Syria......Go or No Go?

[BarryBobPosthole]

I know people aren't gonna want to hear this, but I say fuck 'em. Its their problem. I don't recall seeing any Syrians, or Assyrians for that matter (is there a difference), stepping up and defending freedom or standing up for innocent women and children when the friggin' Palestinians were lobbing missiles into Israeli homes and businesses. In fact I recall they were calling for more.
So, no, I hope we sit by and let whatever happens happen. sorry to be cold about it. But we still have one we haven't wrapped up in Afghanistan yet. No sense in getting into another.

BKB

[Hombre]

No go. Fix our own issues we have and quit sticking our noses in others business. Haven't we learned by now that we really have no clue as to the region cultures and idiosyncrasies. Most the time it seems we go in and the region becomes even more unstable by the people we help go into power.

[Niner]

A: How would going in there benefit our national security?
2: Doesn't Congress need to approve military actions?
III: Let's let the benevolent U.N. handle this one, and keep the heck out of it.

I still say, we need to pull all of our troops out of the Middle East, and post them along OUR southern boarder.

[Gunther]

Oh shit. I agree with Barry.

Shit.

Shit.

Shit.

Maybe I'm wrong.......

[BarryBobPosthole]

Wow. And on a Neil Armstrong day. The eagle has landed.

BKB

[Buckrub]

Landed here too.

[Big Muddy]

Not only do I say no-go, I say bring ALL of our troops home from every where.
Then, shut down every day'um one of our embassies, and bring all of those folks home, too.
Then, cut off every red cent of financial and military aid to every single frigging country, except Israel.
Then, send our entire heavily-armed Marine Corp down to the Mexican border, and dare anyone to cross it.

[Captain]

Ditto what Cousin Eddie said!

Put me down for a hell no too!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[LJ3]

It's like we're all geniuii... Geni... wicked smart

[Thumper]

I say GO!

(Sorry ... it's my job around this joint to NOT go with the flow.) ;)

[Big Muddy]

Hahaha....Thump, you're just like my brother in law....whenever we have a family meeting, everyone except him, gets together and decides beforehand what we actually want to do....then, we tell the b-i-l the exact opposite....works every time. ;)

[Thumper]

Growing up, I had an aunt and uncle (mother's brother) who were ALWAYS at least an hour late to any and all family functions. Holiday get-togethers, birthday parties, Sunday dinners ... it didn't matter, they were late. (99% of these functions were normally at my grandparent's house) It finally got to the point we'd always give them a time 1 - 1 1/2 hrs. early for the start of any family function and they magically started arriving right on time! The funny part is, I don't think they ever caught on. Before, we'd usually wait until they arrived before we served dinner or started the party ... that never really changed, it was simply OUR time now instead of theirs!

[BarryBobPosthole]

I hate it when people are late. Just means they care nothing for anyone else's time at all.
BKB

[HideHunter]

Had a couple we used to travel on motorcycles with. Finally, no matter the destination, we'd leave from their house. We all agreed (there were three other couples)to be an hour "late" and invariably he'd be packing the last of his stuff when we got there. Worked great.. he never seemed to catch on or didn't care.

I agree with Barry.. It's disrespectful.. and I have been known to just "leave" instead of waiting.

[BarryBobPosthole]

And then you have the other side of the coin. Back in our duck hunting days, I'd leave the house on Saturday morning about 2:30 AM to get to our duck lease around 4:45 or so. Every time, my buddy Mallard Fillmore would be sitting on the tailgate of his truck drinking coffee (usually with a bit of 'sweetener' in it that smelled suspiciously like Wild turkey) and the first thing he'd say was 'Where the hell ya been?'.
So I started going down there on Friday night. Which meant we'd drink all night and fall out to go hunting at 4:30. Literally fall out. I don't know how I made it through those duck seasons. I know for a fact one season I didn't spend a single weekend at home during the season.
I guess being divorced has its perks.

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

I miss duck hunting.

[Gunther]

Eddie MY MAN!

[Buckrub]

This growing unease comes as the Obama White House will brief members of Congress later today about the chemical weapons that the Syrian regime reportedly used against its own people in its violent civil war.

That's a sentence from today's news.

Uh............DUH!!! Anyone heard this before????? Anywhere??? Anyone???

[BarryBobPosthole]

You talkin' bout the Kurds, man? We didn't do nuthin' bout no chemical weapons used on no dang Kurds. We didn't do nuttin bout no Ruwandans neither.
We don't need to be doin' nuttin here neither.

No wait, youj're talkin' WMDs. We shouldn't a done nuttin about no WMDs. And dumbasses are saying in public (our legiscritters and white house pukes) that they're afraid Syria will use chemical weapons against the Unites States.
Ha. Fat chance. Lyin' muthaf----s.

BKB

[Buckrub]

No, I'm saying that this is the 2nd president in a row that has said that we need to bomb someone because they used chemical weapons on their own people. And "we didn't do nuthin about it" is disingenious. It led to it.....directly.

And it apparently will here, too, but somehow this guy will skate on that.

