obama successfully reaches across to Republicans.

[SpatiallyAware]

So we're all clear, if Congress turns him down and he goes, he'll have your full support. Correct? If so, any plans to join the military to give him the full support he deserves?

Additionally, because you seem to know what Obama desires, could you answer why he did nothing the first time chemical weapons were used?

Thanks.

Boom it's typical modern progressive mindset... Similar to a 4-5 year old child.... They have all sorts of unrealistic and unachievable desires, yet have no concept of understanding what's involved in making it happen.



All these peopole care about is that our Dear Leader has called on them to fight for his little pet project, and they come running like lapdogs to help without putting two thoughts into what it is that they're supporting.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Who is that woman and what is that from?

 

[dank69]

Regardless of Kerrys motives I find the "unlikely" case almost a certainty. Assad will have two options, either roll over (which I see as the unlikely event) or try to demonstrate that he remains in control. The expression of that will be to remove whatever restraint is in place and inflict more casualties. How that's accomplished would be anyones guess, but gassing is not the only option.

So when Assad does this what will Kerry opt for? Boots on the ground short term to remove a despot leader and build a new nation?

If Obama does it right, Assad would be completely crippled. Who knows though, it's all speculation.

 

[dank69]

Boom it's typical modern progressive mindset... Similar to a 4-5 year old child.... They have all sorts of unrealistic and unachievable desires, yet have no concept of understanding what's involved in making it happen.



All these peopole care about is that our Dear Leader has called on them to fight for his little pet project, and they come running like lapdogs to help without putting two thoughts into what it is that they're supporting.

See, this is why I laugh at you. You can't understand that I'm simply clarifying some semantic games and speculating about motivation and that I have never stated that I condone any action against Syria.

 

[boomerang]

Please quote where I said I support any of this.

I didn't say you did. I just asked a simple question that you evaded. I'll ask it again. If Congress turns him down and he does it anyway, will he have your support? A simple question that requires a simple answer.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

See, this is why I laugh at you. You can't understand that I'm simply clarifying some semantic games and speculating about motivation and that I have never stated that I condone any action against Syria.

??

My comment had nothing to do with you in particular. It was to boom, explaining why there really is no point trying to logically discuss this topic with people are seem to be mentally incapable of understand the implications of us getting involved in Syria's mess.

 

[dank69]

I didn't say you did. I just asked a simple question that you evaded. I'll ask it again. If Congress turns him down and he does it anyway, will he have your support? A simple question that requires a simple answer.

Of course not. Simple answer for a stupid question. I'm not sure if I'd condone it even with approval from Congress. TBCH I am not sure if I would care if the entire ME including Israel were turned into a glass parking lot. When it comes to war I fall squarely in the libertarian sect but I admit it's probably because I don't care enough to bother to try to understand the details.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If Obama does it right, Assad would be completely crippled. Who knows though, it's all speculation.

Precisely how would Obama "do it right" and completely cripple Assad?

 

[dank69]

Precisely how would Obama "do it right" and completely cripple Assad?

By surgically taking out most of his military resources including all of his chemical weapons? I mean, that is the stated plan, is it not?

 

[fskimospy]

??

My comment had nothing to do with you in particular. It was to boom, explaining why there really is no point trying to logically discuss this topic with people are seem to be mentally incapable of understand the implications of us getting involved in Syria's mess.

So why do you expect people to try and logically discuss things with you? You seem to be fairly stupid, you're blindly argumentative, and generally ignorant.

I sincerely doubt you have much of an understanding of the situation in Syria and even if you did I doubt you would be able to argue about it effectively.

 

[dank69]

??

My comment had nothing to do with you in particular. It was to boom, explaining why there really is no point trying to logically discuss this topic with people are seem to be mentally incapable of understand the implications of us getting involved in Syria's mess.

The gif you posted a bit above (that I can't see but I assume from the url that it is the eyeroll chick) applies more to this post of your than it does to mine. I'm sure your reply to boomer in support of his reply to me had nothing to do with me.

Your "logic" comment is particularly funny because you of all people couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[boomerang]

Of course not. Simple answer for a stupid question. I'm not sure if I'd condone it even with approval from Congress. TBCH I am not sure if I would care if the entire ME including Israel were turned into a glass parking lot. When it comes to war I fall squarely in the libertarian sect but I admit it's probably because I don't care enough to bother to try to understand the details.

Thanks for the answer. No need for the second sentence but it was not unexpected.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

By surgically taking out most of his military resources including all of his chemical weapons? I mean, that is the stated plan, is it not?

No, we aren't going to do that. We will strike some centers and chemical facilities. We will make things more difficult but there are ways to issue orders to troops, unless by taking out military resources we plan on killing Assads army. Is that what is planned?

 

[dank69]

No, we aren't going to do that. We will strike some centers and chemical facilities. We will make things more difficult but there are ways to issue orders to troops, unless by taking out military resources we plan on killing Assads army. Is that what is planned?

Like I said, I haven't really been following it closely. I assume taking out troops isn't an objective.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Like I said, I haven't really been following it closely. I assume taking out troops isn't an objective.

If you want to "do this right" and remove Assad as a threat you have two choices. Assassinate him or do what we did in Iraq. We send in competent people and eliminate the threat. If you recall we did that in short order. We burn down the government and in Kerry and Obamas minimalist scenario we pack up and walk out leaving Syria to collapse upon itself.

We can do that quite easily.

