Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

Paranoia and ?

US strategy seems a bit fluid right now, Obama is talking about a proportional response, McCain is suggesting the US goes a bit further than that. Obama's off to the G20. Putin is blowing hot and cold, talking about the illegality of any response and saying he will increase assistance if a strike goes ahead, and then saying he could be persuaded of the need for a strike if he sees proof Assad was behind the strike. That's Putin's definition of proof btw.

There is something good to be said of international response to the gassing…on all sides.

I think the US is acting prudently…with the president involving the congress. No matter how much we want to declare that the US is not the sheriff of the world…the fact remains that it DOES have a responsibility in situations like this. I only hope we can keep our (and our supposed allies) best interests second most to the reaction (retaliation, if you will) that is almost demanded.

The British government made a huge move by refusing to simply follow like ducklings. I applaud Commons for its stand…and thank it for prodding the US administration to be more circumspect.

France is making good moves…and the French people are involved…warning their government that they do not want to be railroaded into rash moves.

Even Putin is making sense. He wants more proof…just as the Brits do.

The UN should be able to provide something closer to definitive soon.

We’ll see how this plays out.

But just in case the world erupts into uncontrolled war over this thing…I want to say that I have enjoyed my relationship with everyone here…even the people with whom I disagree regularly.

What would have to be done so that the end result would be peace in Syria? What measure can be taken that the result would be the minimal amount of dead and wounded from all sides? What would be in the table to negotiate a peace treaty?

I don't think the fighting will end in my lifetime. All I can do is hope enough cool heads prevail to keep at least a few people alive by the end of it all.

The cynic in me sees any strikes against Syria as a pretext to war against Iran.

I sense the tail wagging the dog again and see Netanyahu and the hawks in the Knesset getting the war with Iran they seem to want.

I wonder where the US intelligence on the chemical attack came from, it wouldn't be Israel, would it?... couldn't be, could it?.

Now I'm being really cynical or am I?.

The US strategy will remain fluid, because they're not sure what will transpire from bombing Syria - for a max of 90-days.

Even those 90-days is fluid. It would depend on what they think will happen after the bombing starts and ends. Nobody knows what they will accomplish - except Assad must "pay." His people will pay; not the leaders.

I am on the other side of that coin, wondering if the chemical attack was done by Iran trying to draw the US into an ambush.....nothing would elevate the standing of Iran on the Arab Street better than hitting the USA for meddling in the region. sure there is some sunni/shia conflict, but they all hate the USA, even the Egytians now. if I were running Iran right now I would absolutely instigate an attack on Syria, and then sink some USA assets "protecting" syria. hell, maybe I could get the russians and the chinese to go to the UN Security Council complaining about illegal USA aggression.

You're kinda assuming the Iranians are suicidal or stupid.

you should not assume that this is a fight they would lose...by attacking Iran we would lose tge Iranian people, pretty much the only remaining people in the region who like us. iran would take a punishing military blow but they would almost certainly win politically, america would have to abandon the region. Even the Saudi royal family would find it impossible to do business with us, their people would not stand for it.

This is absolute nonsense. Iran has no history of using chemical weapons. The Gulf states all want a greater US presence because of Iran. You really don't understand the rivalry between Saudi Arabia. If Iran gets invaded, Saudi Arabia will take full advantage. The Iranians aren't going to hand the Gulf over to the Arabs by hitting the suicide button.

If the Saudi Sheikhs want to do business with the Devil they can, their subjects have no say in the matter one way or the other.




You lost me there mate.

to date the royal family has been able to spread around enough money to keep their poeple docile, but their ability to operate conter the will of the people has limits. the Saudi people hate the USA more than they hate the Irainians.

It was mainly due to a ****-up in the Whips Office.

Don't you even have an inkling that your thoughts on these matters are absolutely inconsequential and nothing but a word game you are attempting to play with your own sense of self importance?

Nothing you are likely to have an idea about pj.

One of the things that has me worried is what the consequences of our attack will be.
The US has a carrier battle group in the Med all the time, will they be vulnerable to Syrian counterattack?
While I doubt that, the destroyers that launch the cruise missiles might be. And if they can't strike at us, will they strike at Israel in retaliation?
And if they do, what then?

And lets not forget Syria's biggest ally, Russia.
How will they respond to an attack on their ally?
Will they ignore it, will they protest to the UN, or will they take other, more serious action?

Since the senate has approved military action, it seems like a foregone conclusion that something is going to happen.

BTW, how does all this fit in with a Nobel Peace Prize?

It hasn't passed the Senate yet, MM. It passed out of committee. The full Senate will vote next week. Paul is indicating he may filibuster and demand 60 votes for passage. Stay tuned...

I hardly think anybody needs to be reminded of that.

Jesus H. Christ, Spendius...being accused of indulging in a sense of self importance by you is like being accused of over-eating by Chris Christie.

Whether it was "mainly" due to a ****-up in whipping Commons; because Barack Obama unduly pressured Cameron into making the move precipitously; or because Cameron simply mishandled the matter (all of which have been proposed)...or because the MP's came to a reasoned decision that waiting for more evidence was the prudent thing to do...

...I still thank them. They still helped put pressure on the president to consult with congress...and that is, in my opinion, a good thing.

Go blow hard on someone else...someone you can actually handle!

Although it was nice to see a posting from you without Austin or Spengler being thrown in to try make the case that you are well read and learned.

That comment of yours would have made more sense...and been more accurate...if you had placed the period after the word "think."