Syria- The Great Big Syrian Civil War thread.

[HankB]

Things started heading in the wrong direction long before lincoln. Actions by the first SCOTUS, Marshall specifically, eventually led up to the crap we are in today.
It only takes a few bad apples in the wrong place....

I peg the beginning of the downward spiral to the time George Washington used ~15,000 Federal troops as tax collectors.

[Balog]

Nor was it up to 1775.  Millenia of subjugation and conquering, and we get 12 years of peace before COTUS, another 72 years until Lincoln proves Lysander Spooner true, and 150 years to bring us to today's gangster State.

Maybe we can get a reset on that 1775 decision, and take the left turn at Albequerque this time.

I'm not convinced monarchy is as bad as it's made out to be.

Regardless, look at the people and circumstances that led to 1775. Look at the same circa 2013. Then watch the fantasy die.

[HankB]

Regardless, look at the people and circumstances that led to 1775. Look at the same circa 2013. Then watch the fantasy die.

1775: Tom Paine. Patrick Henry. Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. Alexander Hamilton. John Jay. And yes, George Washington.
2013: Mitt Romney. John McCain. Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid. John Boehner. Lindsay Graham. And of course, Barack Hussein Obama.

 

[JN01]

What county do you live in?  Butler?

Yes

[Boomhauer]

Shades of *expletive deleted*ing Vietnam...

BHO isnt the black Jimmah Carter hes the black LBJ.

Vietnam started off with "limited involvement" and "only a few advisors and weapons shipments"

The RVN wasnt really much better to its people than the DRV

And it looks like the Cold War might be coming back.

Yeah this is gonna turn out *expletive deleted*ing awesome

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I'm an idiot. I never realized that Delta, Special Forces, and similar didn't count as boots on the ground.

[John G]

I'm an idiot. I never realized that Delta, Special Forces, and similar didn't count as boots on the ground.

They will be issued sneakers for the duration.

[drewtam]

Majority of Americans support sending Congress to Syria.

In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.

[TechMan]

Yes

Small world...I live in Cheviot.

[Hutch]

This just in...

Teh MSM has determined that breaking things and hurting people in Syria is nothing at all like our "unnecessary" "war of choice" in Iraq.  Oh thank God!  For a minute, I thought we might be about to eff up there.

Not surprisingly, our difficulty in gaining concurrence at home and abroad for our entry into the Syrian mess is because of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.  Of course!  It's so clear to me now.  Why have I just now learned of this?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/the-bush-burden/?ref=opinion

The mental and moral contortions the progressives must go thru in order to agree with Dear Leader are simply staggering.  It's sooooooo rich to see video of Uncle Joe, threatening impeachment for unauthorized military adventures.  It's soooooo sweet to read Dear Leader's comments on the floor of the Senate during W's effort to have the debt ceiling raised.  It is so transparently hypocritical for our NYC-based chattering class to advocate for war in Syria.  How do such people even sleep?

[AZRedhawk44]

Here's why this is so interesting to the US and Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkuk%E2%80%93Banias_pipeline

I can't find who holds the construction contract, but it wouldn't surprise me if the tension between the US and Russia over this issue is due to Russia getting the contract canceled in 2009 and a US firm or firms are now bidding for the contract.  Hence our allegiance with the rebels, because the pipeline goes through their territory.

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/oil-and-pipeline-geopolitics-the-us-nato-race-for-syrias-black-gold/5330216

The ‘”Free Syrian Army” has taken control of important oil fields in Deir Ezzor. Other fields, in the Rumeilan, are controlled by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, who are also hostile to the “rebels” with whom they have repeatedly clashed.

The U.S. / NATO strategy focuses on helping rebels to seize the oil fields with a twofold purpose: to deprive the Syrian state of revenue from exports, already strongly decreased as a result of the EU embargo, and to ensure that the largest deposits pass in the future, through the “rebels” under the control of the big Western oil companies.

Fundamental to this end, is the control of the internal pipelines. This has been sabotaged by the “rebels” in several places, especially near Homs where there is one of two refineries in the country, to stop the supply of petroleum products. But there is something strategically more important at stake: Syria’s role as a hub of alternative energy corridors, through Turkey and other pathways, controlled by the U.S. and the European Union.

Also:

Even more dangerous for Western interests is the agreement signed in May 2011 between Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran: it involves the construction of a gas pipeline through Iraq, which will transport Iranian natural gas to Syria and from there to foreign markets.

It is not in US interests for Iranian exports to be facilitated through the Mediterranean.

[Ryan in Maine]

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77304650/

Once? Shame on you. 12 times? Shame on me.

[Boomhauer]

No Blood For Oil! Except when the president is the Democrat Messiah, then opposing him is rrrrraaaacccccciiiiiissssssstttttttt

[Hutch]

Colleagues, I am staunchly against striking Syria in support of "international norms".  That should be clear before I pose the next question.

If Assad falls, and an AQ-backed faction takes control of Syria, including all stocks of CW/BW materiel, what ought to be or action then?  Is this result any more likely to destabilize the ME than the current status quo?  Syria, under the current regime, as far as we know, has not equipped Hezbollah with WMD, or at least, Hezbollah has yet to use them on Western/Israeli interests.  Would a radical Islamist Syria be as reticent?  If Syrian WMD were used on Israel, one could imagine a very violent counter strike by the IDF on Syrian, Lebanese, and/or Iranian strategic assets.

