Is Syria next?

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Government sources have disclosed that it is "highly likely" that Syria used chemical weapons against their own citizens. Could this be the tipping point which involves us in yet another dispute that we have no business getting involved in?

 

[CaliforniaPaul]

yawn

 

[Brownslave688]

I can't not comprehend the amount of money we spend on aid and wars to help other countries. All while we are broke back home.

 

[BrownArmy]

Lord I dearly hope not.

The good news is, on the ten-year anniversary of the Iraq-war(?), it's all coming out about how utterly bull-____ that war was.

I'm hoping that this new-found clarity, along with the US' current financial situation, will keep us out of misadventures like putting boots on the ground in Syria.

(Now, a little air support, we could probably rock that...)

 

[UnconTROLLed]

(Now, a little air support, we could probably rock that...)

Dropping supplies such as food and first-aid would be a fine idea!

 

[UnconTROLLed]

 

[island1fox]

I will fully agree with the President not getting us involved with this one.

 

[moreluck]

Just send us all your Kibbeh nayyeh!!

 

[cachsux]

Depends. Does Cheney have any investments there?

 

[soberups]

Neither side likes us very much and neither side wants our help in the war. We have abolutely no business putting boots on the ground in that country.

I do feel, though, that at some point the carnage reaches (or has reached) the point where we are morally justified in using air strikes to take out the regimes heavy weapons and armor and air forces if they are being used against civilians or poorly armed rebels. Maybe the best way to make peace is to at least make it a fair fight.

There is also the issue of the regimes stockpile of chemical weapons. We cannot allow those weapons to be used on civilians, nor can we allow them to fall into the hands of terrorist entities such as Hezbollah. And we also need to remember that if we dont deal with those chemical weapons, Israel will....and by any means necessary, including the use of their own nuclear weapons if they feel that their very survival as a nation is at stake.

 

[moreluck]

Do we send $$$$$ to either side ?????

 

[soberups]

Do we send $$$$$ to either side ?????

Do we write either side a check? No.

Aid...in any form (humanitarian, weapons, direct military intervention) costs money. Doing nothing...and allowing thousands or even millions of civilians to be slaughtered or gassed...also carries a cost.

This is a sticky situation and I agree that direct military intervention (i.e. boots on the ground) on our part is not a viable option. But sitting idly by and watching civilians get nerve-gassed...or allowing those stockpiles of nerve gas to fall into the hands of those who might use them against us or our allies...is not a viable option either.

 

[moreluck]

Obama said that if they use chem. weapons, then that crosses a line.....what do you suppose he's going to do about it ?

So far he's run to Israel and put it on hold.

Maybe he'll draw another line !! I'm really curious to see what Mr. Do-Nothng will do. Talk is cheap!!

 

[roadrunner2012]

You want another war that will further bankrupt OUR country and do nothing to establish worldwide security?

I'd rather do nothing than send my grandkids to a stupid war that only enriches the kleptocracy.

Did the Catholic schools teach you nothing?

 

[moreluck]

You don't deserve any answers from me......you twist even your president's
words........He drew the "line"....

To hell with Lent, I'm giving you up for the rest of my life.

P.I.T.A

 

[roadrunner2012]

I thought you were a 'fallen away Catholic'?

 

[moreluck]

I thought you were a 'fallen away Catholic'?

Like no one in the world can ever say "Lent" but Catholics.......Happy Passover!!!

 

[roadrunner2012]

Only Christians use Lent as a traditional time frame. It's not the same as Passover.

 

[wkmac]

Only Christians use Lent as a traditional time frame. It's not the same as Passover.

I like the atheist view of lent. We just remove it from the clothes dryer and then throw in another load.

Back to Syria, it's take down like other Middle East and Near East states were planned long ago and a change in dynasties has not altered that course as I can see it. Had a white President began invading Africa, the would hit the fan but who's going to question a "African American" President? The silence has been telling.


Wes Clark - America's Foreign Policy "Coup" - YouTube

 

[soberups]

Perhaps it would be possible...with the cooperation of the international community....to establish some sort of "no fly/no armor" zone inside of Syria where civilians would at least be safe from air and artillery attacks by the regime. We did that for years in the Kurdish controlled region of Iraq. Its not a perfect solution, but it might save lives and reduce the carnage. It could be enforced with the assistance of neighboring nations such as Jordan and Turkey, who are already struggling to cope with the inflow of tens of thousands of refugees. It seems like finding a way to keep the civilians safe inside of Syria would be better than housing them in refugee camps outside of Syria.

Those chemical weapons really scare me. Syria has a huge arsenal of really nasty stuff that could potentially kill tens of thousands of people. Whatever happens, the international community needs to find a way to either secure or destroy that arsenal.