In all of the drum beating for ‘doing something’ in Syria, there has been no discussion about how both sides have taken U.S. citizens hostage, with the rebels torturing at least one U.S. hostage. Either the parties involved are too stupid to realize that they shouldn’t alienate a country that is really good at blowing stuff up, or they think they can play us for fools.
Why would we want to get involved in this situation?
mikethemadbiologist
Why?
Because we should not sit by and watch women and children murdered in their beds.
What will you say when it is shown that innocent women and children have been killed in a strike by the U.S.?
Hypothetical speculation is a waste of time. Why don’t we discuss what to do when Iran drops a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv? Live in Reality.
No, seriously. You’re advocating bombing Syria because women and children are being murdered. Precisely, how will a bombing by the U.S. help?
I said we should get involved. I didn’t say bombing. That is for others to decide. US, UK, France, Germany, NATO, Turkey, etc.
OK… then what does “get involved” mean in your terms?
How about you supply some answers instead of asking me inane questions. I already said who should get involved.
You are advocating the U.S. get involved. But you won’t say in what capacity. Have you given it much thought?
Have you? I’m still waiting for something substantial from you. I’m tired of your inane questioning. Do you have many friends? I would think your tendency to grill people without actually engaging them would make people run away.
I am in fact engaging you. That’s what asking questions is. I’m trying to find out what you meant by your first statement. But you keep sidestepping. So fine. Clearly, you do not want to share your thoughts.
Personally, I do not see what good can come from bombing. Which is what looks like is going to happen. I also do not understand why you and others think we should. (and yes, you do appear to be advocating that.)
I answered you twice but you apparently can not comprehend. Other people who have the proper information and expertise should decide how to respond. I pay taxes and I vote for local government and federal government office holders. It is up to the congress members and the President to figure it out along with the other countries of the world. The government works for me. I do not have all the information and I am not in a position to affect policy. I live in reality. If you still don’t understand what I am saying then go get yourself some help.
I’d say the last 20 years more or less shows that, yes, they can play us for fools (regardless of how much stuff we blow up).
Jesus. What a douche-bag you are Bob.
You act like a Nazi interrogator then you call me names?
I expected ad hominems from you.
I am so sorry for you. It must be tough being arrogant and ignorant and thinking you are superior. Does your mother even like you?
I unsubscribed due to the fool troll here. You can rant to yourself, troll, I won’t see it.
Assuming we all agree “something must be done” what should we do. Or, significantly narrowing the field of options, what can we do given that we don’t wish to harm innocents ourselves, we don’t see either side as worthy of being made a victor in this war by our intervention, we won’t risk involving ground troops, or see airmen captured?
What remains?
1) Missile strikes which, with very careful timing and targeting might not hurt civilians but are unlikely to do little effective damage if you don’t wish to effectively chose a winner in this dirty little war.
2) Diplomatic action. We have tried this with little success. The only things either side want come down to elimination of their opponent, weapons, money. Giving either side significant amounts of any of that would, in effect, be deciding who wins.
3) Collect as much documentation and evidence on those chemical weapons strikes as possible. To the extent possible, because our reputation is poor after the debacle in Iraq, have evidence collected and held by respected neutral parties like the UN and Finland. Prepare a war crimes case against responsible parties that can be implemented as soon as the fighting stops.
Of the three only the third fully respects the letter and intent of international law. It doesn’t involve justifying collateral damage. It doesn’t choose sides.
It will not satisfy the people who feel a “red line” implies a quick and violent, hammer of the Gods, response. It does have one unique advantage, over and above those mentioned. For most leaders being defeated in battle, or in the blaze of glory standing tall while missile rain down around them, is a relatively desirable end because it can be spun to make them sound like patriotic heroes and martyrs to their cause.
Being frog-walked into the Haige, enduring a trial that lasts months, if not years, where every inhumanity and crime is hung on the line for all to see, having it revealed, in great detail and length, that you are a despicable bully and willful murderer of innocents is a deeply embarrassing way to be remembered. Spending the rest of their lives rotting in painfully humane jail cell, knowing you are given human dignity unearned, far more than what you offered your victims, eventually forgotten as a mere footnote, is a terrible end for a tyrant.
There are only a few, even marginally acceptable, options. Only the last one fills all the requirements. The people who like to see consequences delivered swiftly and violently will just have to wait.