Syria

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I'm waiting for him to claim the first he heard about it was when he saw it in the newspaper.

 
Now Kerry's making decisions based on what he saw on social media?

Last night after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world about the gravity of this situation, I went back and I watched the videos, the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. It is really hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us.
Click to expand...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/26/215845759/2-excerpts-to-read-from-kerrys-speech-about-syria

 
Syria has been alarming. Their government is denying everything and our government in the beginning was saying, "Well, you know, we don't really know anything." We can't keep track of a volatile country, yet we're "accidentally" tracking the every move of 50,000 not-terrorists?

 
they don't know anythign that isn't classfied...they know lots of stuff they just can't tell us because we don't have the proper clearance levels.

 
The professor I worked for in college was from Syria. I asked, back in 2001, if he ever visited. He said, "Are you crazy?! No one visits Syria. Too many machine guns."

I'm starting to get hardened to us fighting wars for other countries. This just doesn't seem right:

President Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as punishment for Syria’s use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in that country’s civil war, according to senior administration officials.

The timing of such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles — or, possibly, long-range bombers — striking military targets not directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, would be dependent on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.


“We’re actively looking at the various legal angles that would inform a decision,” said an official who spoke about the presidential deliberations on the condition of anonymity. Missile-armed U.S. warships are already positioned in the Mediterranean.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

The U.S. isn't the world's parent. We can't send Syria to its room via military strike. That seems like, say for instance, launching a chemical attack on a group of people.

 
snickerd3 said:
they don't know anythign that isn't classfied...they know lots of stuff they just can't tell us because we don't have the proper clearance levels.
Click to expand...


The way the CIA has been weakened, I'm not convinced they have any idea whther Assad's forces or the rebels gassed those folks.

You notice it was pretty much all women and children and ALL civilian? On the surface of it, it looks like Johnny reb was mixing up a batch of nerve agent and it got away.

 
csb said:
The professor I worked for in college was from Syria. I asked, back in 2001, if he ever visited. He said, "Are you crazy?! No one visits Syria. Too many machine guns."

I'm starting to get hardened to us fighting wars for other countries. This just doesn't seem right:

President Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as punishment for Syrias use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in that countrys civil war, according to senior administration officials.

The timing of such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles or, possibly, long-range bombers striking military targets not directly related to Syrias chemical weapons arsenal, would be dependent on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last weeks alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.

Were actively looking at the various legal angles that would inform a decision, said an official who spoke about the presidential deliberations on the condition of anonymity. Missile-armed U.S. warships are already positioned in the Mediterranean.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

The U.S. isn't the world's parent. We can't send Syria to its room via military strike. That seems like, say for instance, launching a chemical attack on a group of people.
Click to expand...
The US: Where the police act like a military and the military acts like the police.

I hope we don't get involved. What is going on is horrible, but we have too much of a history of missteps and ulterior motives - not to mention that we apparently have incomplete intelligence, and frankly unless we annex them there is no reason to spend US lives or taxpayer money. If the UN steps in and we go along for the ride, that's different... but they should lead, not US.

 
^ Wow, I agree with EC. In addition to the potential missteps, ulterior motives and waste of taxpayer money, another concern is that Assad's regime is protecting a number of ethnic and religious minorities. If we help take down Assad's government, Syria might become yet another violent Islamist cluster-f that oppresses its minorities.

 
Any president other than Obama they could at least put a carrier group close by and scare them, but I don't think anyone is scared of Obama... Except for law abiding Americans....

So sad for the people in the region..... There basically fucked forever...

 
Road Guy said:
Any president other than Obama they could at least put a carrier group close by and scare them, but I don't think anyone is scared of Obama...
Click to expand...


He should have, and they aren't.

And he has proven over and over they shouldn't be.

Libya...nothing.

Iran...nothing.

Egypt...nothing.

Syria...maybe 20 Tomahawks after several years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO, they need to let Syria ride at this point, for much of the reasons YMZ pointed out.

You take out their chemical weapons? OK, they'll import them right back in from Russia/N. Korea, etc. Oh, but now you've pissed them off and given yet another reason to retaliate against the US. A "strategic strike" at this point is the equivalent of slapping a serial killer on the ass, shaking your finger at him, and saying "don't do it again, mister."

 
Supe said:
IMO, they need to let Syria ride at this point, for much of the reasons YMZ pointed out.
Click to expand...


I would agree *except* the CW need to be destroyed/secured from the rebels.

I have a feeling if we don't, the Israelis will. THAT would inflame the region.

 
Can it get any more inflamed? I think the perception won't be much different. IT's either the Israeli's taking them, or them subbing the work out to us.

 

Similar threads

Capt Worley PE
Saudi Arabia warns of shift away from U.S.
Replies
0
Views
384
Capt Worley PE
Capt Worley PE

Latest posts

Back
Top