Conga3 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 How I see this playing out: We (+allies) provide enough military support for the rebels to oust Assad. Do you think that's the goal? My best guess is that it's a one time cruise missile/high altitude strike designed to minimize casualties. A "stop that" slap on the wrist . . . Is it likely to work? I have no idea but I would be surprised if we are drawn into the civil war. Yes. It's my impression that Obama's goal with Syria is the ouster of Assad using indirect methods (rebels not US troops). Timetable is flexible. I believe the OMG CHEMICAL WEAPONS! is the justification (aka public support) for stepping up our support for the rebels and disabling the Syrian military force that is currently holding back the rebels from taking Damascus and hanging Assad Saddam-style. --- The timetable has been stretched out - I believe - to allow time for the rebel "government" to take shape. Once Assad falls, if there is a new government the rebels can support immediately to fill the power vacuum... a transition away from the Assad regime should go smoother. A transition to what? I have no clue...but I doubt we put boots on the ground to control/influence it. I bet we let it play out Egypt-style...while using CIA/special forces to counter the Iranian influence. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 How I see this playing out: We (+allies) provide enough military support for the rebels to oust Assad. Do you think that's the goal? My best guess is that it's a one time cruise missile/high altitude strike designed to minimize casualties. A "stop that" slap on the wrist . . . Is it likely to work? I have no idea but I would be surprised if we are drawn into the civil war. Yes. It's my impression that Obama's goal with Syria is the ouster of Assad using indirect methods (rebels not US troops). Timetable is flexible. I believe the OMG CHEMICAL WEAPONS! is the justification (aka public support) for stepping up our support for the rebels and disabling the Syrian military force that is currently holding back the rebels from taking Damascus and hanging Assad Saddam-style. --- The timetable has been stretched out - I believe - to allow time for the rebel "government" to take shape. Once Assad falls, if there is a new government the rebels can support immediately to fill the power vacuum... a transition away from the Assad regime should go smoother. A transition to what? I have no clue...but I doubt we put boots on the ground to control/influence it. I bet we let it play out Egypt-style...while using CIA/special forces to counter the Iranian influence. I agree that Obama would prefer that Assad be ousted . . . but I don't think that this strike (assuming it happens) is going to have any meaningful impact on Assad's military capabilities. It seems more like a high tech shot across the bow. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 How I see this playing out: We (+allies) provide enough military support for the rebels to oust Assad. Do you think that's the goal? My best guess is that it's a one time cruise missile/high altitude strike designed to minimize casualties. A "stop that" slap on the wrist . . . Is it likely to work? I have no idea but I would be surprised if we are drawn into the civil war. I view that as a total waste and it will cause more people to hate us. Link to comment
Fuzzy Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Sigh, I hate it when people freak out that the end of the world is near with WW3 between the US and Russia. I mean c'mon, the US and Russia in a full blown nuclear war over Syria? Russia is not the same country it was 30 years ago. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I view that as a total waste and it will cause more people to hate us. Could be. Or maybe Assad will quit killing his people with chemical weapons to avoid further strikes. If US lives aren't put at risk I don't mind taking the chance. We'll see. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 I view that as a total waste and it will cause more people to hate us. Could be. Or maybe Assad will quit killing his people with chemical weapons to avoid further strikes. If US lives aren't put at risk I don't mind taking the chance. We'll see. Sorry if I find that funny. Also, if this is just a...."oh, maybe it will help".....do we care about the innocent people who die in the bombings? Link to comment
walksalone Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 I don't think what people seem to realize is that... A) Assad's an a$$hole. B) The rebels are a$$holes Either way, our involvement is helping somebody that doesn't like us, or likes us until they've achieved their goal. We have no dog in this fight. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Could be. Or maybe Assad will quit killing his people with chemical weapons to avoid further strikes. If US lives aren't put at risk I don't mind taking the chance. We'll see. Sorry if I find that funny. You should feel sorry if you're finding humor in this. Also, if this is just a...."oh, maybe it will help".....do we care about the innocent people who die in the bombings? Which bombings are you talking about? Our potential strikes? Conventional attacks by Assad? Link to comment
walksalone Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I view that as a total waste and it will cause more people to hate us. Could be. Or maybe Assad will quit killing his people with chemical weapons to avoid further strikes. If US lives aren't put at risk I don't mind taking the chance. We'll see. Why would we help people that are supported by AQ? Why haven't the idiots at the U.N. convened some sort of special "security council" to figure out what to do ? Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 A quick lesson on Syria 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Just who unleashed the chemical weapons attack which killed hundreds of children and other civilians last week - and why? UN weapons inspectors arrived yesterday with a mandate to find that out. "They have a mandate to say whether a chemical attack occurred but not to apportion blame," Dr Shanahan cautions. Heh That was a funny section at the end of that imgur link. Hm...why don't the UN inspectors have the apportion blame mandate? Something I find a little confusing is how hard countries pushed for the inspectors to go in -- and now that they are there, it's "We all knew the attack occurred anyway, and responsibility isn't part of their job. Fortunately, we also know independently who did it anyway." Link to comment
HSKR Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 A quick lesson on Syria After reading that I come to the conclusion that there will be no quick or easy solution in Syria, or solution at all. Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 A quick lesson on Syria After reading that I come to the conclusion that there will be no quick or easy solution in Syria, or solution at all. Simple solution. Let 'em kill each other off. Problem solved. This would be a no win situation for us if we decide to deploy American soldiers. I'm tired of America fighting in the Middle-East. Leave it alone. Link to comment
Foppa Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I don't think what people seem to realize is that... A) Assad's an a$$hole. B) The rebels are a$$holes Either way, our involvement is helping somebody that doesn't like us, or likes us until they've achieved their goal. We have no dog in this fight. Ding ding ding! They've been killing and fighting over there for a couple of thousand years before the U.S. was even an idea, they'll be doing it probably way past when the U.S. isn't a country. The U.S. needs to get past 1) oil dependency and 2) Israel and then we can let them continue to do what they do best. We will never make a difference, and they all hate us to the point where they wouldn't let us anyway, so...? Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Why would we help people that are supported by AQ? What? Why haven't the idiots at the U.N. convened some sort of special "security council" to figure out what to do ? You know the answer. Link to comment
Recommended Posts