Should the U.S. Attack the Assad Regime?

[Bowfinger]

I hear you. But over 100,000 people have died in this civil war so far and roughly 10,000 have been civilian women and children. The fact that about 1,400 have died to chemical warfare is horrible...but the 100,000+ who've been killed through "conventional means" is horrible as well, and the ~600 who've died due to torture is especially horrible. Drawing a red line at 1400 deaths is arbitrary in my opinion. Dead is dead and war is hell.

I wish the rebels were the good guys here and that we could support them in good conscious...but the rebels are highly fragmented and the extremist groups within will likely be running things after Assad falls. If we attack Assad and substanially affect the balance of power in Syria, we will surely have innocent blood on our hands....whether or not we directly kill these innocents as collateral damage in our attempt to teach Assad a lesson or we indirectly kill thousands of innocents with the inevitable war aftermath and the religious persecutions/killings that will surely follow with a regime change that we helped orchestrate.

I can't believe Obama wants to do this.

Well said.

Maybe -- MAYBE -- IF there was a broad coalition of countries willing to make a long-term commitment of their manpower and resources to take action with us, maybe then I would be open to this. As it is, with the U.S. standing effectively alone -- hell no! While the use of chemical weapons is indeed evil, it is not up to the U.S. to fight all of the world's evil.

(And I'm still skeptical that the Assad regime was truly responsible. The allegations and assertions coming out of D.C. Sound all too similar to the propaganda used to sell the Iraq invasion. I didn't buy it from Bush, and I don't buy it from Obama.)

 

[nextJin]

Even with a coalition of 100 countries willing to support action I wouldn't give a damn. The most I would do is provide medical support 50 miles off shore.

No bombs
No troops
No missles
No weapons
No loans
No support other than medical off shore.

I don't even care if Assad was killing millions of people in his own country raping kids and supported cannabis ism.

Not our goddamn problem, it wasn't 2 years ago and it's definitely not now. If Americans want to go kill more people they should buy the plane ticket and go. Not tell others to go fight while they sit back and watch Wolf Blitzer during the Situation Room.

There is no interests, no value, and no threat. If anything we should be supporting Assad to prevent the fucking rebels from acquiring chemical weapons.

This is Obama doing what he does best: being a politician.

He fucked up and now, no matter what happens Congress will get blamed. Probably Republicans, Obama is probably the best politician this country has seen in a century.

 

[waggy]

My only hope is the vote in congress goes as teh one here.

 

[KMFJD]

No. The whole argument of not allowing the chemical weapons precedent to be broken is silly. It's never held a single dictator in place; they've held themselves back because it hasn't been more useful than conventional arms. Either way people die.

You could also make a case that the USA also has used chemical weapons in the past (Agent Orange)

 

[zinfamous]

The 'rebels' are not one cohesive group.

The original rebels, what is authentically the FSA, are a legit movement of people wanting freedom from dictatorship, etc. They were doing really good for a while but basically ended up getting Bashar's regime into a stalemate.

In the void created by the stalemate, 1000's of foreign, ALQ aligned fighters swarmed in from Iraq, Turkey, etc. to basically 'fight' for Islamic radicalism, which is counter to both Syria's regime and the FSA.

While the FSA has essentially told the foreign fighters that they can help the FSA, they've also demanded it be a fight for freedom, not a fight for radical islam.

The ALQ aligned 'rebels' aren't rebels. They're terrorists swarming in with a completely different agenda than the FSA rebels.

I would support the FSA, just not the ALQ guys.

yeah, good luck with that--never going to happen. The FSA was always a non-cohesive mass of various interest groups with their own personal goals. The only organized entity within the fighters is Al Qaeda--and guess who comes out ahead if the FSA "wins" this thing?

The time to aid the FSA was two years ago, before the jihadis became so established. That ship has now sailed, and I see zero reason for the US to help establish yet another Al Qaeda puppet state.

 

[MiniDoom]

Remember these pieces of garbage next time you vote...

 

[zinfamous]

Well said.