 

[dank69]

If you want to "do this right" and remove Assad as a threat you have two choices. Assassinate him or do what we did in Iraq. We send in competent people and eliminate the threat. If you recall we did that in short order. We burn down the government and in Kerry and Obamas minimalist scenario we pack up and walk out leaving Syria to collapse upon itself.

We can do that quite easily.

I don't think the goal is to remove Assad as a threat. I think the goal is to remove his ability to use chems.

 

[fskimospy]

If you want to "do this right" and remove Assad as a threat you have two choices. Assassinate him or do what we did in Iraq. We send in competent people and eliminate the threat. If you recall we did that in short order. We burn down the government and in Kerry and Obamas minimalist scenario we pack up and walk out leaving Syria to collapse upon itself.

We can do that quite easily.

That's not correct. Assad's forces currently rely on large numbers of aircraft, mechanized forces, tanks, etc that are not available to the rebels but make juicy air targets. We could quite easily eliminate his ability to use those forces, and considering the current stalemate that would likely be sufficient for the rebels to defeat him on their own. (if we kept at it long enough).

Whether or not that is a good idea is open for debate, but we certainly don't need to invade Syria to remove Assad.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's not correct. Assad's forces currently rely on large numbers of aircraft, mechanized forces, tanks, etc that are not available to the rebels but make juicy air targets. We could quite easily eliminate his ability to use those forces, and considering the current stalemate that would likely be sufficient for the rebels to defeat him on their own. (if we kept at it long enough).

Whether or not that is a good idea is open for debate, but we certainly don't need to invade Syria to remove Assad.

You kill his army then with the goal of regime change.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

That's not correct. Assad's forces currently rely on large numbers of aircraft, mechanized forces, tanks, etc that are not available to the rebels but make juicy air targets. We could quite easily eliminate his ability to use those forces, and considering the current stalemate that would likely be sufficient for the rebels to defeat him on their own. (if we kept at it long enough).

Whether or not that is a good idea is open for debate, but we certainly don't need to invade Syria to remove Assad.

Man where have we heard that before? Just bomb a couple air targets no big deal.



Except then, EVERY single thing that happens afterward is now "our" fault. If the regime enacts a leader who is not good for Syria... Our fault.

 

[fskimospy]

You kill his army then with the goal of regime change.

Those are my sentiments, exactly. My #1 preference is to leave this alone as the outcome is too uncertain long term. If we aren't going to leave it alone however, we remove Assad from power.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Those are my sentiments, exactly. My #1 preference is to leave this alone as the outcome is too uncertain long term. If we aren't going to leave it alone however, we remove Assad from power.

That's entirely possible to do. The rather laughable stated expectation is that by attacking as is proposed (or what we think is being proposed) Assad will have the fear of God (or Obama) put into him and he'll play nice. History has shown that that almost never happens. Instead, when despots feel threatened they inflict more cruelty on their people to generate more fear, and fear is control. So the likely result is an increased loss of civilian life as a result, but fear goes so far and if the nation as a whole rises against Assad then it's bad for him. Minimal involvement for us and eventually Assad is booted after much more loss of life. The question is if Obama sees that as politically viable, or if not going in deeper is too costly for him and his associates. That's when we see the scenario you and I have suggested. The question at that point would be if the Syrians thanks us, hate us and do we really care what they think? Most likely the latter, and I don't foresee a parade of roses for us in any case, but most likely a religious based government hostile to the west.

Such is life.

 

[fskimospy]

That's entirely possible to do. The rather laughable stated expectation is that by attacking as is proposed (or what we think is being proposed) Assad will have the fear of God (or Obama) put into him and he'll play nice. History has shown that that almost never happens. Instead, when despots feel threatened they inflict more cruelty on their people to generate more fear, and fear is control. So the likely result is an increased loss of civilian life as a result, but fear goes so far and if the nation as a whole rises against Assad then it's bad for him. Minimal involvement for us and eventually Assad is booted after much more loss of life. The question is if Obama sees that as politically viable, or if not going in deeper is too costly for him and his associates. That's when we see the scenario you and I have suggested. The question at that point would be if the Syrians thanks us, hate us and do we really care what they think? Most likely the latter, and I don't foresee a parade of roses for us in any case, but most likely a religious based government hostile to the west.

Such is life.

Hard to tell. Yes, as Assad loses more power he will become more brutal. Whether or not that would be a greater long term loss of life than just allowing him to kill people now is hard to say.

The Syrian civil war isn't really just the rebels vs. Assad, there are lots of factions within the rebels and they frequently fight each other as well as the government. I don't know enough about the situation to know who might be the most likely to emerge victorious from that.

 

[Incorruptible]

Man where have we heard that before? Just bomb a couple air targets no big deal.



Except then, EVERY single thing that happens afterward is now "our" fault. If the regime enacts a leader who is not good for Syria... Our fault.

Nicely said. There is no reason to attack Assad and the rebels are backed by al-qaida.

 

[dainthomas]

Nicely said. There is no reason to attack Assad and the rebels are backed by al-qaida.

Regardless of whether or not someone is backed by al-queda, someone else still isn't allowed to gas or nuke them. If they all want to kill each other with chainsaws, baseball bats or whatever, that's fine. But we can't open the can of worms that if someone is on a bad guy list, someone else can do whatever they want to them.

 

[Fern]

If Obama does it right, Assad would be completely crippled. Who knows though, it's all speculation.

I'd call that doing it completely wrong.

The rebels take over, meaning largely AQ etc. They get chem WMD and we have to go in with troops to secure them. That has been estimated to require 75,000 boots on the ground.

Also, mass slaughter of non Muslims etc.

Worst possible of all outcomes.

The whole thing is pointless.

Fern