Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

@revelette,

nowhere have I seen any mention of a cap on foreign forces in Syria, Assad would be a fool to agree to any plan that does not have a reasonable cap as well as a pull out date. He would be better off with the bombing.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

So you reckon that the deployment of a couple of hundred UN weapons inspectors, complete with clip boards, and no time limit imposed on their duration, would be worse than three months of intensive bombing with cruise missiles?

This is why people think you're an idiot.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

It would be worse for the employees and owners of factories which will be required to replace the stocks consumed, and their outlying suppliers, and the businesses that cater for their needs.

In fact, 3 months intensive bombing with cruise missiles will be quite beneficial to a lot of people and not so for others.

Unless mission creep burns up the whole earth of course. Then it would be worse for everybody.

Would we use our stocks of chemical and biological weapons if our backs were to the wall? If not what have we bought them for?

Assad only has them because we did. Those guys down there could never have had these things without our know-how, kit and finance. Part of the export drive.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

So you reckon that the deployment of a couple of hundred UN weapons inspectors, complete with clip boards, and no time limit imposed on their duration, would be worse than three months of intensive bombing with cruise missiles?

This is why people think you're an idiot.

you say a few hundred guys with clipboards, the pentagon says 75,000 fully armed troops are required

Quote:

Securing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.
That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.
U.S. Central Command arrived at the figure of 75,000 ground troops as part of a written series of military options for dealing with Bashar al-Assad more than 18 months ago, long before the U.S. confirmed internally that the Syrian dictator was using the weapons against rebel factions within his borders.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411885/Syrias-chemical-weapons-Pentagon-knew-2012-75-000-ground-troops-secure-facilities.html#ixzz2eu3IxyQL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

no wonder people know that you are an idiot

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

And you think Assad will allow 75,000 US troops on his soil?

I don't think anybody wants that. There's a difference between what's needed when someone is cooperating, and when they're not.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Assad is only going to cooperate if it suits him.

4 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Assad is only going to cooperate if it suits him.

he is going to say "great idea for you to watch this stuff go bye-bye, send a few hundred guys with clipboards over" and west is going to say "WTF you talking about, we need to move 75,000 troops in!"

there is cooperation and there is suicide.

edit: i have seen not one mention in the media about this huge problem with numbers....figures, these bozo's have no clue. you wait, in a couple of days this will be a problem, and it will be called all Assads fault, the white house has it all planned out.

0 Replies

@spendius,

It suits Putin.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

If he demanded 75,000 Russian troops to help oversee the humanitarian mission.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

It suits Putin.

putin will say " I put together this great plan and that Bozo Obama ruined it by demanding 75,000 troops be inserted into Syria, when a few hundred guys with clipboards would have done the job....HE RUINED EVERYTHING!"

0 Replies

@spendius,

Why are you accepting Hawkeye's figure, lifted from The Daily Mail of all places?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Assad is only going to cooperate if it suits him.

Spendius, you're so wrong. Assad doesn't have an option in this scenario. His chief benefactor, Russia, has stepped in to save the dictator's rear end. US and Russia reached an agreement on seizure of Syrian chemical weapons arsenal. It was the pressure of a strike that persuaded Assad to agree to give up his chemical arsenal whereas previously, the Syrian leader had always proclaimed that such did not exist. Russia helped save face for the killer dictator. Assad had better not renege because now the US and congress both realize it was the imminent talk of a strike that propelled Russia and Syria to act in good faith. This congress is more likely to give Obama the permission to strike if Assad does not send in a list of of all his chemicals (purported to be the largest in the world) in one week!

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Quote:

His chief benefactor, Russia, has stepped in to save the dictator's rear end

bull, Putin would like to save the russian port, but he has bigger fish to fry.....he is working on the Russian brand and he would love love love to stick a knife into The Professor. Assad is small potatoes.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

bull, Putin would like to save the russian port, but he has bigger fish to fry.....he is working on the Russian brand and he would love love love to stick a knife into The Professor. Assad is small potatoes.

So, what would you say Putin's goal was?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

So, what would you say Putin's goal was?

expanding power, by way of improving Russia's rep as a global power. sticking a knife into Obama and the other war mongering Western powers would help with that too. you got to understand Russia, the worst thing for them is being considered irrelevant. In their minds they are a great power with a long tradition of exercising power, they feel now like China used to feel, disrespected by the rest of the world who do not treat them as a great power.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

So, what would you say Putin's goal was?

To sell Russia's reserves of energy at the highest possible price and buy London.

0 Replies

@peter jeffrey cobb,

I like the opening page on this site.
http://www.un.org/

2 Replies

@peter jeffrey cobb,

Try two sluts in a four-poster bed. See how you rate that.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

How would getting rid of Syria's chemical weapons stick "a knife into Obama and the other war mongering Western powers?"

0 Replies

@spendius,

They should make it though so it would have all the members languages available. This is the community that you look towards to establish Peace in areas of conflict. Members of the community simply assist them.

0 Replies

Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know