Maybe -- MAYBE -- IF there was a broad coalition of countries willing to make a long-term commitment of their manpower and resources to take action with us, maybe then I would be open to this. As it is, with the U.S. standing effectively alone -- hell no! While the use of chemical weapons is indeed evil, it is not up to the U.S. to fight all of the world's evil.

(And I'm still skeptical that the Assad regime was truly responsible. The allegations and assertions coming out of D.C. Sound all too similar to the propaganda used to sell the Iraq invasion. I didn't buy it from Bush, and I don't buy it from Obama.)

wrg: Iraq intelligence. The difference, at least, is that here we also have intelligence outside of US-provided Intelligence

 

[Fern]

Putin called Kerry a liar today:


Kerry said in testimony that the rebels are becoming more moderate and not really the bad al-queda types. That's just laughable BS. I take anything Putin says with a big grain of salt, he's about as trustworthy as your average gaboon viper, but Kerry and the admin are putting on the big PR press right now trying to drum up support, and I don't believe them for a second.

I heard Kerry say that, couldn't believe it. I doubt anybody else really does.

Fern

 

[her209]

This is what happens when you have an over bloated military budget and military. Every situation becomes an opportunity to use the weapons.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Putin can't be trusted but he did the right thing calling Kerry a liar. Kerry said Assad used chemical weapons and he's a liar. When will obama stop the lying?

I know you have a hard time understanding things, but his post specifically said putin can't be trusted......

Yes, but Incorruptible then proceeded to applaud Putin for calling Kerry a liar. Therefore he puts more credibility in statements made by Putin than a United States veteran.

It was the rebels/terrorists who did it though and attacking Assad makes no sense.

Here's Incorruptible supporting Assad's claims that the rebels were responsible for the chemical weapon that was used. Which is clearly syrian propaganda.

In both instances he displays his immediate trust of statements made by Assad and Putin, over any statement made by a US official.

 

[Incorruptible]

I know you have a hard time understanding things, but his post specifically said that Putin can't be trusted......

For some reason he likes to twist the words and misinterpret them to read something else.

Yes, but Incorruptible then proceeded to applaud Putin for calling Kerry a liar. Therefore he puts more credibility in statements made by Putin than a United States veteran.







Here's Incorruptible supporting Assad's claims that the rebels were responsible for the chemical weapon that was used. Which is clearly syrian propaganda.

In both instances he displays his immediate trust of statements made by Assad and Putin, over any statement made by a US official.

Kerry did lie though when he said that Assad used chemical weapons and the rebels were secular even though some of them are al-qaida.

Are you retarded? There are people on this forum who question that Assad used the chemical weapons. There isn't any evidence that Assad used the chemical weapons and logically it would be more likely used by the rebels.

Unless you can show posts where I said that I trust them then STFU and admit you were wrong.

I said that Putin did the right thing calling Kerry a liar and I don't believe Assad would use chemical weapons this late and at a time that would most hurt him. I also said Putin can't be trusted.

Try to think for yourself instead of blindly following obama.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Here's Incorruptible supporting Assad's claims that the rebels were responsible for the chemical weapon that was used. Which is clearly syrian propaganda.

How is it "clearly" Syrian propaganda?

Nobody's seen the damn evidence Obama and Kerry speak of. And there are other reports indicating it was an accidental 'explosion' of the chem weapons due to mishandling by one of the rebel groups.

"Clearly"? There isn't a damn thing clear about who used it.

Fern

 

[BlueWolf47]

Keep making up more lies. Bluewolf cheering on obama to attack Syria since it means more dead Christians.

Is it weird to you that none of these words have any relation to a post I've made. You must be doing madlibs for all of your responses.

I guess i should respond to you in the same manner so heres a madlib I did just for you.

My name is Incorruptible, and I am a complete retard.
.......................... noun......................... adjective...noun

 

[BlueWolf47]

How is it "clearly" Syrian propaganda?

Nobody's seen the damn evidence Obama and Kerry speak of. And there are other reports indicating it was an accidental 'explosion' of the chem weapons due to mishandling by one of the rebel groups.

"Clearly"? There isn't a damn thing clear about who used it.

