Should the U.S. bomb Assad's forces in Syria within the next month?

[imreallyperplexed]

The other day in a hearing in the Senate Armed Services committee, John McCain criticized Leon Panetta and the Obama Administration for not using U.S. air power against the forces of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad to protect Syrian civilians and the Syrian opposition to Assad. Panetta disputed McCain's position arguing that bombing Syria at this point - though morally justifiable - was not "smart" (for many practical reasons). Today, the Democratic and Republican members of the committee carried on the argument. What do you think?

 

[Gramps]

I think the loonies are in charge of the loonie bin. Just what in the hell must it take to illustrate to warhawks that any conflict should be avoided unless no other alternative emerges? These guys are crazy. Obama handled Lybia in a cautious and prudent manner. The rebels won (well, sort of). But if they hadn't and we had've stuck our thumb into the pie how much egg would we be scraping off of our kissers? We have just got to rein-in this urge to take up the causes of every civilization that implodes. WE have an imploding situation right here at home to sort out if the opinions voiced on PJ's is any sort of barameter.

I favor not spending a single penny for intervention of foreign disputes unless it can be established that to not intervene would be detrimental to our welfare. Think Iraq as a guideline.

Gramps

The other day in a hearing in the Senate Armed Services committee, John McCain criticized Leon Panetta and the Obama Administration for not using U.S. air power against the forces of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad to protect Syrian civilians and the Syrian opposition to Assad. Panetta disputed McCain's position arguing that bombing Syria at this point - though morally justifiable - was not "smart" (for many practical reasons). Today, the Democratic and Republican members of the committee carried on the argument. What do you think?

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Gramps,

Vis a vis Libya, another important factor was that the Libyan opposition had a reasonably coherent leadership that the West could negotiate with and who were capable of taking over from Khaddafi with no interim anarchy and no need for peacekeeping forces. If you remember, the bombinb did not start until Khaddafi was on the verge of taking over Benghazi and destroying both the leadership and the opposition military forces. The first task of the bombing was to save Benghazi and the people within it. That is actually what the UN sanctioned. Russia and China feel that the Nato exceeded this mandate because after Benghazi was saved, U.S. air power was used to supplement the ground forces of the rebels.

In Iraq, we had no clue as to how the country would be governed after Saddam was overthrown. Defeating Saddam militarily was not the problem. The problem was with the occupation. And arguably - though our military is now largely out of Iraq - the residue of the botched occupation remains. Cons like to criticize Obama for "hope and change" but have nothing to say about the "flowers and chocolate" rhetoric of Cheney in talking about how Iraqis would react to a U.S. invasion and occupation. Syria is MUCH closer to Iraq than it is to Libya and McCain seems to want to start another potential quagmire.

I think the loonies are in charge of the loonie bin. Just what in the hell must it take to illustrate to warhawks that any conflict should be avoided unless no other alternative emerges? These guys are crazy. Obama handled Lybia in a cautious and prudent manner. The rebels won (well, sort of). But if they hadn't and we had've stuck our thumb into the pie how much egg would we be scraping off of our kissers? We have just got to rein-in this urge to take up the causes of every civilization that implodes. WE have an imploding situation right here at home to sort out if the opinions voiced on PJ's is any sort of barameter.

I favor not spending a single penny for intervention of foreign disputes unless it can be established that to not intervene would be detrimental to our welfare. Think Iraq as a guideline.

Gramps

 

[Zam-Zam]

The other day in a hearing in the Senate Armed Services committee, John McCain criticized Leon Panetta and the Obama Administration for not using U.S. air power against the forces of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad to protect Syrian civilians and the Syrian opposition to Assad. Panetta disputed McCain's position arguing that bombing Syria at this point - though morally justifiable - was not "smart" (for many practical reasons). Today, the Democratic and Republican members of the committee carried on the argument. What do you think?

I wish I had an easy answer. I don't think there is one, and I'd be wary of those who offer one. Two things, however, are clear: 1) A lot of people in Syria are suffering, and 2) Our diplomatic efforts thus far have yielded little to no fruit. It would seem doing more of the same would likely bring more of the same.




Syria crisis: Homs at centre of fresh massacre, activists say


Dozens of people have been killed in a suburb of Syria's battle-scarred city of Homs, reports say, in what activists are describing as a "new massacre".

Forty-four of those killed came from just a handful of families, the Local Co-Ordination Committees (LCC) said.

The reported killings come a day after the UN's humanitarian chief visited Homs, saying parts had been devastated.

Meanwhile a Syrian deputy oil minister posted a message on YouTube saying he had defected to the rebels.

