Attack on Syria is it justified ?

[GPIDEAL]

It is true to the extent that many sub-prime mortgages were made in part because the federal government not only urged banks to make them but also threatened many banks with Civil Rights lawsuits because on a percentage basis not enough of their loans were being made to members of minority groups. So it was a cause, that certainly isn't the same as saying it was the cause.

A libertarian told me that part of the blame was the Democrats complaining that financing was difficult for middle class or minority groups, so the Federal government urged easier credit. Is this true?

Frankly, to me, it's not easier credit, but the promotion or marketing of derivatives that were undervalued in the first place. There was not enough regulatory controls to prevent this.

 

[GPIDEAL]

The Iraq war was an example of no matter how much process you use to get into a war, the minute you make contact with the enemy, your plans go out the window and you are in a war and anything is then possible.

The same universal principles apply to Syria. Just as they do in Libya as they are now playing out.

That is absolutely 100% correct.

As soon as the bombs drop all bets are off as to how this thing will end

I'm not so sure. Clinton used limited military strikes like cruise missile attacks and it didn't precipitate a full-scale war. Let the U.S. chisel away at Assad's military infrastructure with surgical strikes as required. This can be sustained over a long time.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Holy shit!!!!!!!! That's fucking WWIII I'm seeing there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Poor Cyprus has nowhere to run!!!

FUCK! I agree if the Russians are there too. Putin is a fucking KGB gangster. I bet the U.S. would wipe their ass on the high seas like ducks in the water.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I'm not so sure. Clinton used limited military strikes like cruise missile attacks and it didn't precipitate a full-scale war

Sure, but you could argue he got lucky that Milosevic surrendered fairly quickly.

Middle-easterners aren't known to surrendered easily, most of these dictators will fight to the death (see Saddam, Gaddafi...etc)

 

[MRBJX]

So can anyone explain why an attack has to happen rather than a surgical strike to either delete or capture Assad is not the way (presuming its Asaad who did it - despite speculation that he has lost control of everything and someone else did it - unlikely)

Its the man who did the crime, a random bomb run for structures and such is really pathetic and serves no purpose.

IMV delete Assad - sub in a UN group that understands the trouble and mediate to fix. Through out history its extremely rare that both sides want blood shed its more often that each side feels terribly violated and can find no other way to reconcile their differences, which is pretty pathetic in 2013, its not fuckin 1913 ....maybe it is.

 

[GPIDEAL]

So can anyone explain why an attack has to happen rather than a surgical strike to either delete or capture Assad is not the way (presuming its Asaad who did it - despite speculation that he has lost control of everything and someone else did it - unlikely)

Its the man who did the crime, a random bomb run for structures and such is really pathetic and serves no purpose.

IMV delete Assad - sub in a UN group that understands the trouble and mediate to fix. Through out history its extremely rare that both sides want blood shed its more often that each side feels terribly violated and can find no other way to reconcile their differences, which is pretty pathetic in 2013, its not fuckin 1913 ....maybe it is.

I'm for surgical strikes, particularly if Assad uses chemical weapons or decimates large numbers of civilians.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Sure, but you could argue he got lucky that Milosevic surrendered fairly quickly.

Middle-easterners aren't known to surrendered easily, most of these dictators will fight to the death (see Saddam, Gaddafi...etc)

Knock out a dictator's military, then supply the rebels with weapons to fight on the streets. Give air support without your own boots on the ground. Add in a few cruise missiles and drone-launched ASMs. Drop a laser-guided bomb right on the leader's tent or palace if you have to down the road like Reagan did to Gaddafi (who got an education from that).

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Knock out a dictator's military, then supply AL QUEDA with weapons to fight on the streets. Give air support to AL QUEDA without your own boots on the ground. Add in a few cruise missiles and drone-launched ASMs. Drop a laser-guided bomb right on the leader's tent or palace if you have to down the road like Reagan did to Gaddafi (who got an education from that)

Fixed your post

 

[GPIDEAL]

Fixed your post

You changed my post.

Oh so all of the rebellious forces or militia or civilians in arms are terrorists?