Fern

Well, the first group to make assertions rebels used the chemical weapon was Assad's regime.

For the time being, since you have no evidence to prove that either the US government or Assad is lieing, I will lend my trust to US intelligence. But clearly, you are invested in statements made by Assad.

 

[Fern]

Well, the first group to make assertions rebels used the chemical weapon was Assad's regime.

For the time being, since you have no evidence to prove that either the US government or Assad is lieing, I will lend my trust to US intelligence. But clearly, you are invested in statements made by Assad.

"Clearly"? Again? Doubling down, huh?

No has nothing to do with Assad's statements, and as I previously mentioned, there are independent reports that the gas came from mishandling of weapons by a rebel group. I.e., it was accidental.

Furthermore, as has been noted by many, there doesn't seem to be any motivation for Assad to use the chem weapons. In fact, quite the opposite.

So no, nothing is "clear" about who is responsible. You can rely all you want on our govt, but that's merely faith, particularly so since they haven't released their evidence to anyone.

Fern

 

[BlueWolf47]

For some reason he likes to twist the words and misinterpret them to read something else.



Kerry did lie though when he said that Assad used chemical weapons and the rebels were secular even though some of them are al-qaida.

Are you retarded? There are people on this forum who question that Assad used the chemical weapons. There isn't any evidence that Assad used the chemical weapons and logically it would be more likely used by the rebels.

Unless you can show posts where I said that I trust them then STFU and admit you were wrong.

I said that Putin did the right thing calling Kerry a liar and I don't believe Assad would use chemical weapons this late and at a time that would most hurt him. I also said Putin can't be trusted.

Try to think for yourself instead of blindly following obama.

You know your right, after killing over 100,000 of his own citizens, he would never think of killing another 1000 with a chemical weapon. I mean, the only reason he has one of the biggest stockpiles in the world is because he has a weak spot for collecting chemical weapons. Im sure he has a personal museum to display his vast collection.

Well thanks for changing my view of Assad. I was unfairly critical of his regime.

 

[Incorruptible]

How is it "clearly" Syrian propaganda?

Nobody's seen the damn evidence Obama and Kerry speak of. And there are other reports indicating it was an accidental 'explosion' of the chem weapons due to mishandling by one of the rebel groups.

"Clearly"? There isn't a damn thing clear about who used it.

Fern

It's not Syrian propaganda at all. He just trusts obama for everything he says.

It makes no sense for Assad to do this since if he was going to gas them then he would have done it a lot earlier and not so late. He also knew that using chemical weapons would hurt him by getting the US involved.

The rebels backed by al-qaida knew that obama would be stupid enough to help them if they used chemical weapons since they could blame Assad and people would be foolish enough to believe this.

The only propaganda is being spouted by obama and his cronies to push for an attack on Syria.

 

[BlueWolf47]

"Clearly"? Again? Doubling down, huh?

No has nothing to do with Assad's statements, and as I previously mentioned, there are independent reports that the gas came from mishandling of weapons by a rebel group. I.e., it was accidental.

Furthermore, as has been noted by many, there doesn't seem to be any motivation for Assad to use the chem weapons. In fact, quite the opposite.

So no, nothing is "clear" about who is responsible. You can rely all you want on our govt, but that's merely faith, particularly so since they haven't released their evidence to anyone.

Fern

Well then what do we have this huge obtrusive NSA for. If Assad initiated it, i would think some stray communication would be intercepted. I don't see how else they could be so sure he used the weapons otherwise.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Why would they disclose their intelligence source this early? How long did it take us to learn about a guy named curve ball?

As for what i support. This limited operation bullshit is utterly retarded. We should have intervened a year ago and no matter what, someone has to secure or destroy the chemical weapon stockpiles.

 

[werepossum]

yeah, good luck with that--never going to happen. The FSA was always a non-cohesive mass of various interest groups with their own personal goals. The only organized entity within the fighters is Al Qaeda--and guess who comes out ahead if the FSA "wins" this thing?

The time to aid the FSA was two years ago, before the jihadis became so established. That ship has now sailed, and I see zero reason for the US to help establish yet another Al Qaeda puppet state.

