A New War You Can't Blame On Bush! Or Can You?

Yet the stated objective of this "attack" isn't to weaken Assad, its just to punish him for using WMDs. The US seems "sure" he used them and that was before the UN inspectors were done doing their work which means they know something we don't or they're making this whole thing up to attack. However the attack is so ineffective and indecisive that if you wanted to attack you'd want to do more than blow up some airports or whatever soft targets they've picked out.

Also the Islamists getting a hold of Assads chemical stockpiles already means that we'd be getting involved. The man is free to butcher his own people but losing control of your stockpiles with AQ afoot means the US ears perk.

We aren't even firing at these targets to blow up the stockpiles unless you believe this is a covert way to take out Assads WMDs.

And that right there is the problem, and what changed my mind about the whole thing.

I have little faith in our intelligence since it was proven that Iraq did not have WMD.

...yes, I know that Bush was leader at the time we ordered the attack and when we found out that there was no WMD. That makes me more leery about our intelligence now, even with our current president in office.

I'm more inclined to believe that the rebels gassed themselves to help the US win the war for them now...

The only reason at this point we might get involved is Obama ran his mouth about "red lines" and put our credibility on the table. Now he is stuck.

to be fair, they could, and I stress the word could, still be buried in the desert somewhere, for all anyone knows.

That's hardly the only reason, but it could definitely play a roll.

So wait because Iraq didn't have WMDs, Syria definitely didn't use them on their own people, during a war?

Look, I know Iraq left a sore spot on the *** of every American because we got duped but that doesn't mean the attack didn't happen. It's far more likely that Assad having control of the stockpiles used them than a roundabout story that rebels somehow infiltrated the compounds and planned to gas their own in order to summon the West.

Where is the evidence?

The only thing Iraq ever had were chemical weapons, which don't qualify as WMD in most senses. You can't rule out that Saddam had some form of WMDs, of course, but the intelligence that was presented to the UN and domestically was incredibly far off.

I'm more in the boat of forces within Assad's government did it without his approval or knowledge than that rebels gassed themselves. It's all speculation, but he knows what the consequences internationally would be if he did. In regards to the "proof", at the moment there isn't even PROOF that chemical weapons were used at all, though it seems they were based on the evidence available.

True.

Buried out there doing nothing but poisoning the desert (which on itself, not a big loss) but still bring divide towards his enemies would have been more damaging to the US than using them ON the US.

But the thing is, they will come out eventually, then Bush will be exonerated for his "war crimes" by the liberal press (which means that nobody would hear/report about it but Fox News), and all this hatred we have in the nation would become a lot smaller (not extinguished, but it would take away a good chunk of the hate towards the right if they see that they were right all along).

I highly doubt it though. I personally think that there wasn't any WMD out there and Bush acted on the falsities of the CIA (and NSA! j/k).

I don't believe he will be afraid to use them going forward after watching this political mess play out.

Guys, you're a couple days late. The conservative rhetoric now is that he's making the decision all on his own and not consulting congress.

Now now. Try your hate baiting elsewhere.

I suggest MSN.

What?

It's completely laughable that the United States would "punish" someone for using chemical warfare with us being the number one perpetrators of mass destruction. The only nation to have used atomic weapons. Extensively used chemical warfare in Cambodia, a neutral nation, during the Vietnam War. Propping up puppet governments all throughout the Middle East and arming people to do the dirty work. Sucking Saudi Arabia's *** while denouncing Iraq on the same exact policies. Arming people in South America.

How about we hold ourselves accountable before we tackle other nations? And 100 people from chemical weapons? That's a speck of dust on a beach of sand the US has been responsible for killing.

World leader or not, people are fed up with it.

I love my country, I just can't stand my leaders.

Run for office.

Got rocket scientists in here arguing over left and right chicken wings. Like taking a side makes you "cool" or throwing out terms like liberals and conservatives will make you seem like you know what you are talking about and people should heed your typewritten words...

Why are any of you even commenting on what's going on in the middle east and how they can't seem to stop fighting? ALL OF YOU... can't seem to stop fighting. Hypocrisy at its finest. Its what most Americans are good at. Feeling entitled to things. Feeling superior to others. Stepping on peoples toes to have themselves heard, to be important... when you're really a nobody. Taking the Left or the Right or the Middle road won't get you anywhere. Choosing to take one of these sides is like choosing between AIDS, Cancer, and Heart Disease. Arguing about it just makes you look like an idiot.

Stop hating, but help each other. Pointing a finger just points 3 right back at you. Stop supporting crooked leaders and wicked nations. Roman, Mongol, Ottoman, British, Russian, Spanish, Qing.. All great empires have come down like a house of cards and America will be no different. I love this country but I am ashamed of what we do to others and ourselves. You should be too.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

thanks Dr. Phil

You're welcome mr entitled superior and just had to have yourself heard with nothing useful to say. Thank you for wasting our time as it had the usefulness of a splinter in the eye.