Fine, so I'm the onliest American that makes the connection. Whatever. I don't mind being Superior.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I don't get your point at all. Who'd we bomb for using chemical weapons?

And Saddam used chemical weapons in 1988 against the Kurds. We went to war over his supposed WMDs in what, 2003? That's only 15 years. Yeah I guess it was related.

BKB

[Buckrub]

I don't care WHEN he actually did it. I care WHEN the sitting president used that event as justification to do stuff to Iraq.

Never mind. I should learn to not argue with a Democrat.

However, I voted like a Democrat in the Fishing Poll.........I voted with the majority for the prettiest candidate!!!

[BarryBobPosthole]

You're just looking for something to blab about Obama for. This ain't a political thread. Its about war and why we should or shouldn't go to war in Syria.

BKB

[Buckrub]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quick, name two things MORE political than war!!! HURRY....

*snort*

[BarryBobPosthole]

And here's another thing. The goddamned Brits keep saying we gotta do something we gotta do something. Well then, send a few friggin SPADs or whatever passes for a British fighter jet these days into Syria and knock yourself out. Its like they're saying we gotta do something only the 'we' is US.

And to be truthful, AND political, out idiot president and our idiot congress who are equally and reprehensively responsible for this idiotic sequestration have probably fixed it so we can't militarily respond to anything right now. If words were bombs we could carpet bomb the whole goddamned middle east. But unfortunately, they've about ruined our military capability with this crap.

And that's all I'm saying about that.

BKB

[Buckrub]

The Brits told their PM he couldn't do squat unless Parliament said so. So they ain't gonna do nuthin'.

Our Congress is trying to say same thing.

Syria can burn to the ground. Their problem. And the only military capability we need these days is protecting our border, and we ain't gonna ever do that, so it doesn't matter if its ruined, I guess.

And that's probably not all I'd say about that.

[johnboy]

I'm not sure why chemical weapons are such a big deal anyway. It's ok to drop a 500lb bomb on people but not poison them? They're dead either way, ain't they?

[BarryBobPosthole]

Good point.

BKB

[Buckrub]

after a few agonizing days, yeah.

[FooBang]

It's an awful situation.. So, we put our soldiers', sailors' and airmens' lives at risk to go and help Al Qaeda? This must be Bizzarro world. Granted, can't let chemical weapons go unchecked, but damned, this sux.

--Foo

[Buckrub]

Are these not supposedly WMD's?????

http://news.msn.com/us/white-house-to-congress-no-doubt-on-syria-chemical-weapons

[BarryBobPosthole]

Is someone saying they're not? I'm confused. I don't recall WMDs mentioned as a reason to go blow up Syria.

BKB

[Buckrub]

Huh?

Chemical Weapons are not WMD's?????

Since when?

[BarryBobPosthole]

Yep, I imagine they are. What difference does it make? I'm missing your point, dufus. Whaddayamean?

BKB

[Buckrub]

1) WMD's are WMD's. Type and Flavor are immaterial.

2) We invaded Iraq because they had used WMD's in the past on their own people and supposedly had more.

3) Now we are yelling that Syria has WMD's of the Chemical Flavor, and has used them on their own people, so we need to blow them up.

4) Are you trying to keep up here? You see no similarity? No Deja Vu? No problem? You think it's "merely political" to point this out???

5) Seriously???

[BarryBobPosthole]

Ok I gotcha now. Yeah I do see the similarities. The government resorts to fear tactics a lot, it's done it for as long as I can remember. So-and-so is a boogeyman and he wants to kills us. Forget the fact that half his population still rides camels and that he's a zillion miles away. If we kill him, then we'll be safe. Same lie. Same government. Same bullshit. I'll resort to the old saw that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

BKB

[Buckrub]

Let me guess.........is this the same 45% that don't pay any Income Tax???

Excerpt From MSN.COM story:

Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.

The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion.

[BarryBobPosthole]

About the only second thought I have about this deal is the genocide deal. I'm more concerned about how he's killed 100,000 of his own people, not necessarily how he did it. That's the norm though. Iran did it. Iraq did it. Happening in Egypt too. Now Syria. Spring obviously hasn't quite sprung yet regardless of what the news media and the thinkers think.

So I think we leave them alone for now. No assassinations, no drones, no friggin cruise missiles, no extra aircraft carriers cruising around, no nothing. Let Russia decide what to do about this guy. He's their damned buddy.

BKB

[Buckrub]

Yeah, but I don't want anyone voting but me.

I want all elections to be 1-0.

[BarryBobPosthole]

They're LURKERS.

BKB

[Buckrub]

We'll probably bomb Syria and hit one of their chemical weapons factories and kill 3 small countries.

[Captain]

Best quote I've heard on the subject!
Take Care, Captain
“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” - Sarah Palin

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Niner]

*mega like*

[Buckrub]

Did y'all realize that these rebels that we'd be siding with are major Al Queda guys? Still want to support them? Obummer does.

[Captain]

Yes I did and once we help THEM win THEY will have all the WMD's that was used against their people.
Wonder what they will do with them?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Chicken Dinner]

I say let somebody else deal with it as whatever we do will he used as an excuse to hate us more.

