The Syrian Invasion

[mistermack]

I think with the chemical weapons thing, it's gone beyond who you support, or who you think would be a better government of Syria.
If Asad did use them, he wants a severe kicking, because it would stand as a warning to others.
If the intelligence WAS crystal clear, I would say try to take Asad out personally, and if they can't do that, do as much damage as you can in as short a time as possible.

I don't much care about the war, and who wins or loses, but the chemical weapons thing needs to be punished, and severely.

But of course, we don't know who did it, we just have Obama and Kerrys word that there is irrefutable evidence. That's not good enough, any more.

Without this chemical attack, I would have said leave them to it, that Asad is probably no worse than the opposition, in fact, probably marginally better.

[ronmcd]

I believe taking out Assad would be illegal though, I think without a UN resolution authorising regime change.

[mistermack]

Justifiable though, if it can be shown that his side used the chemical weapons.
Using chemical weapons is pretty illegal.

[cronus]

Heavy Bombardment phase delayed to coincide with 9/11 anniversary?

[Ian]

Congress to Obama: "We demand a vote on Syria! You're overstepping your bounds and leaving Congress out of this! It's tyranny!"

Obama to Congress: "Okay. As Commander in Chief I don't really have to give you the time of day before I launch a Tomahawk, but I understand the importance of this and I intend to ask Congress for a vote on the use of military force."

Congress: "Oh. Um, shit. Okay, we'll be sure to do that after we get back from our summer vacations on September 9th."

[JimC]

Congress to Obama: "We demand a vote on Syria! You're overstepping your bounds and leaving Congress out of this! It's tyranny!"

Obama to Congress: "Okay. As Commander in Chief I don't really have to give you the time of day before I launch a Tomahawk, but I understand the importance of this and I intend to ask Congress for a vote on the use of military force."

Congress: "Oh. Um, shit. Okay, we'll be sure to do that after we get back from our summer vacations on September 9th."

In a situation where the US or a close ally had been directly attacked, clearly quick action is required, without congressional approval.

However, the Syrian situation is murky, the UN inspectors have not yet reported, and it seems clear that the American public are very uneasy about opening another military can of worms. Precipitate action may not be in the long-term interest of the US...

[Ian]

It's probably not in our long-term interests. And it certainly is a can of worms. More like a can of shit. But not opening it would probably be a bad option too, as (among other things) it would set a precedent that chemical warfare can happen without repercussions. Speaking of which, why are only a few countries considering doing anything about that? And why isn't anyone suggesting that India get involved? Or Germany?

But like I mentioned earlier, humanitarianism and spanking the Assad regime would not be the real goals of a strike.

[Collector1337]

What makes them think they even deserve the expensive bombs we drop on them?

For once, I'd like to see someone take care of their own mess without us having to intervene with this world police bullshit.

[Ian]

Something I worry about even more than the potential political repercussions: what if the US launches a barrage of Tomahawks and the Syrians manage to shoot many of them down? The Russians may be passing technical information to Syrian air defenses (they're certainly passing on plenty of other information to them), and then this is what happens: the world sees a shitty gomer 3rd World country in the middle of a civil war prove itself nearly invulnerable to precision strike attack, the first time that's ever happened. The repercussions of that could be huge.

[Warren Dew]

It's probably not in our long-term interests. And it certainly is a can of worms. More like a can of shit. But not opening it would probably be a bad option too, as (among other things) it would set a precedent that chemical warfare can happen without repercussions. Speaking of which, why are only a few countries considering doing anything about that? And why isn't anyone suggesting that India get involved? Or Germany?

Among other things, it's because it was Obama who characterized chemical weapon use as a "red line", in a comment that was extremely widely reported by the press.

Even if the regime did use chemical weapons here, rather than being framed for it, I'd be concerned that retaliation only against the regime would tacitly imply approval of the rebels' use of chemical weapons a few months ago. It also means that if the regime uses or is framed for using chemical weapons again, the U.S. will essentially be forced to intervene again.

Hopefully Congress saves the situation by not granting approval to use force.

[Tyrannical]

The rebels have control over large amounts of Syria, and that includes chemical and medical industry manufacturing "assets" as well as Universities with chemistry departments. That should give them every thing they need to manufacture small amounts of sarin gas, and using it to frame Assad is very plausible.

Oh, and don't be shocked if the rebels try crude biological attacks using medical disease samples they can get from any medical research building they may hold.

[cronus]

Always a mistake to delay a punch. There is no telling what a cornered regime looking at the rubble of similar situations might do? giving time they'll organise something no doubt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23899140

[mistermack]

Always a mistake to delay a punch. There is no telling what a cornered regime looking at the rubble of similar situations might do? giving time they'll organise something no doubt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23899140

Completely wrong.
If someone hits you from behind, and you look round, and there are two people standing there, and they both deny hitting you, you would have to be a complete moron to hit one at random, just so you don't delay a punch.
That's simple stuff.

[cronus]

Always a mistake to delay a punch. There is no telling what a cornered regime looking at the rubble of similar situations might do? giving time they'll organise something no doubt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23899140

Completely wrong.
If someone hits you from behind, and you look round, and there are two people standing there, and they both deny hitting you, you would have to be a complete moron to hit one at random, just so you don't delay a punch.
That's simple stuff.

That's not the scenario though is. No one hit you from behind. You've threatened the guy at the bar and then gone off to talk to some woman giving him time to organise his response.

[jaydot]

i wonder why it is ok to bomb and bullet bits off people but using chemical weapons is so far beyond the pale that retaliatory action must be made immediately. the end result will still be dead people. and dead people that most of us have no quarrel with.

it seems that david cameron may have made an astute move in pre-empting both the americans and the russians by declining to use the royal prerogative and recalling parliament. has he accurately read the mood of the british people and did he suspect that parliament would vote no?

i also wonder why it is considered cowardly to walk away from a fight. so we have no stomach for a fight. why should we? there's nothing in it for us but the possibility of home-grown idiots trying to blow bits off us. perhaps the world has had enough of war and we want to find a different way. after all, that reprobate robert maxwell asserted that 'jaw, jaw is better than war, war'.