will the US/NATO intervene in Syria?

[mhgaffney]

This is a breaking story. I'm having a deja vu all over again.

Just what we need -- another military entanglement.

MHG

Sen. Graham: Military intervention in Syria should be ‘on the table’

By Ben Geman

06/12/11 12:04 PM ET
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that it’s time to consider international intervention in Syria to avoid the further “slaughter” of people there by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces.

“If it made sense to protect the Libyan people against Gadhafi, and it did because they were going to get slaughtered if we hadn’t sent NATO in when he was on the outskirts of Benghazi, the question for the world [is], have we gotten to that point in Syria,” Graham said on the CBS' "Face the Nation."

“We may not be there yet, but we are getting very close, so if you really care about protecting the Syrian people from slaughter, now is the time to let Assad know that all options are on the table,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

for the rest
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/165943-graham-military-intervention-in-syria-should-be-on-the-table

[Boomhauer]

We should bomb Japan and target their PM's house instead.
Instead of taking the advice of TEPCO, history and persons knowledgeable about nuclear reactors and cap the dang thing right off the bat, he decided to leave a nuclear tire fire burning for months and pointlessly ordered citizens to work in irradiated conditions. His actions didn't just endanger and poison the Japanese people en masse, but contaminated hundreds of square miles of now off-limits farmland and ocean. Moreover, radioactive material spread not only through the air to other countries, but in produce, fish, manufactured goods and will continue for decades.

Naoto Kan must be stopped and held accountable for nuclear attacks, via stupidity, against the Japanese people and nuclear proliferation via spinach and sushi! Bomb Japan!

[cutthemdown]

Which is why I was against the Syria thing. What r we going to do attack everyone right now. It's not about democracy for everyone its about what is best for our country at the time. Besides NATO a joke they can't even get rid of the Libya problem and Syria way more powerful.

[mhgaffney]

Which is why I was against the Syria thing. What r we going to do attack everyone right now. It's not about democracy for everyone its about what is best for our country at the time. Besides NATO a joke they can't even get rid of the Libya problem and Syria way more powerful.

Not sure if Syria is more powerful. Libya has a lot of oil -- which is what the fight there is about.

Syria has almost no oil. But Russia does have plans to open a naval base in Syria. Which the US does not want.

The fight for democracy is being exploited by evil masters who do not live in the region -- but want to control it.

[cutthemdown]

Not sure if Syria is more powerful. Libya has a lot of oil -- which is what the fight there is about.

Syria has almost no oil. But Russia does have plans to open a naval base in Syria. Which the US does not want.

The fight for democracy is being exploited by evil masters who do not live in the region -- but want to control it.

I assume they are because of the close ties with N Korea and Iran. Also they have 300 thousand alawite soldiers who will not turn on the leader. They are his sect, whatever, tribe, mudhut club, etc and make up only like 10% of people but over 75% of the armed forces. They have a bunch of scuds, and in 1991 as part of the gulf coalition they got money to upgrade a bunch of stuff like armor etc. I'd be willing to bet they rank in power like this. Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, with a bunch like Syria and Egypt following. Prob Egypt before Syria etc. Libya though I dont think would be high on the list.

[cutthemdown]

If they can't make Libya step aside when half the military quit, no way NATO or the UN has any teeth for Syria. Obama? he's been slightly more hawkish then advertised but cmon? You really think Obama wants to mess with Syria, he doesn't even want to mess with Libya. If the USA wanted that war would be over already. They could level that place he lives into rubble if they wanted. They could also probably kill him with an assassin if they really wanted to.

[mhgaffney]

I think we have to assume the CIA is in Syria -- up to its usual tricks. Whether they can manipulate a popular uprising is another question. If covert ops fail -- NATO would be the next option.

But like you say - -with the war bogged down in Libya -- it may be a bridge too far. Let us hope NATO stays out.

Each new conflict destabilizes the world more - - and at some point we could find ourselves eyeball to eyeball with Russia & China.

[cutthemdown]

Gaff when a hawk like me says I am over it, its time to ****ing draw down the wars. A war is needed sometimes. IMO Saddam was way out of line audacious. From invading Kuwait, to setting fires like he did, to pillaging it, to then how he decided to just play games with every President after the etc etc. Whatever we disagree I know. But at some point we have to be realistic. To win wars you have to kill a lot of people. Our troops our worn out, we have spent way too much money on it, and we need to rebuild the armed forces because sometime in the future we may really need them. NATO? lol give me a break if even 100 french airmen got killed they would crawl back to paris and have some wine and cheese. None of those countries have the stomach to send there boys in to Syria or Libya IMO. You are 100% correct we may have to fight China, or even Russia again. Hell it could be America/india/Nato vs China/Pakistan/Iran/N Korea I know that is doomsday stuff but you never know what can happen. We should draw back and build up. Get our troops back in top shape and get ready for a China with aircraft carries and nuclear submarines. Most likely at some point a new arms race.

