It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
sherb wrote: »
I just don't think we have thought this through. I'm a big believer in deterrence, but I don't know if a strike will have the necessary deterrent effect on Iran, and I don't think at this point we can forsee the consequences of intervention. All of this could have been avoided if Obama had not drawn a line in the sand with respect to Syria. Now he almost has to act. So we are faced with a situation where the ongoing maintenance of the modern liberal international order looks to me a lot like whack-a-mole. Baathist dictator sticks his head up, Obama whacks it down. What happens if Assad's regime suddenly collapses (along with the bureaucracy that maintains it) and the jihadists take over? Do we want that? How does THAT benefit us?
EdB wrote: »
I submit that Obama's strategy for the middle east is the same as Bush's and the neocons that instigated it in Afghanistan and then Iraq. The ultimate goal is the overthrow of Iran and military/economic control of the middle east. Syria is part of the original axis of evil and it's necessary to get rid of Assad to weaken Iran so they can be overthrown and a compliant regime put in place in both Syria and Iran.
That's Obama's strategy and it's still as insane, stupid, illegal, and immoral as it was when Bush started it over one million innocent dead people ago. What we should do is stop bullying people with our military and work to get both sides in Syria to the negotiation table to end the conflict there and then stay the hell out of the middle east were we have no good reason to be involved militarily.
jbilly wrote: »
I think by stating that it was a red line and now having that line crossed (again) we have to basically $hit or get off the pot. Whether we like it or not we are the world police (aka Team America) and if we are going to preach and lecture other countries about how they behave then we better back up our stance or just keep our mouths shut.
I'm not sure what the appropriate action is at this point. But assuming we go in I would favor airstrikes and cruise missiles on any know chemical weapons sites, SAM sites and any other regime military hardware favoring Assad, such as Russian Hinds and fighters.
EdB wrote: »
You must have missed this info that says the rebels were responsible for previous chemical attacks.http://www.legitgov.org/Russia-gives-UN-forensic-proof-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-Syria
Russia gives UN forensic proof 'rebels' used chemical weapons in Syria 10 Jul 2013 A day after Syria invited United Nations chemical weapons investigators to talks in Damascus, Russia said on Tuesday it had forensic proof that 'rebels' have used a "lethal" sarin compound and handed its evidence to the UN team for inquiry. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, permanent representative of Russia to the United Nations, told reporters he submitted an analysis, " certified by chemical weapons organizations," in "80 pages of photographs, formulas and graphs" to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon. Churkin said sarin, a colorless, odorless liquid affecting the nervous system, was in a projectile fired by the opposition into the Khan al-Asal section of Aleppo on March 19.
sherb wrote: »
Just as an aside, I'm not convinced by what might be called the Ed B. argument: that since we didn't stop Saddam from using chemical weapons, we are forever barred from stopping or deterring their use in the future. I don't find that argument convincing at all. The facts on the ground might warrant intervention in a given situation, or they might not. The geopolitics of the 1980's are of limited usefulness in determining how we should act in a unipolar world.
sherb wrote: »
I just don't see this current intervention as well thought out. What is Obama's strategy or vision for the middle east? does he have one? What criteria is he relying on when he decides who to bomb or where to intervene? The entire approach appears ad-hoc, designed primarily to avoid the appearance of weakness. I'll grant that this is a longstanding issue for democrats, but by itself such grounds are inadequate.
dryflie wrote: »
Gosh Ed, we're way behind schedule. Time we caught up.
Temporary Price Reduction.
Give a Gift
PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE
Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.