Forum Thread

More Syrian gas attaks?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 4 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    What should the U.S. do ,if anything at all, about the recent news coming out of Syria about more chemical/gas attacks on civilians, although there are no deaths attributed to the attacks there were reports of numerous injuries , should the U.S. get involved if only for humanitarian reasons? And where should we draw the line (No pun intended) as to the limits of our involvement.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    ..."And where should we draw the line (No pun intended)"...

    We should draw the line (Pun intended) on not drawing any more "Red Lines" in the sand. Hopefully we (President Obama) have learned that lesson after his humiliation of last year.

    This is totally predictable. After Assad got away with it last year with no consequences, after all the threats from the US, it was pretty much assured that it would happen again. Even if it was the other side which did it this time, and that's possible, the fact that nothing happened to Assad after the chemical use use last year just told everyone in the region that chemicals could be used again without fear of penalty.

    We need to stay out of it. Any direct involvement by the US would just make things worse, as usual.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I don't see any problem with a simple air strike, or two...... No boots on the ground. Just like drones, but much faster. Fate should allow
    for bad men to be punished. As the old adage says: Watch out for what you hope for...... you just might get it. Speaking with the possibility
    that the replacement regime might be aggressive and might it be more passive towards terrorist factions.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Tony ..."a simple air strike or two"...

    Yes it certainly sounds simple...and air strike here, an air strike there...what could possibly go wrong?

    But, it's hardly ever that simple. One or two air strikes could very well lead to more military actions. Things often DO go wrong in military operations...THEN WHAT? What if there is a retaliation strike on our forces? What if one of our aircraft is shot down? A pilot captured? Would this action drag us into something more serious? Would this be a "Gulf of Tonkin" situation?

    We already know that Obama has made promises and broken them on the Syrian "Red Line" gas use situation in the past, so Obama probably won't use the military at all, and I think it would be a good decision to stay out militarily. He just needs to say smarter things when talking about it. Hopefully he is smarter with his language after last year.

    We agree that a replacement regime could be even worse. Assad is bad, the new guy could always be worse.

    "Careful what you wish for" is the old saying that I'm familiar with.