[BroncsRule]

I think we have to assume the CIA is in Syria -- up to its usual tricks. Whether they can manipulate a popular uprising is another question. If covert ops fail -- NATO would be the next option.

Why spur a popular uprising if we're not willing to back said uprising? That would be exceptionally cruel - even for us.

But like you say - -with the war bogged down in Libya -- it may be a bridge too far. Let us hope NATO stays out.

Each new conflict destabilizes the world more - - and at some point we could find ourselves eyeball to eyeball with Russia & China.

Yes, yes - Democracy is so.. Messy. Far better to just leave well enough alone. I mean, those strong men know what's best for their people, right?

[That One Guy]

F Syria. Let them all kill themselves off. Only intervene if it looks like one side is going to win. Then, just provide stronger weapons to the losing side. When one person remains, we can try to westernize him.

[BroncsRule]

IMO - America is at a fulcrum of history. We need to support these democratic uprisings wherever they flourish, for as long as it takes. If we cannot, or will not do so, then why are we spending 1.3 trillion dollars a year on Defense?

If we're not willing to stand tall, right now, either because we are too squeamish, or because we fear paying the tab, then we need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and consider admitting to ourselves and the world that we are done. Spent. The America that was the Shining Beacon on the Hill is over. All of you huddled masses yearnig to be free - good luck with that.

Once we admit the truth, then we can reign in our defense spending accordingly.

We can no longer afford to have it both ways. Are we the last remaining superpower,

Or not?

[cutthemdown]

F Syria. Let them all kill themselves off. Only intervene if it looks like one side is going to win. Then, just provide stronger weapons to the losing side. When one person remains, we can try to westernize him.

In Syria its troops against civilians. No one from the loyal main army has switched like in Libya.

[That One Guy]

In Syria its troops against civilians. No one from the loyal main army has switched like in Libya.

I'm cool with that. It'll make it quicker.

[mhgaffney]

IMO - America is at a fulcrum of history. We need to support these democratic uprisings wherever they flourish, for as long as it takes. If we cannot, or will not do so, then why are we spending 1.3 trillion dollars a year on Defense?

If we're not willing to stand tall, right now, either because we are too squeamish, or because we fear paying the tab, then we need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and consider admitting to ourselves and the world that we are done. Spent. The America that was the Shining Beacon on the Hill is over. All of you huddled masses yearnig to be free - good luck with that.

Once we admit the truth, then we can reign in our defense spending accordingly.

We can no longer afford to have it both ways. Are we the last remaining superpower,

Or not?

You are asking the wrong questions.

Obviously, you buy into the lie of US exceptionalism. This is exactly what Romney and the repubs will peddle to try to beat Obama.

This path -- like the path Obama is on -- leads to more wars -- and ultimately to WW III.

[barryr]

Yes, the U.S. is not exceptional. This country is no better than equal Ethopia so say the emptyheads.

[sirhcyennek81]

You are asking the wrong questions.

Obviously, you buy into the lie of US exceptionalism. This is exactly what Romney and the repubs will peddle to try to beat Obama.

This path -- like the path Obama is on -- leads to more wars -- and ultimately to WW III.


Yup. Because in the entire history of man there has been a country like the United States.

You are ****ing retarded. Elmo loving tree humping ****ing retard.

****tard.

:Broncos:

[mhgaffney]

I see the nincompoops are out in numbers -- not to say strength.

We know that Obama ignored the informed opinions of two legal advisers -- one at the Pentagon and one at the Justice Dept -- who told him that a White House decision to intervene in Libya -- without Congressional approval -- would be illegal.

Obama did it anyway -- like some dictator. Things are going to get a lot worse.

Here's the story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=1

And now a similar scenario appears about to unfold in Syria -- Turkey has just agreed to let NATO use its bases. We all deplore the violence in Syria -- but does the US really give a hoot about the people of Syria? Three guesses.

Here's the report:

Monday 20th June, 2011

Turkey to take in NATO ground forces

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=799355

Turkey has agreed that NATO can turn its airbase in Turkey into a base for ground operations into Syria.

The country will become the main base in the area for the US-led military alliance’s ground forces.

NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said the alliance will transfer the bulk of its ground forces from a military base in the city of Heidelberg in southwestern Germany.

Other troops will arrive from Spain to be placed at the Izmir Air Station in western Turkey, which will now become the centre for ground troops.

Turkey has recently toughened its opinion on neighbouring Syria, where unprecedented civilian unrest has led to the deaths of many people.

Ankara has already created its own military bases close to the common border with Syria.

[mhgaffney]

How many wars are we fighting? Let's count them:

1, Iraq
2. Afghanistan
3. Pakistan
4. Iran (covert)
5. Yemen
6. Somalia
7. Congo (covert)
8. Sudan (covert)
9. Libya
10. Syria (covert -- for the moment)

And when do we reach critical mass-- when the whole planet explodes into WW III?

It can happen any moment. Syria might tip us over the top.

Wake up! Speak out for peace. Oppose the wars -- Bring the troops home.