Again, my concern for this is based purely on US interests.  I don't think those interests are served by radioactive clouds drifting across the region.  It would destabilize domestic markets, and drive up the price of oil, dramatically.

So, what do all y'all think?

[RocketMan]

I think there are bad outcomes for the Syria situation regardless of who comes out on top.  And we can count on the current occupant of the White House to do exactly the wrong thing regardless.
Might as well make peace with your dear and fluffy deity of choice, as we are all just along for the ride at this point.

[SADShooter]

If we attack now, we risk consequences now and in the future. If we don't, we may risk consequences in the future. Given that we have no clear objective, no clear beneficial result, and a constantly evolving plan, I say wait.

[HankB]

. . . And we can count on the current occupant of the White House to do exactly the wrong thing regardless . . .

Sadly, I have no counter to this assertion . . . 

[agricola]

Colleagues, I am staunchly against striking Syria in support of "international norms".  That should be clear before I pose the next question.

If Assad falls, and an AQ-backed faction takes control of Syria, including all stocks of CW/BW materiel, what ought to be or action then?  Is this result any more likely to destabilize the ME than the current status quo?  Syria, under the current regime, as far as we know, has not equipped Hezbollah with WMD, or at least, Hezbollah has yet to use them on Western/Israeli interests.  Would a radical Islamist Syria be as reticent?  If Syrian WMD were used on Israel, one could imagine a very violent counter strike by the IDF on Syrian, Lebanese, and/or Iranian strategic assets.

Again, my concern for this is based purely on US interests.  I don't think those interests are served by radioactive clouds drifting across the region.  It would destabilize domestic markets, and drive up the price of oil, dramatically.

So, what do all y'all think?

It is hard to see a radical Islamist / AQ backed faction controlling Syria - for a start, they would have to commit something close to genocide in order to get into power.  Secondly, most of the regional powers - especially Israel and Iran - would have profound reasons to stop them getting close to that position (of controlling WMD), to say nothing of the US and Russia. 

That said, the inane way that the West is acting over this means that nothing can be ruled out. 

[Ben]

Well, I'm not going to hold my breath, but it could be that Benghazi is coming back to bite the administration in the ass regarding the Syria response. One can only hope. It would be awesome if Obama's Syria push both finally opens up the Benghazi closet and results in no US involvement in Syria.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/08/wh-push-for-syria-support-hurt-by-credibility-over-benghazi-one-year/

[Ben]

An interesting quote in a news article I read this morning:

Sun Tzu:  “Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/09/sun-tzu-would-be-very-unhappy-with-obama-plans-for-syria-strike/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2ePEZX900

It's exactly where Obama is. I've been thinking to myself over the last few days that he's handling this not like a President or Commander in Chief, but like a community organizer. He's constantly changing dialog and tactics willy nilly for politics and appearance, not to improve his strategy. He's "A leaf on the wind", but not in a good way.

[Tallpine]

An interesting quote in a news article I read this morning:

It's exactly where Obama is. I've been thinking to myself over the last few days that he's handling this not like a President or Commander in Chief, but like a community organizer. He's constantly changing dialog and tactics willy nilly for politics and appearance, not to improve his strategy. He's "A leaf on the wind", but not in a good way.

We're getting to know the Real Obama.

[Balog]

He's sending Susan "Benghazi was over a youtube video" Rice to lobby Congress. On the one year anniversary of Benghazi. At this point it's hard to believe he's not deliberately sabotaging this.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/09/09/white-house-to-send-susan-rice-to-lobby-congress-on-syria/

[AZRedhawk44]

So, is it:

1. The automatic "out" of budget sequestering for the Pentagon that justifies this war?  (McCain/Graham are for this one, I think)
2. The Banias-Kirkuk pipeline construction contract that justifies this war? (Other NeoCons support this one)
3. The denial of a Mediterranean oil terminal for Iranian oil exports that justifies this war? (Everyone scared of the Iranian bugbear would support this)
4. Assad's government using chem weapons that justifies this war?
5. The Syrian rebels using chem weapons that justifies this war? 
6. Both sides using chem weapons that justifies this war?
7. The Syrian refugees here in the US, protesting FOR war so that US troops overthrow Assad for them (rather than supporting their own rebels), that justifies this war?


Or are there other reasons?  I see none so far that justify any US involvement.

[Fitz]

So, is it:

1. The automatic "out" of budget sequestering for the Pentagon that justifies this war?  (McCain/Graham are for this one, I think)
2. The Banias-Kirkuk pipeline construction contract that justifies this war? (Other NeoCons support this one)
3. The denial of a Mediterranean oil terminal for Iranian oil exports that justifies this war? (Everyone scared of the Iranian bugbear would support this)
4. Assad's government using chem weapons that justifies this war?
5. The Syrian rebels using chem weapons that justifies this war? 
6. Both sides using chem weapons that justifies this war?
7. The Syrian refugees here in the US, protesting FOR war so that US troops overthrow Assad for them (rather than supporting their own rebels), that justifies this war?


Or are there other reasons?  I see none so far that justify any US involvement.

There are no reasons that justify our involvement