than an empty vessel with no moral compass.

Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk 2

__________________
There is only one certain barrier to truth, the conviction that you already have it- Unknown

Again I disagree. What I'm proposing is a win-win for the US.

__________________
Remember, when seconds count. . .
the police are just MINUTES away!

Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. . .Davy Crockett

So one suggestion is to murder Assad and if Obama did that, the folks (many on this site) would wail and wail about how Obama is helping the rebels, those Muslim Brotherhood thugs....

One suggestion is to sell and cater to both sides....yeah, that makes for good business for those military weapons manufacturers, but not much sense in a logical world.

Why not just stay out of it? Let them decide who they want to lead them, and then we can decide if we want to do business with them.

__________________
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto- - Jefferson

Ok, but how do we "win"?

Syria only has a population of 20 million, of which the civilaians are mostly the ones getting killed, at present. Then what about Yemen, Egypt Iraq,Afghanistan and every other country over there? it will take a little while to kill them all off.

Even "obsolete" weapons still go bang, so how how long before they start using then against our side, even if it's IEDs or suicide bombers (kamikazes)?

Syrians are not just fighting each other.

There is also a power struggle for strategic position in the Middle East. That why Russia is all in.

I've had a few posts stating my philosophy about who, what, when, where and how we should make war. Apparently it was too simple to be paid attention to, so in answer to the anticipated responses, I'll try again.

Several large, mean and nasty cruise missiles, targeted directly at Assad at his top military command would end this senseless, illegal and dangerous (that I guess isn't apparent either) use of chemical weapons in Syria. I'm pretty sure we know where the chemical stockpiles are so go ahead and add that to the target list.


Note once again, I often use the word simple, but rarely use the word easy.
There's a reason for that. The two words aren't synonymous.
The reason I said the answer was easy was because when Obama and his cabinet started wring their hands the first time about what to do (maybe a year ago) a general piped up and said if you don't want to use land troops and get mixed up in a civil war, just use cruise missiles and our air force for a no fly zone.
So all I had to do was recall that answer, which was easy.

Assassination of foreign leaders?
Yes, on those rare occasions when we find evil incarnate. See some of last century's history for examples.

I don't accept the premise that the gas attack isn't true.
A fairly rounded education in chemistry and medicine told me instantly what I was looking at.

Along with this next post, I have one more thing to add........



I, in no way said, implied or subscribe to picking sides among Muslims in the Middle East. It appears that insanity is a national past time.
They seem to be perfectly content in killing each other when they can't find a Jew or a Christian to kill. I'm pretty sure there is even a reference to that effect written in the Koran. Go figure.

What I said was, annihilate whoever is starting their *stuff* over there......and come home. Period. End of action.
I like cruise missiles because it gives the chance for the Navy guys to get a little action. They don't even have to be close to fire them and they do such a fabulous job when they hit.
Then there is an added bonus.
You know how some of those guys over there like to run their mouth, beat their chests, call us the Great Satan and threaten to do all kinds of nasty things to us?
The smoke rising over the mountains to the west has a real calming effect on that stuff.
Try it, you'll like it.

.”

In reality, he said nothing.




How funny.

Concerning Syria, Americans really want Obama, to do exactly what he is doing - nothing, since Syria is a country simply imploding and there is nothing anyone can do, to "fix it". Troops will just be a waste of life and money. Cruise missiles and air attacks will kill many but accomplish nothing.

However, the sake of political rhetoric, Obama is being called out (by American people), since he had made that "red line" comment, he should be doing something to back up those words. Maybe we should invade.

I truly live in bizarro-world.

That's because a fundamental understanding of poker, apparently is lacking.
I don't play anymore, but when I did, I never, ever bluffed.
I came out on the losing side, once, in the 80's for about $20, but that was it.
I broke even or won every other time.
If you ain't got the hand, shut up and fold, don't make it worse by writing a check with your mouth that your can't cash.

And if you're running your mouth as the representative for a whole country, you put us ALL at risk when you do it.

Does that make it any clearer?

No, not really.

It's just more rhetoric.

Plus, we are not playing poker and politicians run their mouths constantly.

Using words like calculus and equation, maybe they all have their Bomar calculators out.

I'm sick to death of putting US soldiers in harm's way for NOTHING.

There is NOTHING we can do...ever...to change the mindset of a people who are not ready to do it themselves and move forward. When the people of "fill-in-the-blank" get tired of watching their loved ones die at the hand of their neighbor, when they get tired of living in fear, when they decide they want more from life than the promise of struggle and strife, then, and ONLY then, will they change.

There is no clear good guy/bad guy over there. While it's true that if the govt used chemical weapons (and I believe they did), it makes them "a" bad guy, but how many of those that were killed would just as soon blow us to bits if given the means/opportunity? And before anyone says it, I fully realize those small children couldn't care less one way or the other, but what better way to incite the world's righteous rage than to parade pics of murdered children across the screen?

So, considering my statement above, I agree with those who say stay out of it and let them have at it. It may sound cold and callous, but we, or any other military force, cannot "fix" this.

__________________
My book is out! Go 'like' it on FB:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Goo...83553391747680

__________________
My book is out! Go 'like' it on FB:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Goo...83553391747680

There is nothing in the constitution stating we can't assassinate foreign leaders. In fact, I believe the only "law" against it is an executive order by Jimmy Carter. Another weak president. That is by memory so I could be wrong but I don't really feel like doing research this morning, for nothing. BTW, executive orders are NOT laws.

Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk 2

__________________
There is only one certain barrier to truth, the conviction that you already have it- Unknown

Seems to me killing Assad is justified b/c of his actions...had to chuckle about the 'law against' assinations...like Assad is following any laws.

__________________
My book is out! Go 'like' it on FB:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Goo...83553391747680

All correct, except maybe the timeframe of the EO. I'm not 100% sure when that was written.
I'm with you on being someone's google daddy. When it's important to know, you look it up yourself.

Edit.
Very close, EO 12333. Drafted by Ford, signed in 1981 by Reagan.
Since the Ford administration, it has been U.S. policy.

http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/...6_1/01_TXT.htm

__________________
My book is out! Go 'like' it on FB:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Goo...83553391747680

Thanks TG.
I gotta admit, I even got a kick outta posting that one.
Amazingly, even when you put it simple terms, some people still don't get it.

Truman didn't bluff, he never even tipped his hand, he just played his aces in August of 1945.
Now, for the nitpickers, note I never said we should go nuclear, that would be putting words in my mouth I never said.
We have a powerful arsenal at our disposal that we can use with the absolute minimal risk to our own GI's......that ISN'T nuclear.

The most important point that I've made before (and is continually missed or ignored) is that ever since August of '45, we haven't heard a peep out of the Japanese.
We haven't had a sneak attack from them, they don't go around threatening us and I'll bet that if we closed our bases over there and came home, they STILL wouldn't be a threat. The reason we have bases in the Pacific isn't because of them, it's that big Yellow country next door.
Young pups don't mess with the Big Dog......not more than once.
It's a simple fact, but oh so few really understand it.