Syria

[BigRedBuster]

I have been meaning to start a thread on this for a long time.

 

But, what specifically is our government threatening to do if Assad uses chemical weapons on his people?

 

Are we then going to war in Syria?

[carlfense]

I don't know. I sure hope that we don't send ground troops.

[BigRedBuster]

I just don't understand what grounds a threat is based on. If I walk up to you in a bar and threaten to do something if you don't stop being an azzhole, I better be ready to back it up.

 

Am I the only one that seriously thought our threats to Syria were totally hollow?

[carlfense]

I just don't understand what grounds a threat is based on. If I walk up to you in a bar and threaten to do something if you don't stop being an azzhole, I better be ready to back it up.

 

Am I the only one that seriously thought our threats to Syria were totally hollow?

Which threats?

[BigRedBuster]

I'm guessing a few weeks ago Secretary Clinton was "warning" Syria that we will take action if he uses chemical weapons on his people.

 

All I have been able to find is kind of a vague report about Patriot Missiles. I have a hard time believing that was the extent of the threat.

 

If we wake up tomorrow and Assad has extinguished 20,000 people in his country with chemical weapons, what do you think Clinton's and Obama's plans are after that?

[carlfense]

If we wake up tomorrow and Assad has extinguished 20,000 people in his country with chemical weapons, what do you think Clinton's and Obama's plans are after that?

I have no idea what our plans are.

 

What do you think?

[BigRedBuster]

That's why I'm asking. I have no idea. I was hoping someone had read some article I haven't that spells it out more.

 

I honestly can not imagine this administration sending ground troops into Syria after all their campaigning against the wars we are in.

 

So, I guess that leaves bombing Syria without ground troops. But, that would kill civilians and even though I firmly believe our military takes great strides to eliminate that, it is inevitable.

 

This administration has shown willingness to use drones. Again, that more than likely results in civilian deaths.

 

I have absolutely no idea what we are willing to do in these situations. So, I was surprised to hear such tough talking.

 

What would you guess our plans would be?

[carlfense]

What would you guess our plans would be?

WAG, but I would guess air strikes only.

[strigori]

With the Russians and the Chinese even backing away from Syria the odds of actually having to do any boots on the ground actions are probably pretty slim.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Civilian lives will be lost regardless air or ground. Obviously air is what we would do and I can support that. We don't need any of the lives lost being our own.

[husker_99]

America needs to eliminate it's own problems and quit running in everytime a country doesn't do what we like. I mean we allowed the iraqis to gas their own people this isn't any different plus they don't have any oil so no reason for us to get involved.

[JJ Husker]

To answer the OP's question; I doubt sec Clinton or Obama have any plan at all. I'm sure they hope the threat alone does the trick. What will they do if Assad does not heed the warning? If they follow past positions, they will simply talk about it some more. No chance they take any military action and no way they put boots on the ground. Their whole foreign policy is based on talking and building consensus, actual action does not come into play. You might think that I am complaining about that but, not in this case. Sure I think they are all talk and no action, that can be both good and bad. Personally I am tired of being the worlds police force. If there's a problem in Syria, surely there are some countries in closer proximity that are better suited to intervene than us. The entire middle east could fall off the earth and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Let somebody else bankrupt their country trying to do the right thing for once. I haven't seen any thank you cards for any of our previous efforts. When the people you are trying to help are unappreciative, I say quit helping them. Obama is convinced that nobody in that part of the world likes us interefering so maybe it's time we try things his way. We've got enough problems of our own.

[Ziggy]

It appears as though, the use of Sarin nerve agent had been confirmed in Syria. But as of right now they are trying to determine who used it and if it warrants a response from the US/UN. Here is an article I found on CNN.

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/25/matt-gurney-obama-to-syria-you-can-use-a-little-sarin-but-not-a-lot-ok/

 

My take is we need to nip this in the bud or Syria will become more embolden, but its definitely puts us in a precarious position because who really wants to get into another war. Maybe we will have another Libya assault, with full backing of the UN. I for one do not envy they President right now for this decision he needs to make.

[BigRedBuster]

For the most part, I think he has handled Syria fairly well. However, when he came out and warned them that if they use WMDs the US will do something, I wish that would have come from the US and not just from the US.

 

I have absolutely no desire to do anything unilaterally. It needs to be a Syria against the rest of the world situation.

 

Quite frankly, I think Europe should be the ones actually doing anything militarily. Leave our boys and girls at home.

[Ziggy]

I think the only mistake so far is giving an ultimatum that probably is empty. The whole use WMD's and its going to be a game changer, and then when they use them, its like oh its not like they used a lot of them. I kinda felt like maybe we should have had a plan for if they used them and had maybe a UN mandate ready in the event of Syrian WMD use.

 

Also agree about nothing unilateral, but I wouldn't mind flying some sorties, maybe some spec ops, and some logistical assistance. Maybe even a naval blockade/assistance.