Visionz

sh*t is about to get real there.

Tibbi

It's the way things go in the region. No one will be happy there until one faction of Islam goes full Holocaust mode and wipes out all of the others as well a Israel. Which we and the vast majority if the rest of the world won't let happen, and shouldn't.



I think it's funny that the same people who denounced the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan, though that's a much less proportional comparison), are now guns blazing ready to take on Syria's burden. Do we need to get involved? That's a great question! Being that it borders Iraq and could (arguably already is) boil over into that region that we just spent a decade liberating; one could easily argue that it's duty. Then take Israel into account, an ally that we are already on rocky ground with. It's a requirement to show as much support as we can for them at this point in time. However, you're also going to have to discuss our countries affairs, and quite frankly we can financially afford another war. Syria has no spoils to speak of, and even if that were the case, the UN is is such a hate-monger for the US and success that we'd never be allowed to collect anyway.







It's a sore sport for our country, and a money-pit in the making. But there is great risk of personal loss even without sending troops.



Very hard call to make at this point in history.

slow 2K2GT

Unfortunately the situation in Syria is still a civil battle and has not spilled over into the world in the form of direct attacks, for this reason I believe that the rest of the world has no place getting involved quite yet. What is happening there is a shame but other countries, UN and/or NATO cannot just go in and try to play pokey-chest with those involved, its bad for business...but often you need to make a mess in order to clean another one up.



I am all for a good gun fight but dont see this as a real time situation for anyone but Syria to sort out because the minute a direct attack happens on an armed presence in that area we have grounds for a full on war, one that has already set precedence with gas attacks.



Its a recipe for ugly either way.

i8acobra

Do we need to get involved? No. But, that's what long-range cruise missiles are for.

Stocker

If some other country thought we needed to be (to quote the current line from D.C.) "Punished" and sent a few cruise missiles our way, it would be all-out war, yes? Why then do we seem to think Syrians would not put aside their differences and the rebels and the government start launching their Sarin at OUR people for launching cruise missiles into their family feud?



The real reason the USA is talking about doing something to Syria is Obama previously read some tough talk off the teleprompter and said there was a red line he didn't really think they would cross (using CW) and then somebody crossed it. If the government of Syria uses gas on its people and we just let it slide by un-punished, then Iran will be gassing people in the street at the next civil uprising. I find it awfully convenient, by the way, that Syrian "rebels" have been caught using Sarin this year, and the UN inspectors haven't been able to finish an investigation yet, but the world has already declared the Syrian government (not the rebels) is responsible for the latest attack - just what's needed to justify dropping a few non-regime-changing "punishment" missiles on Syria and calling it a Mission Accomplished.



That's Smart Diplomacy for you.

i8acobra

When a child gets sparked for acting like an a*s, do they spank their parents back? Nope. Why? Because they know they'd get severely beaten. When the world decided that it's the US's duty to support them through aid, we became the parents.



You're arguing impossible hypotheticals. No country, even China, has the ability to overwhelm us with force.

Tibbi

You both make great points, however, I won't say that the rest of the world is behind us in any way. Our allies in the middle east are, but that's solely to prevent the aforementioned boil-over. Keep in mind, just like the insurgency that faced our troops in damn near every war for the past 58 years, these people are well stocked with both cold-war era weapons, supplied by both us and the soviets, and modern black market goodies. They have the funding and training, so it's very easy for these groups to come up with CWs. Again though, letting the UN inspectors continue just gives the Syrian government time to play hot potato with anything they might have. If we strike military targets from afar, there is no threat of retaliation, except to those on the ground.



The real question you want to ask is, do we need to help the rebels? A vast number of these groups have the potential to prove far worse than the current regime. Look at Egypt for proof of that.

wheel_of_steel

I hear that most of the rebel groups have strong links with al-quaeda and hezbollah, so ruining assad will possibly make things even worse. But doing nothing still has a high cost, and I believe assad is strongly endorsed by iran, no?



Give it a month, the T.V. stations will find that ratings for syria stories are slipping, and start playing american idol or the X factor again. Nothing to see here, syria and north korea will/have sort/ed themselves out and everything is groovy. Keep calm and buy a chevrolet.

Stocker

You don't have to overwhelm an invader with force to kill a few thousand troops with rockets carrying sarin. And yes, kids do sometimes spank back but it ends badly for them around here.



On a more positive note, the brits and Germans seem to have backed off for now; hopefully the UN inspectors will say "we can't say who did it" and we will just throw up our hands and declare we don't want to kill people on the wrong side . . . and let our enemies get back to killing each other for us.

Visionz

Friend just posted this....