Some things never change...
Posted on 09/04/2013 11:15:12 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
For more than two years, impassioned advocates have called for U.S. military intervention in Syria in order to advance a peace settlement. Now, in the wake of last week's horrific chemical weapons attack in a suburb of Damascus, military intervention finally looks imminent. But what of the prospects for peace?
At the moment, views are split within and outside the Obama administration over whether the United States should strike Bashar al-Assad merely to punish him for using chemical weapons -- reasserting U.S. regional credibility in the process -- or take sustained action to degrade the regime's capacity to wage war and move the parties toward a peace deal. This is a false choice. No matter the intensity or duration of the strike package, U.S. missiles are likely to open the best window yet to catalyze negotiations, something the United States and Russia have failed to do in a series of abortive attempts to hold a peace conference in Geneva. It is therefore critical that the administration seize this fleeting opportunity to hasten the end of the war as it formulates its military plans.
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...
“King hussein heads to Dizzyland after successful bombing run.” Yup, he’s been bombing for over 4 years now.
Note that the authors do not attribute the gassing to one side or the other.
Bombs away anyhow!
Okay; reading further.....
Still, is there unequivocal proof, the type required by the U.N. of Bush?
Bomb Egypt again!
Obama will say he is reluctantly backing down from bombing Syria because it will release an illegal amount of CO2 and contribute to Global Warming.
No, but that doesn't matter to the Pres_ent.
She has been reporting from the front lines and discussed just how is on the saide opposing Assad.
Bombing a country to make a point....
... is defined as terrorism.
THIS is the right question.
Not the detective work on which Syrian a-holes gassed which other Syrian a-holes, but WHY would a couple of our missiles do anything to stop whoever it was from doing it again, and if nothing, what is our strategic objective in the region and how does missiling some Syrian Defense ministry buildings accomplish it?
Obama’s idiotic “red-line” did nothing and neither will his haphazard missile launch, if he even gets to do it.
Right...He does do semantic tricks often.
President Nixon loved bombing our enemies into submission too. And when that failed, a simple homorable abandonment of our former allies (with Kerry’s approval) did the trick. Then the communist killing fields began in earnest.
Bottom line:
Obama is in way over his head and is going to get a whole lot of good people killed for nothing.
It is an interesting question, though: what will King Zero do if he sends in the military and it has no effect? From experience, he will blame everyone and everything except himself and his own policies.
Some things never change...
Yemen has to be next. Sudan is already pretty bad so no work to do there.
Rep From Illinois, a current vet and national Guard Gentlemen,...a Republican just gave the very best rationale I have for why we must talk action in Syria, held of a picture of several children prior to their dying in the Sarin Gas attack,
He talked about the years of No Fly zone in Iraq due to Hussein's chemical attack on the Kurds.,
Very Strong argument to take action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.