Moment of Truth In The Middle East.

If true, then the best answer may be to work toward evacuating all non-combatants, and ensuring for a readily stocked supply of alternative weapons for all who remain.

Wait 6 months.

Re-open borders.

Build anew.

 

Boomer Sooner Arab Style?

 

Innocent lives are saved.
Defense contractors make a buck.
American soldiers / sailors and airmen are not needlessly put in harm's way.
America doesn't directly intervene, and won't face more of the international blowback.
President Obama maintains both a strong stance, but without loss of political capital.
The GOP, for once, looks like a somewhat reasonable group who have advocated for less than war.
The international community can feel like the issue has been effectively addressed.
Most importantly, those who wish to fight (and die) in either the maintenance or destruction of the Hassad regime may continue to do so, to a point of finality.
And if either side feels the further need to use chemical weapons, then we can spend the next 90 days accelerating the demise of both sides by round-the-clock bombing by a coalition of willing nations, with first dibs going to those members of the Middle Eastern region.

Everyone wins.

 

It appears the rebels aren't really for anyone but themselves either. There seem to be a lot of innocents getting caught up in this. That's civil war 101 I suppose, but I'm not sure I really want to take a side in this when from my vantage point, the rebels would be doing exactly what Assad is accused of if given the ability.

JMO

 

You are basing your belief on the idea that you have options in the car department. If you reduce that scenerio to THE car or one of only a handful of cars in the entire world... your scenerio breaks down. Unless you maintain that there is no interest in having that investment, which is, at best, arguable.

You are also comparing Iraq, which we took upon ourselves to stablilize after destabilzing, with a similar action in Syria, of which the purpose would be to destabilize with the objective that someone else, should they prove able, re-stabilize.

So, if you are saying we should do to Syria what we did to Iraq, you have a valid point. But that isn't what the objective should be, which is my point. We absolutely SHOULD NOT do to Syria what we did to Iraq. We should do something different, which is not only within our capabilities, but an opportunity that has not presented itself in quite some time, and may never again.

 

Looks like Putin is offering a missile shield to Syria, the plot thickens

 

we should build our European missile shield.

 

We're about to restart the cold war over this.

 

Have I said that I'm sick of Putin?

 

I'll give him this much, he ain't skeered. Would hate to play him in poker.

 

I wouldn't if I was holding a Royal Flush.

 

I think it's more about taking calculated risks/stances and understanding your enemy more than anything else. It goes without saying that projecting a certain image is everything to Putin.

 

Problem is, we aren't. Bush held a royal flush in 03. Right now? Obama/McCain are holding at best two pair.

No doubt he knows what the poll numbers here say and he's a smart enough guy to know that people are going to be even less likely to want to get in this if Russia is involved. He's calling our bluff.

 

When it comes to military might, we have a Royal Flush.

Edit: 13,000th post!!!!! I have no life.

 

Tom Clancy's Endwar

 

He has nothing to be scared of ... this is a win-win for him. No matter how this plays out Russia has an outlet with which to spin the outcome to reflect them favorably. He doesn't have the biggest [penis] in the room ... but he may have the biggest brain.

 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/

 

Meh

 

Bringing it tonight!

 

*** for tat/piss him off/give him the finger purposes if for nothing else.