Abdo Hussameddin is the highest level political figure to abandon the government of President Bashar al-Assad since the uprising erupted a year ago.

'Reprisal killings'

According to the LCC, the latest concentration of killings by security forces happened in the Jobar district of Homs. The group said 20 of the dead belonged to a single family, and 16 to another.

It said the deaths were reprisal killings, coming days after security forces retook Homs from rebels, having pounded the city for weeks.



Complete text: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17304490



Whatever direction we take in regards tom Syria is going to have consequences that will be less than welcome. We must decide which is the lesser of the evils.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

I think that the humanitarian crisis is definitely one factor to consider. So is how Syria and Assad affect U.S. interests in the ME and around the world. (Assad is Iran's biggest and most important ally in the ME and a big supporter of Hezbollah in Lebanon so replacing him with someone more friendly would be a definite benefit.) The problem is that getting involved militarily might make things even worse than they currently are and that possibility has to be taken into account. What is the best case scenario? What is the worst case scenario? What is the likely scenario?

I wish I had an easy answer. I don't think there is one, and I'd be wary of those who offer one. Two things, however, are clear: 1) A lot of people in Syria are suffering, and 2) Our diplomatic efforts thus far have yielded little to no fruit. It would seem doing more of the same would likely bring more of the same.




Syria crisis: Homs at centre of fresh massacre, activists say


Dozens of people have been killed in a suburb of Syria's battle-scarred city of Homs, reports say, in what activists are describing as a "new massacre".

Forty-four of those killed came from just a handful of families, the Local Co-Ordination Committees (LCC) said.

The reported killings come a day after the UN's humanitarian chief visited Homs, saying parts had been devastated.

Meanwhile a Syrian deputy oil minister posted a message on YouTube saying he had defected to the rebels.

Abdo Hussameddin is the highest level political figure to abandon the government of President Bashar al-Assad since the uprising erupted a year ago.

'Reprisal killings'

According to the LCC, the latest concentration of killings by security forces happened in the Jobar district of Homs. The group said 20 of the dead belonged to a single family, and 16 to another.

It said the deaths were reprisal killings, coming days after security forces retook Homs from rebels, having pounded the city for weeks.



Complete text: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17304490



Whatever direction we take in regards tom Syria is going to have consequences that will be less than welcome. We must decide which is the lesser of the evils.

 

[BitterPill]

The other day in a hearing in the Senate Armed Services committee, John McCain criticized Leon Panetta and the Obama Administration for not using U.S. air power against the forces of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad to protect Syrian civilians and the Syrian opposition to Assad. Panetta disputed McCain's position arguing that bombing Syria at this point - though morally justifiable - was not "smart" (for many practical reasons). Today, the Democratic and Republican members of the committee carried on the argument. What do you think?

I think we should stay out of it. It would be much better for everyone if the Turks took care of Assad.

 

[Zam-Zam]

I think we should stay out of it. It would be much better for everyone if the Turks took care of Assad.

Do you mean "if" they take care of Assad? So far, they haven't, and the result has been a lot of people being brutalized and killed. I doubt that it's best for them.......

 

[imreallyperplexed]

The Turks are a "third way." So is continuing diplomacy (and watching events unfold.)

I think we should stay out of it. It would be much better for everyone if the Turks took care of Assad.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

What would it take to "take out" Assad? If Assad falls, is there a reasonable chance that Syria can be governed? Would the U.S. have to be involved in peacekeeping? Where would you draw the line?

Iraq was a war of choice. Libya was a war of choice. Syria would be a war of choice. The question to ask is whether Syria is more like Libya or more like Iraq.

Do you mean "if" they take care of Assad? So far, they haven't, and the result has been a lot of people being brutalized and killed. I doubt that it's best for them.......

 

[BitterPill]

Do you mean "if" they take care of Assad? So far, they haven't, and the result has been a lot of people being brutalized and killed. I doubt that it's best for them.......

Yeah, if.

If we start bombing Assad's forces, even more innocents are likely to die. Syria poses a much different challenge than Libya.

 

[BitterPill]

What would it take to "take out" Assad? If Assad falls, is there a reasonable chance that Syria can be governed? Would the U.S. have to be involved in peacekeeping? Where would you draw the line?

Iraq was a war of choice. Libya was a war of choice. Syria would be a war of choice. The question to ask is whether Syria is more like Libya or more like Iraq.

More like Iraq.

I think safe havens in Turkey for the Syrian insurgents along with a no fly zone over Syria enforced by NATO--Turkey is a member--might do the trick after a few months.

