Posted on 08/31/2013 8:42:57 AM PDT by ReaganÜberAlles
Ok, my feeing is if they used Chem Weapons on their own people, or on any other people for that matter they need to be hit hard. The chips fall where they may.
I would error on the side of hitting them too hard instead of too soft.
I'm thinking Reagan would have already done it.
NO!
I appreciate your post reply. You know, some n00bs post a thread and never reply.
So the new standard is we allow use of WNDs?
How do we "allow," use of wmd? We can't control the use of any country's/organization's weapons. All we can do is retaliate.
What would your objectives be?
What would your order of battle be?
What are your best guesses on the strategic consequences/ramifications?
If we do nothing, the opposing forces will continue to kill each other. I do not see a downside.
5.56mm
Oh, HELL to the NO.
There was a protest in Detroit against airstrikes on Syria yesterday. One of the protesters interviewed said he supported the ouster of Saddam Hussein but says it has been a disaster and he fears exactly the same in his native Syria.
Actually, we know what Reagan would have done, because he did it.
He sent in the Marines to suppress Syrian-supported militias in Lebanon. 241 US marines and sailors died in a suicide bombing. Reagan reviewed his options and their prospects for success, and determined that the Levant is a snake pit wherein the US could serve no useful purpose other than to arm Israel.
Reagan withdrew US military from Lebanon. He was smart enough not to make the same mistake twice.
A) We don't have the money to police the world.
B) We don't have the moral capital to police the world.
3) There is more than just DOUBT that Syrian armed forces used gas. There is actually evidence on the other side, that the Rebels used it -- either by accident or on purpose.
I'm thinking Reagan would have already done it.
Not the Reagan that *I* remember. He would not have sided with Al Qaeda. He generally left nations alone unless he could further the cause of true democracy and free market capitalism. None of these apply here.
We should send the TSA over there to confiscate their aftershave and hand lotions in more than 1oz containers, and cavity search them for contraband.
So the new standard is we allow use of WNDs?
—
I agree with Putin. No way Syrian government used them. They were winning without them.
If you want to fight for al Qaeda and muslim brotherhood, you should go over there and do it but let’s not drag common-sense Americans into it.
The evidence has not been properly analyzed and is likely a set up and could lead to WWIII and you invoke Reagan to support Obama going it alone, and you can't even spell a 3 letter acronym properly?
It's too early to be drunk posting so I can only conclude you are either a plant and or an idiot.
I like your presentation of facts and agree completely. Allow me to add a few more ...
11) A limited attack accomplishes no strategic objective.
12) Any attack will only increase jihadist terrorist activity against U.S. interests anywhere in the world.
13) The ~1,500 Syrians killed in the gas attack - who were they?, i.e., neutral, allies of Assad or allies of Al Qaeda?
14) When you see your enemy(ies) self-destructing, your best policy is to stand back and do nothing.
15) We are broke. We are retreating around the world because we cannot fiscally do it anymore.
Maybe we’ll find out at 1:15 when Obama delivers a statement on Syria
Are you some sort of troll? First: WHO used the weapons? Second: YES we allow their use, if it is not against us or a sworn ally.
Absolutely not. But I didn’t support Iraq either. Afghanistan yes.
I even question now the first Gulf War. Who cares about Kuwait anyway....They were side-drilling into Saddam’s oil fields. That war was about protecting our Saudi Masters.
And the Saudis are trying to get us into another war in Syria.
America is in worse fiscal shape than Detroit and those slobbering for a new war are no better than the Detroit city council members who drove it into the ground. Even they haven’t launched an attack on Windsor.
How about we interfere when WMDs are used against us, or on an ally, or some country we have a treaty commitment to. We are not the worlds police force.
I don’t remember Reagan attacking Iraq when they used poison gas against Iran or the Kurds.
No way.
First of all, it was most probably the REBELS that did it in a false flag event.
2nd, even if it was Assad’s regime, we have no business, no American national security reasons. It’s sad and horrible, but we need to stop getting involved in conflicts between factions in these 3rd world countries.
Finally, if Assad falls, as horrible as he is, at least Christians are allowed to exist and aren’t persecuted. They will probably be exterminated if the MB/Al Queda led rebels take power. Our soldiers would be fighting alongside AQ. We should never get involved in another country with no valid national security reasons, but especially if it will cause more harm to Christians living there.
And if anyone thinks this will just be a random couple of missiles lobbed in their with no repercussions, I have some swampland in East Texas for sale.
just bear in mind that this is not just simply muslims killing muslims. About 13% of the population of Syria are alawites, and 3% are Druze, and 10% are Christian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.