That’s like saying, “if we could send in a battalion of armed unicorns, I’d back the effort.” We won’t have UN support, because China (and probably Russia) will veto any Security Council resolution.
McCain? Oh yeah, the “Bomb, bomb Iran” guy.
It’s campaign season and he’s a party loyalist. What do you expect?
Lord knows we have enough unemployed to join the Army and become cannon fodder.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
The Syrian Air Force has as many combat aircraft (~500) as Iraq did in 1990, and we probably wouldn’t have every nearby Arab state to stage from like we did last time. This is a really bad idea.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a bad idea, but not because of the threat posed by the Syrian Air Force. Seriously, if they had 5 times that number of aircraft it wouldn’t make them a credible threat…nor if the had 5 times the amount of whatever anti-aircraft defenses they have. They would be no more able to stop us (the US and presumably NATO, if the Europeans decided to support military operations in a similar way to what happened in Libya) than Iraq was in the first gulf war…less, really, as Iraq at the time of the first gulf war was more powerful than Syria is today.
It’s a bad idea because we aren’t the worlds cop, and we shouldn’t involve ourselves in every dust up out there, both because such ventures have costs and because, really, no one WANTS us to be going out there and righting wrongs. Libya worked out (sort of…it’s a mess there atm and probably will be for some time to come), but that was an exception.
[QUOTE=andros]
I think it’s a marginally better–and safer for US interests, troops, and materiel–than a campaign against Iran. If–if–the US built a coalition involving NATO, the Arab League, and the UN, and if it could receive at least nominal buy-in from Russia and China . . . then dismantling the Assad regime might work out well for the US.
[/QUOTE]
Well, we wouldn’t be putting boots on the ground in Syria, so that would be a difference. That said, I don’t think it would work out very well whether we did it alone or if NATO and/or the Arab League joined in (both would be basically symbolic, as we’d be carrying the majority of the water for any military action). I think that toppling Assad would be a bad thing…much like Libya is in chaos despite our assistance in helping the Libyan’s to give the Kaddaffi Duck the long drop. If the SYRIAN’S topple Assad, that’s one thing…but the US helping to knock off yet another regional dictator is probably not going to win us any friends, and in the end they will still degenerate into chaos as folks try and fill the large power vacuum in the midst of all the hate and discontent that’s currently raging through Syria. No matter what the outcome, it’s going to be ugly…but I think it will be more ugly if the US helps to kick over the ants nest in Syria.
-XT
They get to buy as many votes as they want!
I don’t know. What do you think, and why?
I think McCain is showing signs of early onset Alzheimers. Of course, talk is cheap. Do we really know what aiding the Syrian rebels would result in?
Just the thing the USA needs-open ended involvement in another war.
He’s 76 years old. That’s not “early”.
There’s nothing remotely sensible the USA can do re Syria - which is probably why it’s struggling to find an angle to influence events.
Anti-Assad forces are getting arms now and will shortly be getting pretty much all the ground-to-ground weapony they need via the land routes into the country and the finance set up by Quatar, Libya and others. Assad really is not stupid enough to use aircraft.
The problem for the US is it’s not needed, hence McCain’s increasing desperation.
Exactly! Unemployment problem solved!
We can even issue them strapped boots with which to pull themselves up by.
Who said anything about them “stopping” us? 75 Allied fixed-wing aircraft were shot down during the Gulf War. Granted, most were lost to ground fire, but regardless of the source do you really think the American people will stand for that in the present climate?
No and this is why.
That he not embarrass his party during a campaign season?
He’d have to go some way in this race.
Not to mention all those WMDs that Saddam smuggled into Syria the week before we invaded Iraq.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Who said anything about them “stopping” us? 75 Allied fixed-wing aircraft were shot down during the Gulf War. Granted, most were lost to ground fire, but regardless of the source do you really think the American people will stand for that in the present climate?
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s why I said it’s a bad idea. There will be costs, both in terms of monetary costs and in terms of some American (and other allied powers, if they join in) lives (not to mention lots of Syrian deaths). Nothing Syria has could stop us (alone or with allies), but there are always costs…even the Libyan campaign had associated costs for all involved. I took your statement a bit differently than you apparently meant it, however, so we seem to be on the same page, generally speaking, on this at least.
-XT
Hey don’t you know? In America there’s no such thing as a dumb rich person because the rich are better than us in every way!