 

[nobody123]

The Iraq war was an example of no matter how much process you use to get into a war, the minute you make contact with the enemy, your plans go out the window and you are in a war and anything is then possible.

Bullshit. The only "process" involved in the run up to the Iraq war was the process of fabricating reasons to go for it. Near indiscriminate killing as a method to win the hearts and minds doesn't exactly qualify as process or planning.And even though you're right that the results of any intervention are not a foregone conclusion, genuine planning and forethought can have influence on the outcome of a conflict.

 

[diehard]

You changed my post.

Oh so all of the rebellious forces or militia or civilians in arms are terrorists?

Yes, that's what Assad is warning us.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

You changed my post.

Oh so all of the rebellious forces or militia or civilians in arms are terrorists?

No, not all. But Al Queda are embedded among the rebels.

Thats what Senator Rand Paul said anyways. Are you even following this thread??

 

[dtjohnst]

So can anyone explain why an attack has to happen rather than a surgical strike to either delete or capture Assad is not the way (presuming its Asaad who did it - despite speculation that he has lost control of everything and someone else did it - unlikely)

Its the man who did the crime, a random bomb run for structures and such is really pathetic and serves no purpose.

IMV delete Assad - sub in a UN group that understands the trouble and mediate to fix. Through out history its extremely rare that both sides want blood shed its more often that each side feels terribly violated and can find no other way to reconcile their differences, which is pretty pathetic in 2013, its not fuckin 1913 ....maybe it is.

These men are well protected, and surgical strikes rarely are. Remember the last major snatch-and-grab the US military tried? You can watch the movie about it. It's called black hawk down. They captured none of their objectives, spent a lot of money, killed a lot of people, lost a lot of lives, ruined a bunch of careers and wasted a lot of political capital. They aren't as easy as Call of Duty and Medal of Honor make them seem.

 

[fuji]

The Iraq war was an example of no matter how much process you use to get into a war, the minute you make contact with the enemy, your plans go out the window and you are in a war and anything is then possible.

The same universal principles apply to Syria. Just as they do in Libya as they are now playing out.

I agree with that entirely, and you are just one short step from realizing why the approach in Libya, which minimized the downside to the U.S., because it did not COMMIT the US to any further action, was so superior.

That said, it was still utterly incompetent for Bush not to have had any plan at all for what to do with Iraq post war.

What, he was surprised when the U.S. succeeded in defeating the Iraqi army and wound up occupying the country?

That was unexpected???

 

[Aardvark154]

Holy shit!!!!!!!! That's fucking WWIII I'm seeing there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Poor Cyprus has nowhere to run!!!

It is being defended by the RAF.

 

[Aardvark154]

A libertarian told me that part of the blame was the Democrats complaining that financing was difficult for middle class or minority groups, so the Federal government urged easier credit. Is this true?

Without getting into the details - basically yes.

 

[Aardvark154]

Bush was a horrible president. . . .it was utterly incompetent for Bush not to have had any plan at all for what to do with Iraq post war.

the approach in Libya, was so superior.

Well, I believe most of us have said in the past that a major problem in Iraq (principally on the part of the Secretary of Defense) was concentrating on what it would take to defeat the Iraqi Armed Forces, and not nearly enough on that it would take to successfully occupy Iraq.

If you believe the approach in Libya was so superior may I suggest that you haven't read much commentary on Libya post Qaddafi, nor do you remember Benghazi coming up on a year ago.

 

[eznutz]

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

This pic I dont have a problem with. This is not some cozy dinner, it looks like official govt business

 

[yolosohobby]

I agree with that entirely, and you are just one short step from realizing why the approach in Libya, which minimized the downside to the U.S., because it did not COMMIT the US to any further action, was so superior.

That said, it was still utterly incompetent for Bush not to have had any plan at all for what to do with Iraq post war.

What, he was surprised when the U.S. succeeded in defeating the Iraqi army and wound up occupying the country?

That was unexpected???

Superior for who? certainly not the libyans. Might feel good for you in your mama's basement but in Benghazi, Misrata and northern Mali , its not such a superior strategy


If you dont go in, you dont have to occupy.