US moves naval group closer to Syria

[billhilly]

U.S. naval forces are moving closer to Syria as President Barack Obama considers military options for responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad government.

Whoopee we're all gonna die.  Do we back the oppressive dictator or the batshit crazy islamists?  It's a good thing other countries have absolutely no interests in Syria of we might run the risk of causing problems due to unforeseen circumstances.  Hell, intervening in the middle east has worked out so well for us in the past, what could go wrong?

[SilentFutility]

Tens of thousands massacred...international world sits idle...
A few hundred killed in a specific way...suddenly the world wants to intervene.

Hmm.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Tens of thousands massacred...international world sits idle...
A few hundred killed in a specific way...suddenly the world wants to intervene.

Hmm.

Exactly.

Conventional weaponry and murder is bad, just not the right type of bad.

I, for one, still wish for us to steer well clear of anything relating to Syria.

[hillbillyatheist]

Whoopee we're all gonna die.  

you think this will cause WWIII? LOL

my guess is we lob a couple missiles at the government if that.

then they get pissed. thats it. nobody wants a ground war, even Obama. they really don't even want to do the missile thing but feel pressured. LOL

syria doesn't stand a chance against the US, and the international community would back us.

so how are we all gonna die?

[GrinningYMIR]

The US should stay out of any militaristic ventures for a few years at least, too many unpopular wars as of late, and it would just cost more than it would gain us, as we aren't gearing for a major war like Korea or Vietnam or WW2, at most we would be a policing action, using quick blitzkrieg-type strikes to destroy the enemy and leave a government we support in behind us.

Syria is a rotten place, one where we should have no place in. We have Al-Qaeda back rebels fighting against Assad's Hezbollah backed troops. Yes, we've had allegations of Chemical use, however there is also belief that both the rebels and Assad forces used it, hence the international community hesitating at intervening.

And  as for the US fleet moving in the area, this is most likely a measure meant to contain security of the waters, or at least to appear as such. But it could also be a move to set up a position for a strike against Syrian forces.

He hasn't done much good, but if Barry can keep us out of that wasp's nest I'll like him just a little more

not much though

[billhilly]

Whoopee we're all gonna die.  

you think this will cause WWIII? LOL

my guess is we lob a couple missiles at the government if that.

then they get pissed. thats it. nobody wants a ground war, even Obama. they really don't even want to do the missile thing but feel pressured. LOL

syria doesn't stand a chance against the US, and the international community would back us.

so how are we all gonna die?

Calm down.  It was a reference to a Country Joe and the Fish song.

[youtube:x62ghwx9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuUBCF3KKxc[/youtube:x62ghwx9]
Oh and that international community backing us deal sounds familiar.  Where have I heard that before?  It won't cause WWIII but Russia is pretty tight with Assad.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm really tired of my government thinking we need to butt in everywhere.

[Poison Tree]

We have Al-Qaeda back rebels fighting against Assad's Hezbollah backed troops.

While it has obvious draw backs (massive civilian suffering, increasing risk of drawing neighboring countries (especially Lebanon & Iraq) into  the war, risk of further radicalization, moderates being pushed out, ect), I wish people were at least willing to discus the idea that the best coarse of action maybe to hope for (perhaps even facilitate) a prolonged Hezbollah/Syria/Iran vs Al-Qaeda war, which weakens both sides and eventually end in a crippled Assad (devil you know) clinging to power.

However, if they (US/NATO) have good intelligence as to where chemical weapons are stored, they would be smart to attempt to destroy them or their means of delivery (preferably with missile strikes, but CIA/special forces may be needed), with preventing their use in Syria being only a secondary goal to preventing them from being smuggled out of the country for use by terrorist or a dying Assad using them against Israel/Turkey/NATO.

[hillbillyatheist]

Calm down.

LOL I'm not mad.

It was a reference to a Country Joe and the Fish song.

hey I like this song! thanks for sharing.

[billhilly]

We have Al-Qaeda back rebels fighting against Assad's Hezbollah backed troops.

While it has obvious draw backs (massive civilian suffering, increasing risk of drawing neighboring countries (especially Lebanon & Iraq) into  the war, risk of further radicalization, moderates being pushed out, ect), I wish people were at least willing to discus the idea that the best coarse of action maybe to hope for (perhaps even facilitate) a prolonged Hezbollah/Syria/Iran vs Al-Qaeda war, which weakens both sides and eventually end in a crippled Assad (devil you know) clinging to power.

However, if they (US/NATO) have good intelligence as to where chemical weapons are stored, they would be smart to attempt to destroy them or their means of delivery (preferably with missile strikes, but CIA/special forces may be needed), with preventing their use in Syria being only a secondary goal to preventing them from being smuggled out of the country for use by terrorist or a dying Assad using them against Israel/Turkey/NATO.

Going in to a middle eastern country looking for weapons of mass destruction again?  "We have intelligence on where they are and we can't risk them getting into the hands of terrorists."  Sound at all familiar???

[Shiranu]

If our government was to intervene for the sole purpose of humanitarian reasons, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Seeing as how that isn't how governments work though, I am extremely skeptical of any government action in Syria.

[hillbillyatheist]

I personally think since its basically a muslim terrorist group vs a dictatorship that we should just let them fight it out.

I think most americans feel that way. whether the government  will stay out of it is another matter. I'm not sure what we gain by getting mixed up with that shit.

[SGOS]

There's a whole boat load of power and wealth waiting for whoever wins the conflict.  When a victor emerges, the people will be declared free and the fighting and bloodshed will stop.  Peace will blanket the area as the secret police start rounding up and torturing those suspected of being sympathetic to the opposition.  Peace will prevail as long as the victors keep rounding, torturing, and killing the opposition.  It will be a lasting peace, and we can return our attention to the next American Idol on the Television.

Other Mid East countries will look to Syria and say, "Oh look how those people are free!  The weak have risen up against the mighty, and now the weak have all the power, and things are as they should be."

Then another country will rebel and replace it's cruel leaders with new cruel leaders and peace will reign again forever, and Pat Roberston will say all the evil was because of the gay people.  And Westborro Baptist Church won't give a shit because it doesn't have much to do with picketing funerals or how God hates fags.

Republicans will thank God that George Bush was so clever to invade Iraq, and Democrats will just be grateful that Obama stepped in and fixed the mess.

[SilentFutility]

my guess is we lob a couple missiles at the government if that.

then they get pissed. thats it. nobody wants a ground war, even Obama. they really don't even want to do the missile thing but feel pressured. LOL

What would that achieve?
"Everyone is killing each other so let's fire explosive ordinance at them, that'll stop them killing each other!"
If they're dead they can't kill eachother, perfect solution.

The US should stay out of any militaristic ventures for a few years at least, too many unpopular wars as of late, and it would just cost more than it would gain us, as we aren't gearing for a major war like Korea or Vietnam or WW2, at most we would be a policing action, using quick blitzkrieg-type strikes to destroy the enemy and leave a government we support in behind us.

They were unpopular because they achieved only human suffering and nothing else.
Likewise with the practice of installing puppet regimes.

a dying Assad using them against Israel/Turkey/NATO.

Why would he do that to NATO member states or Turkey?
If we'd carried out surgical strikes on his soil then maybe but if he is losing power he is far more likely to use indiscriminate weaponry on his domestic opposition.

[GrinningYMIR]

Syria is a rotten situation, now we have accusations that both rebels and governmental forces are using gas on each other, it's so convoluted that no matter which side you pick, the bad guy will take power. As I've said, the US and Europe should stay out of it, this is one thing we want no part of.