Back on topic:

Englands gov't says they aren't going in. They want the results from the UN inspectors before doing anything. Looks like America: *** Yeah will be shelling Syria alone.

So much for international support. lol

I think everyone is waiting on UN at this point. Obama isn't gungho about this anyway. UN testers aren't there to figure out who unleashed the attack so it won't tell anyone anything they don't already know but maybe it will add to some credibility.

Honestly though, I don't see the harm to "american interests" in backing down from the "red line". Any nation-state are self-preservationist enough that they wouldn't directly attack American interests. The non-state groups are going to continue what they're doing, regardless if the military intervenes or not.

The bigger travesty is a moral one, and that red line for that was passed long ago. Far more people have suffered and died from conventional weaponry.

Obama boxed himself in when he said that he was going to punish the regime for using chemical weapons with all the red line talk. This is purely about US credibility and reputation at this point. The only way he can walk this back is if Congress comes back and squashes any military action which would be an amazing act of government working so I wouldn't count on it.

As someone put it on BG, this is very Kobayashi Maru.

He boxed himself in domestically and politically more than anything else. US politicians and pundits are making a bigger deal out of this "red line" than any foreign group.

Right, he has no way to walk this back now the administration is on the record saying they are going to punish Assad. Kinda the problem with announcing you're going to use force before getting your ducks in a row...

So we're stuck with unilateral, America-looking-like-an-*** unless those UN envoys drop information bombshells which effectively means nothing will be accomplished here since the mission is to not really hurt Assad but simply to rattle his cage.

We already look terrible, there is only a difference of degree at this point. Really Obama is the only one to really lose face by not doing anything. There are two foreign policy problems I see with going in with anything other than a surgical strike:

1) we have to definitively pick a side (obviously some sort of rebel support), and from that point on we have to support that side. We both morally/politically take a stance, and we get stuck with the bill.

2) we lose all credibility if it turns out there is proof that it is anything but a Syrian military attack. CIA loses any credibility it has.

On the other hand, we may look slightly worse than we do now if we don't go in, but we've capped at our losses for now.

The arithmetic for the US seems to me to be in favor of waiting. We already look bad, we're already damned morally, and realistically its not going to have a large effect on protecting or harming our national interests. I think we need to be more sure than we are now to act.

PS I'd be in favor of supporting the rebels as a people against the atrocities they've faced, but then we'd be effectively turning against the Syrians who support Assad. Those civilians who support him and are innocent don't deserve that either.

lol'd at use of the phrase "surgical strike".

"Surgical" was used frequently to describe the drone strikes, which have been anything but. By which definition would we be using today?

Of course if the administration decides to go through with it they're going to claim it's a "surgical" or "high-precision" strike. Every positive adjective you could think of would be used to describe their methods regardless of if it's the reality or not.

This isn't a surgical strike, it's a symbolic *** you to Assad with rockets while at the same time not wanting to change the course of the war on the ground.

Anything else at this rate is entering a war against Syria that Congress and the American people don't want. Hell, you could make the statement that attacking a sovereign nation is an act of war in itself but 'Murica twists the rules as it sees fit. Somehow firing rockets into another country is "punishment" when support for this strike has sunk like a lead balloon at the UN and among allies.

We made our bed when we ignored the start of the Syrian crisis and now we must lie in it. Our bets on who want to win are placed but that doesn't mean they will. No doubt we're probably assisting them with logistics or whatever under the table tactics the CIA has in their manual for this though.

Supporting and arming rebels who are entrenched with Islamists is also a pretty bad idea. Assad may be a brutal dictator but we have no idea what might arise to replace him.

Just stay out of it. There are no realistic consequences to America not getting involved in Syria. We might look bad but who cares, didn't hurt us when we didn't go into Rwanda. Our allies aren't going to turn their backs on us or pull out of any trade agreements. Thats just stupid doomsday talk that will never happen. Our economy and the global economy is not going to crash if Syrians keep killing each other.
Yes it is kind of depressing that the UN doesn't even care that Assad is using chemical weapons on his own people but let them look bad, isn't that what the UN does all the time. I'm not a philosopher, whats that dumb quote, tyranny wins when good men stand by and do nothing? Yeah well, let tyranny win in Syria, there haven't been any consequences for the world so far, and its been 2 years.

Why does 'Murica need to do anything at all? Can we at least get done with one massive conglomerated clusterfuck before starting a new one.

Where's the UN? isn't there a UN "peace keeping force" that could be sent to...I dunno.....keep the peace for a while?

I love the "punish, but not overthrow Asad" approach.

"Let's lob a bunch of patriot missiles into Syria to show we have a gun show to punish Asad. Who cares if we hurt innocent people, becoming the very entity that should be punished."

Makes sense to me......