So it seems that the Wag-the-dog scenario is kicking in somewhat. Or maybe its just 'do not let a good crisis go to waste'.

 

Maybe the government used chemical WMD, maybe it was the rebels/outside agitators in a false flag attack. Regardless of the facts (still under investigation) it seems there is an itch to 'respond'?

 

But under what authority?

 

UN? No. There is no way for a resolution to pass with Russia still solidly backing the Assad regime. It can veto any such action there.

NATO? No.

Congressional War Powers Act approval? No. Nothing approved there?

Clear and Present Danger? OK, now we are reaching for movie titles. But there is no sign of any threat to Americans or even American interest.

 

Maybe 1,300 people were killed in a horrible manner. But thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands have been killed in other civil conflicts in systematic ways. And any action for such atrocities was still done with some level of governing body approval.

 

Under what governing body - domestic or international - is there an approval for military response of any kind?

 

And if done - what will be the consequences? The relationship with Russia is already strained with the Snowden affair. And they are being very vocal about a strike in Syria.

 

Russia says Western attack on Syria would be ?catastrophic? - The Washington Post

If we go in, we will once again be going in on the side of the rebels who we know have ties to Al-Qaeda.

Obama has been arming Al-Qaeda for the last two years... And the some of the billions he sent to the Brotherhood was used to fund the deadly attack in Benghazi..

I lean toward not responding unless the U.N. approves, which like you stated, is very doubtful. It is certainly an atrocity, but the U.S. can't police the entire world.

This needs to go to congress before anything is done.

 

Syria is no threat to us.

 

There is no eminent threat for the president to attack.

Obama has been arming Al-Qaeda for the last two years... And the some of the billions he sent to the Brotherhood was used to fund the deadly attack in Benghazi..

 

The United States government has been arming al-Qaeda for a whole lot longer than two years.

The United States government has been arming al-Qaeda for a whole lot longer than two years.

 

True, we were arming al-Qaeda before there even was an al-Qaeda. Back then they were the Mujahideen.

In March 2011 Hillary Clinton told “Face the Nation” viewers that the US would not interfere in Syria because Assad was a “reformer.”

 

Later that week Assad ordered his army to open fire on innocent protesters.

 

4 months later she was saying the opposite.

True, we were arming al-Qaeda before there even was an al-Qaeda. Back then they were the Mujahideen.

 

Yep. It's been a lot of years of arming people we didn't truly understand to fight whichever people it was we thought were our enemies at the time.

I do not want military action in Syria, and I definitely don't want any decision by the U S prior to the conclusion of the UN investigation.

Yep. It's been a lot of years of arming people we didn't truly understand to fight whichever people it was we thought were our enemies at the time.

 

I've always thought this scene got it right. Unfortunately.

 

[video=youtube;B2L1-TgfKb4]

Team Freedom

 

- America

- Al Qaeda

- Syrian Islamist

- Chechen Terrorists

- Saudi Arabia

 

Team Evil

 

- Al Assad

- Russia

- China

- Iran

 

 

^think about the above for a little while.....

What would we accomplish? Is the goal simply to get rid of Assad?

What would we accomplish? Is the goal simply to get rid of Assad?

 

The Turkey PM - a big Obama supporter - has wanted Assad gone for years. Just helping a friend maybe...

BTW....link to what may be 'the plan' for airstrikes. Amazing what is on the internet.

 

Required Sorties and Weapons to Degrade Syrian Air Force | Institute for the Study of War