Maybe. Could be that the reason the Obama administration initially backed Assad so strongly was that they knew the rebels were heavily al-Qaeda even then. Even if the terrorists were not the majority, we've learned from Egypt that the best armed and best organized can prevail without being a majority.

Remember these pieces of garbage next time you vote...

Dang, one of my own Senators this time.

How is it "clearly" Syrian propaganda?

Nobody's seen the damn evidence Obama and Kerry speak of. And there are other reports indicating it was an accidental 'explosion' of the chem weapons due to mishandling by one of the rebel groups.

"Clearly"? There isn't a damn thing clear about who used it.

Fern

Well said. There is nothing at all clear about this situation, and I suspect that even with the intel available to the President it's not a whole lot more clear. I'm guessing (though obviously I could easily be wrong) that Obama's motivation is more credibility (his own but by extension the nation's) than clarity over whom is actually to blame.

Hey, pick a side randomly and you're likely to strike a blow against evil. Of course, also a blow FOR evil . . .

 

[Incorruptible]

You know your right, after killing over 100,000 of his own citizens, he would never think of killing another 1000 with a chemical weapon. I mean, the only reason he has one of the biggest stockpiles in the world is because he has a weak spot for collecting chemical weapons. Im sure he has a personal museum to display his vast collection.

Well thanks for changing my view of Assad. I was unfairly critical of his regime.

You can end the post right there.

You didn't even bother to read my post. He has no reason to use chemical weapons now and it would have made more sense to have used them earlier. I'm still waiting for your moron obama to show the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons. Where is the evidence?

 

[werepossum]

Well then what do we have this huge obtrusive NSA for. If Assad initiated it, i would think some stray communication would be intercepted. I don't see how else they could be so sure he used the weapons otherwise.

Problem is military command doesn't work that way. Assad doesn't just pick up the phone and say "Hey guys, let's dump some sarin gas on that neighborhood outside of Damascus, you know where that mini-mall is with the falafil machine in the center." Instead it's more like "Execute Foxtrot two eight eight seven Oscar" which will set in motion a plethora of pre-planned elements, and even that will be encoded and/or encrypted. The Germans did intercept a phone call in the clear from Hezbollah discussing Assad's ordering the attack, but that does not necessarily mean that Hezbollah is correct. Could be that Hezbollah and Obama are simply wrong in the same way.

We had the same thing in the Iraq war where we intercepted a command to use chemical weapons. Given that no chemical weapons were used, it's equally likely that the actual message was more like "Shoot another SCUD at Israel and bring me a red-haired hooker this time." Signal intelligence is quite hit-and-miss at the best of times.

 

[BlueWolf47]

You can end the post right there.

You didn't even bother to read my post. He has no reason to use chemical weapons now and it would have made more sense to have used them earlier. I'm still waiting for your moron obama to show the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons. Where is the evidence?

And where are these reports that have unequivocally convinced you that Assad didnt use the chemical weapon.

 

[Fern]

You could also make a case that the USA also has used chemical weapons in the past (Agent Orange)

Agent Orange wasn't a weapon, it was a defoliant. It's by accident that it had detrimental health effects.

Fern

 

[Incorruptible]

And where are these reports that have unequivocally convinced you that Assad didnt use the chemical weapon.

Where are these reports that have unequivocally convinced you that Assad did use the chemical weapons?

I already took you down over this, It makes no sense for Assad to do this. Now you can be ignorant and keep trusting what that POS obama tells you but some of us prefer to think for ourselves. Assad can't be trusted but he didn't do it. Assad has protected the Christians so I now see why you don't like him.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/syria-crisis-questions-answered

http://thoughtcatalog.com/2013/father-of-dead-syrian-rebel-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-by-accident/

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/...ian-jihad-rebels-use-of-chemical-weapons.html

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/russia-syria-rebels-weapons/2013/09/05/id/524066

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/w...pose-dilemma-in-west.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrian-rebels-admit-to-being-behind-chemical-weapons-attack/5347424

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ding-civilians-ahead-possible-airstrikes.html