Debates
24 Aug 13
31 Aug 13
Originally posted by normbenignNot really, chemical weapons aren't effective against any half-way competent military, they are mostly of use as nuisance weapons forcing an army to wear NBC suits. Non-combatants don't have NBC suits and so they make up the casualties. A rifle only kills the person it's aimed at. So the possession of chemical weapons implies a readiness to inflict civilian casualties that possession of conventional weapons doesn't.
I am suggesting that the howling about the type of weapons used is the ultimate hypocrisy. Dead is dead.
31 Aug 13
Originally posted by whodeyOh please. Obama just wants to get in there because Syria's upset is costing him oil.
From what I hear, neither will there be in Syria. He will just lob more missiles in strategic areas like he did in Libya.
Of course, this would not be a war, just like it was not in Libya. I'm not sure what word is appropriate to use to describe this sort of action, but it definitely is not a war, therefore, Congress need not be consulted or notified in any way........ever again.
31 Aug 13
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI say leave it alone. Nothing good can come from another middle east military operation
How much is appropriate? By who?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-syria-crisis-hagel-idUSBRE97N01A20130824
(Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel strongly suggested on Friday the United States was positioning naval forces and assets in anticipation of any decision by President Barack Obama to order military action on Syria after apparent chemical weapons use.
31 Aug 13
3 edits
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/31/us-syria-crisis-ships-idUSBRE97U01Z20130831
The USA has moved an amphibious strike force into the area. The Navy can now land Marines in Syria at will.
It's interesting that we're not seeing any of the 10 supercarriers in the eastern Med.
EDIT - Looks like the Eisenhower was there in December at least:
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/145557/17-us-warships-now-off-syria.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI read reports today, that the chemical weapons used were sold to Assads military by the British! about a year ago. So that's not good news.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/31/us-syria-crisis-ships-idUSBRE97U01Z20130831
The USA has moved an amphibious strike force into the area. The Navy can now land Marines in Syria at will.
It's interesting that we're not seeing any of the 10 supercarriers in the eastern Med.
EDIT - Looks like the Eisenhower was there in December at least:
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/145557/17-us-warships-now-off-syria.html
I don't think they need a huge amount of capacity to take on Syria as all we want is stable elections which would be best policed by Syrians anyway - they should demonstrate to Assad he has no military power in this at all, and must manage a change over.