Syrian Conflict

[Magyk]

i think its giggly how "america needs to do something" but as soon as we do the rest of the world will be like "OmFG USA MIND YOUR OWN BIZNIZ."

[tens0r]

lets fuck them up #merica

[Ramshi]

i think its giggly how "america needs to do something" but as soon as we do the rest of the world will be like "OmFG USA MIND YOUR OWN BIZNIZ."

only if they do something extremely dumb

[Turquoise Dragon]

lets fuck them up #merica

[MajorMajor]

Its a sure bet that Magyk bought the party line on Benghazi as most of his original post was about it and not Syria.

For me, the Syria problem just boils down to what we want to accomplish.

If our goal is to show the world when we say there is a red line we mean it then obviously we should lick the hell out of them. Of course, this is all just to satisfy our machismo as it doesn't have any other purpose. I consider it to be childish behavior in adults and politicians of the worst kind.

Its funny how often you can compare stupid crap adults do to the things children do. I think its probably because not everyone grows up all the way.

If our goal is to police the yews of chemical weapons then we should lick them IF we can prove they did it and which side it was that unleashed them, so we know who to strike. Obama obviously has real problems securing support for going this route because of Bush and his invisible WMDs. If we know we are right and this are goal we should go ahead and strike regardless of support.

If our main goal is to keep the rest of the world happy then we don't strike until we can get their support.

If our goal is to look out for the interest of ourselves then we should look at the pros and cons of striking to make our decision.

Strike without world support:
Cons:
The world hates us a bit more for not listening to them.
Missiles cost money so this isn't cheap.
We could accidentally commit ourselves to a larger conflict even if that possibility is remote.
We wouldn't topple Assad's regime with limited airstrikes so he could just go on murdering people with more conventional weapons. This means we wouldn't really stop any killing just change how it'll happen.
We have marginally assisted the rebellion against him.

Pros:
We show everyone we're not to be trifled with.
We eliminate Assad's capacity to yews chemical weapons.
We have marginally assisted the rebellion against him.

The last item I put in both categories for the very reason it is an unknown. Assisting the rebellion against Assad could be good or bad in the long run because if they win then the new government could be completely unfriendly to us if it becomes an Islamic state. Don't take this to mean we should be friends with Assad because that ship sailed when we started insulting him in the international press and in diplomatic circles.

We don't seem to gain as much from striking as we would from not doing so. Unless, we weight the pros more heavily than the cons. In number, the cons are greater than the pros.

So I think we should ask ourselves what WE gain from striking. We likely won't gain an ally in the rebels. We won't make friends with Assad. We won't eliminate any weapons that were a direct threat to US, only the rebels. We won't make any friends with the rest of the world by striking without their support. The only thing we personally seem to gain is proving we have the balls to back up what we say.

Is it really worth fighting just for that?

(Note: I'm reminded of Marty McFly being called chicken here. Go watch the Back to the Future Trilogy ).

[Caesar]

I like what Major had to say. Those are pretty much my ideals.


Also I knew this would turn into talking about licking places

[Magyk]

Its a sure bet that Magyk bought the party line on Benghazi as most of his original post was about it and not Syria.

I didn't buy anything. Its a fact that embassy workers for the United States were requesting support and protection for days before an attack took place. The Obama administration did nothing. An attack actually wound up happening and nothing happened still. Americans died on September 11th and wanting to keep up his 'Al Qaeda has been defeated' charade our President blamed it on a 'spontaneous riot' caused by a (nonexistant) 'youtube video.'

How you can not offer higher protection to a facility that is requesting it DAYS before September 11th (kind of an important day, mind you) and then NOT CALL IT A TERROR ATTACK FOR FOURTEEN DAYS is remarkable.

And that entire bit about Hilary Clinton not being able to answer some questions for well over a week about Benghazi because she bumped her head? Absurd.

| +

The entire thing stinks badly of deception. How you can buy the government's 'line' on the matter is unthinkable.



On a Syria-related note,
I think it is funny as dicks how Obama is saying he "didn't draw a red line" now. EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE VIDEOS LITERALLY EVERYWHERE OF HIM SAYING CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE A RED LINE.

The guy is a fucking slimy, spineless creep.

[Darth_Wayne]

We don't seem to gain as much from striking as we would from not doing so. Unless, we weight the pros more heavily than the cons. In number, the cons are greater than the pros.

So I think we should ask ourselves what WE gain from striking. We likely won't gain an ally in the rebels. We won't make friends with Assad. We won't eliminate any weapons that were a direct threat to US, only the rebels. We won't make any friends with the rest of the world by striking without their support. The only thing we personally seem to gain is proving we have the balls to back up what we say.

Look at who Syria is allied with and it all makes sense.

[tens0r]

Iran and Russia don't scare me, I'm American.

[MajorMajor]

Look at who Syria is allied with and it all makes sense.

Yes, you are correct. It makes a lot of sense. The problem is it just boils down to a pissing contest between the US and Russia. Just because something makes sense doesn't mean it isn't childish.

EDIT:

@Magyk: Hell yes, Obama actually did something stupid for a change and painted himself into a corner with that red line talk. Now he wants to be a child and go through with it rather than man-ing up, admitting his mistake, and saying we should look out for our own interests. If he wants to be a humanitarian there are a hell of a lot of other ways to do it that don't directly involve us in another war/major peacekeeping operation.