[Buckrub]

http://news.msn.com/world/uss-nimitz-carrier-group-rerouted-for-possible-syria-help

But Numnuts is apparently got to help his Al Queda buddies, it seems, Congress approval or not. So here we go, against all public sentiment.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Best quote I've heard on the subject!
Take Care, Captain
“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” - Sarah Palin

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner


Just so things are fair, I think we should give the rebels chemical weapons so its all even stevens.

BKB

[FooBang]

Who says we haven't?

--Foo

[BarryBobPosthole]

I suppose most will think that's fine as long as it embarasses the right people. Personally, I think its disgusting.

BKB

[Buckrub]

Not even sure using the uniform for that is even legal.

[Thumper]

... they didn't sign up to fight for Al-Qaeda and not going to do it.

I've started on 10 different responses ... all got deleted.

But I WILL say, if these pussies REALLY mean what they're saying, why would they bother covering their faces?

[Penguin]

Good points all around. Read the thread start to finish and enjoyed it.

I'm sure most of you know me well enough to guess me stance so I won't repeat it. But I think there is something going on that is either blamed on Obama or glossed over that is very important here: We are starting to face up to American limits. Both the limits on what our military can get us and also the limits to which the voting public is willing to engage the military. In a very real sense I think this is a game changer if we allow it to be and I, for one, believe we should.

The British made an exemplary display of how a nation can quietly and rationally dissolve an empire. What they did in the middle of the last century was almost unparalleled in world history. Now might be an opportune time for some of our political leaders to brush up on that series of events and learn the rationale behind it. I've a feeling we would be well served to follow their example.

We may not have a land empire like Britain once held but that does not mean that the American Empire is any less real or any less damaging to the holders of it. Because it is not a land empire the costs associated with giving it up are different. One of those costs is that we are going to have to come to grips with a need to work toward consensus with allies and bringing back true statesmanship and negotiation. We can either adapt to this new reality or wait until the power to wage war at our whim is stripped from us by force as it no doubt will at some point.

Will

[Buckrub]

Good points, Willy.
And all the while, doing all that with 1.6Billion folks who'd love to see us dissolve into the sand.

[Chicken Dinner]

I've been accused of being too much of a pragmatist, but here's my take. We need to be less of the moral compass of Democracy and look more (unashamedly) to our enlightened.self interest. The French are superb at this and it's why they drive us crazy. In short, if somebody screws with us directly or has some thing we need like oil, then we get involved. In my scenario, invading Iraq and Afghanistan were fine. Sticking around with the false hope of building the first true Islamic Democracy is not. Intervening in Syria or Egypt, both of which have very little oil, wouldn't even be considered.

[johnboy]

I've been pondering this for some time and I keep coming back to the same question - WHY would Assad use chemical weapons to kill a few women and children? What possible advantage in his war with the rebels would that give him? He may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I sure he understands that pissing off the rest of the world for no perceivable strategic or even tactical gain is a dumb-fuck move. If he had gassed a meeting of rebel leaders or even a group of fighters then it might make a little sense but this episode does not.

I have to wonder who would benefit from American or other countries involvement in this conflict and look very hard at that group as the instigator. Methinks that there is more going on here than we have been allowed to know.

Anyway, sounds like a good fight to stay the hell out of.

[BarryBobPosthole]

It does look suspicious, which is one reason we need to at least hear what the UN inspectors have to say. and maybe this time we should listen to them. then again, what did Saddam have to gain by gassing all of those Kurds in 1988? Its actually not an odd thing when crazy people do crazy shit.

BKB

[johnboy]

You're right that crazy people do crazy shit but this just seems totally pointless unless you WANT the western powers to intervene and I don't think Assad is that crazy.

Also gotta wonder what Putin is up to in this mess. Wouldn't trust that mf as far as I could throw him.

I really think that the plan is to suck America into this mess then stand back and watch the fun.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I'm sure they are getting their laughs out of Afghanistan, where we were sitting on the sidelines making their lives difficult when they were mired there for ten years. But you may be right.

The drones are out there saying that the rebels are Al Quaeda, which is true for only a small fraction of who makes up rebel forces. The drones seem to forget that when Russia was in Afghanistan, we made al Quaeda into a real organization with our own support of them. and that's one of the reasons we need to stay the heck out of there. There isn't a 'good' side in this conflict. The non-sectarian rebels who started this whole revolution are slowing losing power to the extremists.

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

Here's a link to a (fairly simplistic) primer on all this mess:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

[Chicken Dinner]

And I just had a brainstorm after reading this and it goes back to my concept of enlightened self interest. Perhaps, the best thing for US interests is to foster as much conflict in the region as we can. The more it destabilizes, the more time they'll spend killing each other instead of us.

[BarryBobPosthole]

The last time I cared to check I think the civilian death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan was at around 132,000. So this whole idea of 'We can kill your civilians but you can't' kind of rings fairly flat with me.
And CD we're much more efficient at killing them than they are at killing one another.

BKB