As usual, you created the problem, or the situation that made the problem inevitable, and then left it for someone else to clean up! Not all, but most! Who do you want us to blame? Canada? The rain?
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...potential-syria-strike-source-says/?hpt=hp_t2 The US should not get involved in Syria at all even if chemical weapons are used by assad. Turkey and the arab league should be the ones to handle this at that point. I really hope the US stays out of this altogether and let them handle the problem.
W What a message that would send to the world ... We'll occupy Iraq for a decade based on rumors and allegations that he may use dirty weapons but we won't touch a regime that's actually using them.
Why should the US be the ones to step in with our military and stop it or take action when you have Turkey on the border, and a member of NATO that is quite capable of doing this themselves? Of course we were late to the game stopping iraq and their use of chemical weapons, on both Iran and on their own people....But that is besides the point. This is an issue that should have been taken care of by the arab league. Not the US. Not to mention Russia and China both have vested interests in Syria, let them step up and take control of syria's chemical weapons. There is no reason for the US to get involved militarily in Syria now. None, though I wouldn't object if we sent limited help to NATO forces like we did with Libya. The US is not the World's Police Force, time to quit acting like it and this is a good place to start.
Iraq was fought based on a flawed and incorrect premise. Though I am uncertain to what gain the US has made from that war, I don't see any of that oil coming into the US do you? What of libya? What oil fields did the US take over there? How many US troops landed there? Its all well and good to claim it is about oil, but lets see some definitive proof of how the US benefited and what oil do we know have that we didn't before?
No in post 459 you stated that iraq and libya have oil. For what purpose? And did I say oil was the reason for US entry into the war? Pretty sure I didn't.
You mentioned the US not benefiting from oil from either of those 2 countries so I will correct myself there. The real question is why was that statement necessary. Syria not having oil is just another factoid similar to it having Russian naval facilities while Libya & Iraq didn't.
Ok. I still don't see any reason for the US to play police in Syria even if they use chemical weapons. Let the un or the Arab league handle this. There are plenty of nations in the un capable of handling this problem without the US
Oh, tish and piffle. I simply won't allow you to be so hard on yourself... you weren't late at all... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms. That's how the US knew he had chemical weapons... you fellas checked your invoices
You might do yourself some good by reading NATO's charter...Turkey goes to war and we likely go to war, either overtly or covertly, with them.
I figure we can give them the same level of support they gave us prior to our second gulf war with Iraq. Still, turkey can fight and we can support, doesn't mean we have to put boots on the ground or even planes over Syria. We can fire cruise missiles and the like.
Turkey's mechanisms for going to war probably differ from ours. NATO has to come to the aid of its member states if the country is attacked, or if it calls for assistance. I'll bet you anything Turkey's parliament can't pass a resolution authorizing armed force or whatever we passed in 2002.
Syria never signed the biological, chemical weapon ban, so they are legally allowed to do as they please with them, if they use them then it becomes a humanitarian issue with the UN, not a weapons issue.
Well before exon-mobile and others were not allowed in Iraq, now they are snapping up contracts all over Kurdistan, I am sure Halliburton made a buck or two in the past 10 years.
I I don't think there would be an immediate need for anything more than missiles. Assad is already backed into a corner. A gentle nudge of a Libya style NATO campaign could do the trick. My biggest hesitation would be the fate of post Assad Syria. There will be a power vacuum and deep divisions. I would try to not get sucked into a political lose/lose situation
I think NATO possesses everything they need to accomplish a Libya style campaign. The US can provide intelligence if needed. As for a post civil war syria, well that is going to be another cluster******** right there. One that the US should stay far away as possible from.
I get the sense that the situation in Syria is getting more chaotic and unpredictable, which raises the possibility of Syria invoking its mutual defense pact with Iran and asking for direct Iranian assistance. If Syria does invoke the defense pact, Iran will be obliged to assist Syria including by sending troops, but that will obviously be a very difficult call nonetheless. I certainly hope it doesn't come to any such thing.