Syria: Do you support limited US military action in Syria?

[opebo]

...but can't ignore a chemical attack...

Why the heck not?  I don't care one bit about a chemical attack far away like that.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Basically, what Averroes says above.

[Peter the Lefty]

No. We have no proof that it was Assad that used the chemical weapons, no coherent strategy for intervention, no exit or drawndown plan, and absolutely no lines have been drawn that would establish the limits of U.S. intervention.

........

[Donerail]

Basically, what Averroes says above.

[Bacon King]

No. We have no proof that it was Assad that used the chemical weapons, no coherent strategy for intervention, no exit or drawndown plan, and absolutely no lines have been drawn that would establish the limits of U.S. intervention.

........

In TNF's defense it's a not-unreasonable assumption to consider the possibility that some elements of the military are using chemical weapons without authorization from their superiors. However, that's ultimately irrelevant because even if that's the case, Assad's regime is still blatantly allowing it to happen and repeatedly turning a blind eye to it.

[Sbane]

Basically, what Averroes says above.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The entire reason we're threatening intervention is to prevent Syria from using any more chemical weapons. That threat is meaningless if we don't have advance permission from Congress to act because otherwise they'd obviously just call our bluff. The strategy as stated by the administration is to use force (cruise missiles and maybe bombings on military targets) to force the Syrian government to stop it. Obviously we're not going to publish our specific plans (and especially not our plans to withdraw) because it'd be ridiculous to let Syria know in advance exactly when, where, and for how long we will be attacking them.

Forcing Assad to "stop it" is not a coherent strategy unless it involves either getting rid of his capability to use chemical weapons, either through going in and getting them all (requires a ton of ground troops) or destroying all possible delivery systems (including most conventional weapons other than small arms, as they can be adapted for the purpose).  That's much more comprehensive and destabilizing than what's been indicated publicly by the administration.

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The entire reason we're threatening intervention is to prevent Syria from using any more chemical weapons. That threat is meaningless if we don't have advance permission from Congress to act because otherwise they'd obviously just call our bluff. The strategy as stated by the administration is to use force (cruise missiles and maybe bombings on military targets) to force the Syrian government to stop it. Obviously we're not going to publish our specific plans (and especially not our plans to withdraw) because it'd be ridiculous to let Syria know in advance exactly when, where, and for how long we will be attacking them.

Forcing Assad to "stop it" is not a coherent strategy unless it involves either getting rid of his capability to use chemical weapons, either through going in and getting them all (requires a ton of ground troops) or destroying all possible delivery systems (including most conventional weapons other than small arms, as they can be adapted for the purpose).  That's much more comprehensive and destabilizing than what's been indicated publicly by the administration.

The Syrian government is a rational actor. It's a bit ridiculous to assume that Assad's regime is so attached to using chemical weapons that a display of force wouldn't convince them to stop gassing their own citizens. We don't have to destroy any delivery capability when we can just cruise missile their army bases until they prove to us they're not doing it anymore. Not that we'd even need to actually use force, hopefully- it's entirely possible they won't even try to call our bluff.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The entire reason we're threatening intervention is to prevent Syria from using any more chemical weapons. That threat is meaningless if we don't have advance permission from Congress to act because otherwise they'd obviously just call our bluff. The strategy as stated by the administration is to use force (cruise missiles and maybe bombings on military targets) to force the Syrian government to stop it. Obviously we're not going to publish our specific plans (and especially not our plans to withdraw) because it'd be ridiculous to let Syria know in advance exactly when, where, and for how long we will be attacking them.

Forcing Assad to "stop it" is not a coherent strategy unless it involves either getting rid of his capability to use chemical weapons, either through going in and getting them all (requires a ton of ground troops) or destroying all possible delivery systems (including most conventional weapons other than small arms, as they can be adapted for the purpose).  That's much more comprehensive and destabilizing than what's been indicated publicly by the administration.

The Syrian government is a rational actor. It's a bit ridiculous to assume that Assad's regime is so attached to using chemical weapons that a display of force wouldn't convince them to stop gassing their own citizens. We don't have to destroy any delivery capability when we can just cruise missile their army bases until they prove to us they're not doing it anymore. Not that we'd even need to actually use force, hopefully- it's entirely possible they won't even try to call our bluff.

And how are they supposed to prove to us that they won't do it again?  How will we know when we've bombed enough for them to swear off chemical weapons no matter what internal threats they face?  Any determination of when we've met that goal is arbitrary.

[Hifly]

No. Damn interventionist murderous foreign policy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And how are they supposed to prove to us that they won't do it again?  How will we know when we've bombed enough for them to swear off chemical weapons no matter what internal threats they face?  Any determination of when we've met that goal is arbitrary.

Apparently you should just trust the President, who is, after all, the Commander in Chief and so on.

How people don't see the irony of that is beyond me...

[Bacon King]

I don't know where else to post this so here everyone have a picture of Kerry dining with Assad