Cruise Missles anyone?

[Chicks]

It astounds me every day that there are still Trump apologists out there, despite his demonstrated incompetence, divisiveness and unfitness for office.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Chicks

It astounds me every day that there are still Trump apologists out there, despite his demonstrated incompetence, divisiveness and unfitness for office.

Alternative facts say no such things have been demonstrated. You have your facts, they have theirs.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by whell

No one is proposing an Iraq - style offensive. However, token demonstrations of force have consequences, and require follow up. We still have some decisions to make about how to proceed in Syria. Clearly letting Russia hold sway there has been disastrous.

Obama asked Assad to resign, but then didn't follow up. He elected to let Russia take the lead and send money to the rebels. That course has been demonstrated as non-productive: Assad stayed on power and the money went to AQ. If the position of the US is that we want Assad out, is he doesn't voluntarily leave then we need to make it happen.

Assassination is one option, but certainly not the only or the best option. Reagan's 1981 Executive Order - apparently still in place - states that "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." But the order doesn’t define "assassination" and, in truth, hasn’t had much effect on U.S. policy (Obama's "Kill List" for example routinely targeted senior AQ leadership). But we already have "advisers" there that could work with the rebels to orchestrate a plan to capture / remove Assad. If he did use chem weapons, then he's a war criminal and can be treated as such.

So, again, decision time. Have we seen enough from Assad and is it time to remove him from power. Russia will have a fit, but its not likely that they could prevent the US from orchestrating a change in leadership.

The only thing that is going to remove Assad from power is a large scale invasion of US troops. After that it will take a million plus troops just to keep Damascus and the rest of the country free from ISIS and all the other radical Sunni groups that will want to take control of Syria. Look at your kids and see if you want any of them to be a part of that process.

You have to remember that Assad is not the problem in and of himself.
There is a whole population of Alawite Shia Syrians in Damascus who are not going to relinquish power at any cost because they are in an existential crisis.
If they do not care about gassing children they definitely will not be afraid about American rockets. They are in an unconditional surrender mode and to defeat an enemy like that it takes a MASSIVE American resolve and since Congress men and women are afraid to vote for that sort of authorization Assad has the advantage.

You can bet Assad is smart enough NOT to do any sort of attack on the United States like 911 or Pearl Harbor just to prevent any sort of resolve from happening.

LBJ dropped enough bombs on Hanoi for two Second World Wars and we still lost.

Obama knew this. He might have been bluffing about the Red Line but he also was willing to suffer egg on his face if it meant not getting into another quagmire.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by icenine

The only thing that is going to remove Assad from power is a large scale invasion of US troops. After that it will take a million plus troops just to keep Damascus and the rest of the country free from ISIS and all the other radical Sunni groups that will want to take control of Syria. Look at your kids and see if you want any of them to be a part of that process.

Disagree, we or any outside force cannot serve as peacekeepers anywhere in the middle east. Once the honeymoon is over, the various factions will turn against one another and/or join forces and turn against the peacekeeping forces.
Best we can do is to stay the hell away and hope that sometine this century, they will get tired of killing each other.
Only semblance of peace in the ME is when ruled by monarchs and dictators.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Disagree, we or any outside force cannot serve as peacekeepers anywhere in the middle east. Once the honeymoon is over, the various factions will turn against one another and/or join forces and turn against the peacekeeping forces.
Best we can do is to stay the hell away and hope that sometine this century, they will get tired of killing each other.
Only semblance of peace in the ME is when ruled by monarchs and dictators.

That is what I am pointing out.

People are thinking Trump can get rid of Assad with air power.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by icenine

That is what I am pointing out.

People are thinking Trump can get rid of Assad with air power.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Even one of our soldier's life lost in the ME is one life too many and there is no ROI. I am afraid that Trump is engaging Syria (as if they can fight back) for political purposes and if the ME debacle continues, he will probably get reelected for 'getting tough' on Syria. His supporters are too dense to realize that it costs us a lot of money to stay engaged in that hell hole with nothing to gain.

[Pio1980]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b00dd8e016ebda

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by icenine

That is what I am pointing out.

People are thinking Trump can get rid of Assad with air power.

I don't think he was trying to get rid of Assad. Why would he have given Assad the go ahead to do as he wished? Why would he warn him in advance so he could move equipment? And why would he have avoided bombing the airstrip? The bombing was a show to impress trumps supporters, nothing else.

[whell]

OK. So, in cases where we have international agreements, particularly in a case with a dictator who is intent on using chemical weapons on his own people, and we choose not to enforcement them, what's to discourage someone like Assad from violating those agreements?

And where we have diplomatic agreements that require the Syria's disposal of chemical weapons with a threat of force for non compliance - and we choose not to use force - what then is the appropriate enforcement mechanism?

And how do statements by the prior administration - where we knew damn well that Assad didn't comply with an agreement to dispose of chemical weapons - that wallpaper over significant issues with non-compliance provide an incentive for compliance?

[Pio1980]

Where is our "leverage" in this ongoing crisis?
Only with a consensus of regional alliances, I don't see any other. Offending potential and actual allies with reckless statements and policies is counterproductive to this crisis as well with dealing with daesh, which we cannot do on our own.