Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The UN is a red herring. It is not a world government. The United States wouldn't have joined (much less founded) an entity that compromises its own sovereignty and placed the best interests of all the nations collectively above the national interest. We can quibble about whether the concept of the UN acting in that manner is good or bad (my religion almost explicitly indicates that that would be 'good', though that's a tenet of my religion that I don't find myself supporting) but it doesn't matter because the vast majority of Americans, as well as the vast majority of most nations, especially the developed nations who's support would be necessary to give the UN such relevance, vehemently object to the idea of there being any kind of deference due a world body by their nation.
So it is essential to look at the matter strictly from the standpoint of independent nations interacting with each other. Despite petulant denials in (as Battleneter indicated) MANY MANY threads here on C-D, there are American interests in the region, both actual US persons and assets, and those of allies, relationships that themselves have significant impact on American interests. It is inanely naive to deny that the United States has a vested interest in addressing anything that could further destabilize the region (and I suspect that such naivete where we've seen it repeatedly in these myriad threads was not genuine, but cynically faked by posters who knew that being honest and honorable with regard to these matters would undercut their vacuous objections).
The only legitimate question here is whether there actually is a way to take some action to make things better. There are two aspects to this: Political and tactical. The political consideration involves having partners, so it doesn't look like the United States is deciding to do this without some support from relevant entities. Israel, for various reasons, is not viewed by the world community as a positive contributor to this political equation. So it needs to be something like the Arab League or at least one of its member nations. Or Turkey - Turkey alone, with at least one major European ally (say, France), would provide enough political underpinning for this venture, to keep the risk of political blow-back within the range that it has a high likelihood of being smaller than the positive impact of damaging chemical weapons making/deploying capability.
I haven't seen anyone here adequately address the tactical question, other than with useless throwaway lines like, "It won't work," or, "It'll make Assad attack Cleveland!" I suspect that that's because commenting on the tactical considerations with credibility requires access to top secret information, and a sure-fire way of losing such access is blabbing about it online. So forum members that aren't happy with leaving some matters unresolved are just going to have get over it, since there are some things that they're absolutely not going to be in a position to be credible, and will therefore have to defer on such matters to people who are credible because they do have such access.
Just another case of the Dims showing they're the true warmongers.
They do this because they know they"ll never have the nuts to serve in the military.
Sick bastards lol
Iran is actually the main target and Syria is allied with Iran, detabilise Syria it removes support for Iran.
1. US has to protect the Petrodollar
2. To ensure stable supply of oil out of the Middle East (even a small disruption can cause huge issues)
3. Stop Middle East countries Developing WMD's as that would prevent the US from acting on #1 & 2#
These are the 3 main reason the US is in the Middle East
Last time I checked Syria wasn't an important source of oil. Obviously if it were, the civil war would have already disrupted the flow of oil already and that premium would be built into today's oil prices. Not sure how many years you have been around but the mid-east oil and the issues surrounding it have been going on since the 70's. I really think the entire situation here does surround the use of chemical weapons. It has to be made clear that these are not tolerated. To do nothing opens the door for these weapons to be used all over the world by various groups.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoD Guy
Just another case of the Dims showing they're the true warmongers.
They do this because they know they"ll never have the nuts to serve in the military.
Sick bastards lol
Must be why the Smugs' Speaker of the House is going along, eh?
Obama has an interest in upholding a decades old ban on and International Law on use of gas. As the leader of the ONLY Super Power in the World, he feels that Super Power, must lead on this. He does not have a plan to step into Syria's Civil War. The Dems have difficulty supporting war acts to do it(although nothing else has worked) and the Repubs, well most of them just HATE anything Obama.
Did Syria declare war on us? Threaten us in any way? Why should I support U.S. involvement in some internal conflict in some Stone Age country I can't find on a map?
It's in AIPAC interests that's all it takes for the most part.
Did Syria declare war on us? Threaten us in any way? Why should I support U.S. involvement in some internal conflict in some Stone Age country I can't find on a map?
I dont think its so much about the Syria conflict but more on the Syrian leader using chemical weapons. If the world stands by and does nothing expect a global proliferation of chemical weapons. As an example a 5 lb. bag of anthrax bacillus could devastate a major metropolitan city.
Just another case of the Dims showing they're the true warmongers.
They do this because they know they"ll never have the nuts to serve in the military.
Sick bastards lol
You mean the meatheads who got us involved in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, banged the drums of war throughout the 90's and voted in favor of war in Iraq and Afghanistan (but blamed Bush for lying) and are now looking to bomb Stria?
Reagan was the single most conservative POTUS we've had in a century....NEVER went to war. Ended the cold war without firing a shot and had the Berlin Wall torn down.
Lefties are so intensely stupid in regards to, well, everything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suspect that that's because commenting on the tactical considerations with credibility requires access to top secret information, and a sure-fire way of losing such access is blabbing about it online. 
