Iran has more influence but there’s no way they want Assad to fall.
The US would be more likely to let Israel get pushed into the sea.
Again, as I pointed out above, it has stopped being about Assad a while ago. Now it is about 2.5 million Alawites in Syria who don’t want to be slaughtered by the Sunni insurgents. With Assad or without, the civil war is going to continue.
All the money?
Maybe, but wouldn’t Iran want people to stop getting killed? Even before the gas attacks there were tens of thousands of casualties. My crystal ball says, “tens of thousands more”, regardless of what the US does, but maybe not regardless of what Iran does.
What a mess. I can’t even imagine what fresh hell this is going to bring on the US. Obama shouldn’t have used the red line rhetoric, but he did. So the solution is to start launching bombs instead of taking heat for stepping it back?
Obama needs to stop murdering people. For all of the purported differences between him and GWB, I’m not seeing much anymore.
Meet the new boss, etc…
Tell it to the Libyans.
The Assads have been in power in Syria for over 40 years. So I’m not sure what you mean by “flat” other than “my Dad died, and now I’m in charge”
The “US would be more likely to let Israel get pushed into the sea?” I’d consider that an EXTREMELY unlikely scenario. In fact, there’s NO WAY the USA stands aside and lets that happen, and if it does, it will truly be WWIII. There’s zero chance that happens. Plus, Israel can fend for itself…even against Syria and if it comes to it, Iran.
Why the fuck would Iran care if Syrians are dying, other than “less buyers of our weapons”? Syria’s regime is propped up by Iran, despite the Ba’athist thing (which confuses me…thought that was a Saddam thing) and exists as a proxy state in Iran’s slow war against Israel, much like Lebanon. However, Syria has been shown their place often enough by Israel where they have taken a more passive role from what I can tell, and now that the Arab Spring or whatever has come home to roost, it’s utter chaos. I am certain Israel is watching this very carefully. If I were Israel I would actually prefer a stable Assad regime, brutal as it may be, to this new confluence of rebels, many of which are splintered and associated and funded by nebulous groups with ties to terrorism. The Devil you know and all that.
Totally different scenario I think. No Iranian influence and far enough removed from Israel to not be as much of a concern to them or to us. Plus, I am sure we laughed when Ghaddafi and his brand of crazy cult of personality was murdered. Fuck that guy.
Much simpler situation all around. But the point is that Obama has proven quite willing to use some force in some situations.
True, but as much as I dislike him as a sitting President I voted for, he does seem to at least show a little restraint in these issues. Trouble is (to me) is that he’s surrounded himself with yes men that by and large don’t have a lot of foreign policy experience. That said…I guess we all have to wait and see. I’d prefer he doesn’t interfere.
If we’re not going to get directly involved in Rwanda, Somalia or the like then why here? We have shown we pick and choose our humanitarian disasters to get directly involved in and while this one is ugly and deadly, I don’t envision a positive outcome for US involvement.
I predict unmanned strikes (drones and/or missiles) against all of the known chemical installations. Yes, people will surely die in these strikes, but presumably less than would if the chemical weapons in them were used. I believe this would be the least-bad option available to us, at this point.
Potential complications: Destroying the sites might release the chemical weapons on the spot. Do we have weapons capable of incinerating poison gas into harmlessness, without causing even worse collateral damage?
And of course, that presumes that the Syrian military is stupid enough not to have moved those weapons from those installations in preparation for this.
Americans are against intervention. Does that matter? Has congress already given approval for Obama to act?
Reports are circulating that they are in fact moving them. Presumably, we can and have been keeping at least some kind of tabs on their whereabouts.
Am I the only person who starts humming “Happy Xmas (War Is Over)” whenever I read this thread’s title?
My understanding is that most chemical weapons rely on the spinning of the shell after being fired to mix their components, so that if the shell explodes without being fired the amount of weapon produced is pretty minimal.
These types of of weapons are more like machines than explosives. It’s like attacking a nuclear weapon - you may turn the site itself radioactive, but it won’t set off the bomb.
oh for God’s sake. Thanks for that Bush-era type insight, Mr Geo-Politcal Heavyweight.
If you do not have a particular point to make, do not fill up the blank spaces with personal insults.
[ /Moderating ]
Wouldn’t hitting a nuke with another nuke set off a chain-reaction in the first one?
Not necessarily. The triggers on these things are extraordinarily precise. Setting them off can require imposing simultaneous force from all directions at once. Hitting one from the side would probably just break it.