Syria thread

[DaShi]

Really, I think the parallel is more like 1964 than 2002. There is this feeling of inevitable increasing incremental involvement over the whole affair. Not to mention, we have the Russians actively supplying and supporting the Syrians. Also no U.N. involvement with use of force in Vietnam and none in Syria. However weak you may believe it was, UNSC 1441 at least provided some measurement of cover for the U.S. in 2002.

This is not Iraq, this is Vietnam.

Dude, you have no credibility.

Your statement is true in narrow sense to be meaningless The problem with Vietnam wasn't the lack of UN support, it was that we put troops on the ground. The same thing we did in Iraq, also with little international support. UNSC 1441 provided so little cover, that it doesn't suddenly make all comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam null. That you think so and make it part of your primary defense attests to the weakness of your argument.

As for your feeling of inevitable increasing incremental involvement, that's just your own paranoia and unhealthy dislike of our president. It doesn't change reality.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This not Iraq, this is Vietnam.

More like Al-Shifa Aspirin factory Sudan 1998. Lots of noise, little results, resulting in nothing but contempt from those intending to be intimidated. Ooooh, tough guy through a rock at us on the playground.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

BTW I hate the fact that the edit function is broken and I cna't correct obvious spelling mistakes.

[Sava]

There'll be some bombing. At some point, a school or something will get hit by mistake. The Arab street will robble robble robble about it. Oooh Evil America. Meanwhile, Assad murders a 100k and nobody cares.

I vote "yes" just because I like 'splosions.

[DinoDoc]

I vote "yes" just because I like 'splosions.

Michael Bay has made a whole career off people liking them.

[kentonio]

More like Al-Shifa Aspirin factory Sudan 1998. Lots of noise, little results, resulting in nothing but contempt from those intending to be intimidated. Ooooh, tough guy through a rock at us on the playground.

If it's a full series of air and cruise missile strikes, then there's a good chance it'll bring down the regime.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Lots of noise, little results, resulting in nothing but contempt from those intending to be intimidated.

Course if they laugh at us, well then the gloves come off and we'll give them a swirlie. The we open up the special plans for operation “just muscular enough not to get mocked”.

[kentonio]

Really, I think the parallel is more like 1964 than 2002. There is this feeling of inevitable increasing incremental involvement over the whole affair. Not to mention, we have the Russians actively supplying and supporting the Syrians. Also no U.N. involvement with use of force in Vietnam and none in Syria. However weak you may believe it was, UNSC 1441 at least provided some measurement of cover for the U.S. in 2002.

This is not Iraq, this is Vietnam.

You've just been fought to a bloody quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan and that's ok, but some airstrikes on Syria is suddenly the new Vietnam?

[The Mad Monk]

@ post 36

Leaving who in its place? Recent history isn't optimistic.

[DinoDoc]

If it's a full series of air and cruise missile strikes, then there's a good chance it'll bring down the regime.

That's not the goal: White House: possible action on Syria 'not about regime change' – as it happened The level of force is also calibrated to be in the words of the White House "just muscular enough not to get mocked."

[kentonio]

That's not the goal: White House: possible action on Syria 'not about regime change' – as it happened

Who cares what the stated goal is, this isn't Iraq, there's a civil war going on in Syria. The Syrian government does not have that big an advantage over the rebels, even limited strikes could still tip the balance firmly in the rebels favour.

The level of force is also calibrated to be in the words of the White House "just muscular enough not to get mocked."

Quote please. With the name of an actual person, not some unnamed 'White House source'.

[kentonio]

Ah found it.

One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

"They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," he said.

A US official who has been briefed. Wow, that is indeed the voice of the White House.

[The Mad Monk]

you're welcome.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

That's not the goal: White House: possible action on Syria 'not about regime change' – as it happened The level of force is also calibrated to be in the words of the White House "just muscular enough not to get mocked."

Well to be fair, who knows whats going to happen.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/06/obama-presses-world-leaders-for-syria-action-as-strike-plan-rapidly-adjusted/

And like if he says this about my mom, then I'll just like up and kick his ass with a round house to the face and go all ape**** crazy on him. But like if he decides to hit 'my friend' the jewish kid over there well thenI'll just like try and trip him up a bit. You know ... try.

[PLATO]

From Dashi,

Dude, you have no credibility.

Your statement is true in narrow sense to be meaningless The problem with Vietnam wasn't the lack of UN support, it was that we put troops on the ground. The same thing we did in Iraq, also with little international support. UNSC 1441 provided so little cover, that it doesn't suddenly make all comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam null. That you think so and make it part of your primary defense attests to the weakness of your argument.

As for your feeling of inevitable increasing incremental involvement, that's just your own paranoia and unhealthy dislike of our president. It doesn't change reality.

From kentonio

You've just been fought to a bloody quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan and that's ok, but some airstrikes on Syria is suddenly the new Vietnam?

Okay Dashi, Couple of things...Opinions are just that Opinions. You might want to check your reading skills as well. I said that it has "the feel" of mission creep to it. Is it like Vietnam now? Of course not. I thought any fool could see that, but I guess not all can and it has to be spelled out for some. It is my fear that this will escalate like Vietnam did...originally no troops on the ground there either. Just in case you didn't know, Russia has delivered the P-800 Yakhont. What happens if the Syrians sink a ship or two that fires a cruise missile? Not saying that escalation will happen...just that it has the same feel to it that Vietnam did before the Gulf of Tonkin. The parallels to Iraq are not as strong in my mind...we were overt about regime change and had massed troops on their boarder...not the case in Syria.

I am afraid that your lame attempt to say that I have no credibility just goes to show that you are both intellectually challenged on these events and that you, in fact, have no credibility on the subject yourself. Be a student of history...not rhetoric.

kentonio, I understand your question, but you are seeing something in my post that is not actually there. I see why one could interpret the statement "This is not Iraq, this is Vietnam" as justifying your question, but please take the entire post as a whole. It is the "feeling" that we are proceeding down a Vietnam like path as opposed to an Iraq type path that I was trying to articulate. It seems from yours and Dashi's misunderstanding that I did a poor job. Apologies. I do hop that I have clarified my POV however?