I don't think Americans should be directly involved. For one thing, American involvement in any consequent Syrian government would automatically delegitimize that government in many Syrian and Arab eyes.

 

[jammer]

McCain must be having some "senior" moments and thinks he is back in Vietnam bombing the shit out of everything. God I am ever glad that fool didn't get elected. What a nightmare it would've been with him and Sarah in the WH. We would be at war in Iran, Syria, and God knows where else, gas would be $10.00 a gallon, unemployment would be around 30%, and the rich would just keep getting richer with more tax breaks.

 

[Queen Titania]

The other day in a hearing in the Senate Armed Services committee, John McCain criticized Leon Panetta and the Obama Administration for not using U.S. air power against the forces of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad to protect Syrian civilians and the Syrian opposition to Assad. Panetta disputed McCain's position arguing that bombing Syria at this point - though morally justifiable - was not "smart" (for many practical reasons). Today, the Democratic and Republican members of the committee carried on the argument. What do you think?

Absolutly not. And which forces? He has huge well armed and very well trained Military Forces. Iraq and Afganistan would be a walk in the park compared to any conflict with Syria and you take on Syria and in goes Iran ( or is that the plan ?) In goes Iran and in goes Russia and possibly China and so on and then we have WW111.

Libya is a bloody mess, civil war doesn't even come into what is happening in Libya, we destroyed what infrastucture there was, nowhere is safe, there are bandits on every road and on every corner, how many tribes are there fighting each other ? No one even knows, there never really was a cohesive Government to take over from Gaddafi, a commitee in one Northern city is all there ever was, but this chaos suits the oil companies down to the ground, they can make the most delicious deals robbing the Libyans blind. They don't give a damn for the country nor the people nor did NATO it was all and only about oil and the Dollar. Syria's saving grace is that it doesn't have oil.

If our horrible Politicians would all stop threatening death and destruction may be the countries with some sway with Syria would feel they could be more helpful in bringing a halt to the massacres

But then the Armament Barons of the US, the US's only exports other than Coke ( both kinds ) and McDonalds and Afgani Opium wouldn't be too happy with any stoppage of death and destruction everywhere we look, eh ?

It seems you must all be addicted to War reality TV. Not you personally I add

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Actually, I think that he is supported by his old buddies, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham.

To tell you the truth, I think that this is all an attempt to prod Iran into military action to support Syria which would justify the U.S. bombing Iran and their nuclear facilities and Israel going after Hezbollah.

I don't think these guys are stupid. But I certainly don't trust them. (They were disappointed that Bibi did not prod the President into military action.) These neo-cons are persistent and (in my opinion) deceptive and dishonest. They care about humanitarianism about as much as GWB and Cheney cared about WMDs.

McCain must be having some "senior" moments and thinks he is back in Vietnam bombing the shit out of everything. God I am ever glad that fool didn't get elected. What a nightmare it would've been with him and Sarah in the WH. We would be at war in Iran, Syria, and God knows where else, gas would be $10.00 a gallon, unemployment would be around 30%, and the rich would just keep getting richer with more tax breaks.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Yeah, if.

If we start bombing Assad's forces, even more innocents are likely to die. Syria poses a much different challenge than Libya.

Or perhaps like Bosnia. We carpet bombed the place.......

 

[Queen Titania]

More like Iraq.

I think safe havens in Turkey for the Syrian insurgents along with a no fly zone over Syria enforced by NATO--Turkey is a member--might do the trick after a few months.

I don't think Americans should be directly involved. For one thing, American involvement in any consequent Syrian government would automatically delegitimize that government in many Syrian and Arab eyes.

What is a no-fly zone ? It is an arial attack on another country. Which is declaration of War.Libya was not a success anyway it is a bloody mess. We killed thousands, totally destroyed their infrastructure and much of their cities and no the place is in utter chaos where the gun rules. People who haden;t already are now fleeing Libya.

And who , just who are the USA or the UK to go around bombing other countries with Depleted Uranium, which is a slow death for 5 million years to the peoples of the land we are suposed to be helping .............willy nilly !!!!! Just who the hell do we think we are ? Old Mr and Mrs perfect ? War is business for both of our countries no more no less than that. I would rather be living in a poor country than living in one that stays rich at the expense of the lives of our brothers and sister in Arabia and Africa and South America and so on.

Stop all this War Mongering. All these Wars are taking us all slowly but surely back to the Dark Ages, all of us.

Syria is none of our business but threatening them with a million times more violence than we are oh so upest about them doing to thier own is ..................................... is what ? I ask you

 

[Queen Titania]

Or perhaps like Bosnia. We carpet bombed the place.......

That would solve it, kill all the refugees and be done with it. Bloody Clinton !!!!!

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Titania,

I don't want to argue with you on your main points. You are entitled to your view and I may well agree with you on some things. Here is the question that I have for you.

Do you think that Moammar Khadafi shared the oil wealth with the Libyan people and treated his people well? (I could ask a similar question about Bashir al-Assad.) Or did you recognize that there were problems with Khaddafi as well?

Absolutly not. And which forces? He has huge well armed and very well trained Military Forces. Iraq and Afganistan would be a walk in the park compared to any conflict with Syria and you take on Syria and in goes Iran ( or is that the plan ?) In goes Iran and in goes Russia and possibly China and so on and then we have WW111.

Libya is a bloody mess, civil war doesn't even come into what is happening in Libya, we destroyed what infrastucture there was, nowhere is safe, there are bandits on every road and on every corner, how many tribes are there fighting each other ? No one even knows, there never really was a cohesive Government to take over from Gaddafi, a commitee in one Northern city is all there ever was, but this chaos suits the oil companies down to the ground, they can make the most delicious deals robbing the Libyans blind. They don't give a damn for the country nor the people nor did NATO it was all and only about oil and the Dollar. Syria's saving grace is that it doesn't have oil.

If our horrible Politicians would all stop threatening death and destruction may be the countries with some sway with Syria would feel they could be more helpful in bringing a halt to the massacres

But then the Armament Barons of the US, the US's only exports other than Coke ( both kinds ) and McDonalds and Afgani Opium wouldn't be too happy with any stoppage of death and destruction everywhere we look, eh ?

It seems you must all be addicted to War reality TV. Not you personally I add

 

[Queen Titania]

Titania,

I don't want to argue with you on your main points. You are entitled to your view and I may well agree with you on some things. Here is the question that I have for you.

Do you think that Moammar Khadafi shared the oil wealth with the Libyan people and treated his people well? (I could ask a similar question about Bashir al-Assad.) Or did you recognize that there were problems with Khaddafi as well?

No Gaddafi was a Tyrant so is Assad and others, to many to mention. We have helped to keep them all so, have we not ? Some we even help onto their 'thrones', did we not ?
These are increadably complex and very Ancient Lands. When it suits us, as it has recently, they are baddies so we zap them and when it suits us they are ok just abit of a bully but you know 'these Arabs need a strong hand' ....lost myself ......oh yes

To think that we have any right to interfer is not only illegal but it is without due care of the peoples or their Lands. As aweful as it is to watch people in such a terrible plight how on earth can our much much worse violence help ? If our so called leaders ( I spit ) really really wanted to help ( as they did on the Gold Coast at the same time as Libya ? Just as frightful a massacre, worse even ) there would be no wars at all IRP None at all. If there was no 'Politics' going on, just real care, all Nations together would be helping to stop all massacres by peacful means.

This is business, no more nor less. What should we do ? We are not in a position to do anything, neither of our countries have a moral leg to stand on. Not even half a moral leg.

The moment the Egyptians ousted Mubarack who was on the first plane to Cairo ? Cameron ( I spit ) and who did he take with him ? Arms dealers. Who was on the next plane ? La Clinton( I double spit ) upping the back handers to the Military to make sure they brutalise the Egyptian people more !!!!!! We are dirty IRP to pretend that our reasons and therefore any out come of our interferences would be for the good of the people is not to know ourselves.

But Syria would be the beginning of WW111 .............................. and whether it happens or not is down to the American people. No one else at all.

 

[Queen Titania]

And go back in History ...go past 2000 years and you will find our roots, all of our roots of knowledge are in the very places that we are now turning to ashes. What does that say about us ?

I as most of us in Britain have come to terms, somewhat, of what the Bristish Empire was and did, we know ourselves, the good and the bad, but never ever did I imagine that we could be capable of such pure evil as we are now engaged in with your countries 'leaders' and the dreadful Israeli Gov. Actually if only the moderate and sane Israelis would overthrow their monsters we could all sleep easy in our beds at night.

It just makes me cry. All this talk of bombing other peoples who have problems enough and their beautiful beautiful Lands. I think of them in their every day lives, their pets, hanging out their washing, looking at the spring flowers now as we are, chatting to the fella outside the corner cafe as he sweeps the pavement, and wondering if your country and or mine are going to bomb them, if the corner cafe that has been their all their lives will be rubble tomorrow ................

Your country has never known War ........... and the young in mine have little idea. Maybe that is why you and they so lightly call for the 'mere' bombings of troops other than yours or our own.