[SD Realtor]

Um yes I did post possible outcomes in my posts. We attack, then Isreal is attacked, then Isreal attacks whoever attacked them. More people are killed. More refugees pour out of Syria. More violence and more death. Furthermore I also pointed out that there is no idea who would come into power if Assad is gone. That there would be disparate groups that would then have access to lots of weapons left in the vacuum including chemical weapons.

I like it. Your humanitarian no against chemical weapons involves more violence and death. Furthermore the entire world is not yet convinced of who even released the weapons. Finally the groups your humanitarian actions will be aiding have executed lots of innocent people.

Strange logic but I guess it works for ya.

[SD Realtor]

Forget it. All of your posts have not addressed what happens with all the possibilities of negative outcomes.

I guess not addressing those possibilities is the best way to argue your point.

[SD Realtor]

Israel simply wants to be assured that the US has their back. Not really for this situation but for the much larger issue that is Iran and their nuclear development. You make it sound like Israel likes war but they do not. Right now they are not really publicly saying anything. They may view this simply as a test of the personal resolve Obama may have, more then they want a strike on Syria. Israel is much more comfortable understanding and knowing the enemies they have and have had for decades rather then having to accommodate for newer and potentially more radical ones. So honestly they are content with a nice simply stalemate in Syria as long as it does not spill into their own borders. They know Assad and they know Hezbollah. What they do not want is a more radical presence taking over with large stockpiles of weapons laying around.

Saudi Arabia is a totally different matter. You don’t need to look far to find serious connections between SA and extremist groups. This is all primarily due to Shia verses Sunni sects. As Iraq fell, that tilts the power balance in a fairly strong manner to the Shia sect which SA is not. Look into the matter and you see that SA is probably one of the strongest backers of the rebel forces.

This is not necessarily a good thing.

Honestly it is a really complex situation. Several parties have a vested interest in the outcome but they are all in the interest of self preservation. There is nothing wrong with that.

Once more, you seem to boiling your decision into two distinct classes. First, we need to do this to show “them” whoever them is, that they will have pain inflicted upon them if they use chemical weapons. Second, that it is justified to do this because this or that nation “wants us to”.

You seem to have little to no regard for possible negative outcomes that frankly can result is many many more deaths, more refugees, and can lead to further destabilization of the entire region.

Sorry, it just makes no sense to me.

[SD Realtor]

It does make sense… I was wondering this from the beginning but with all the chaos out there… who knows. I do agree it is hard to believe Assad would have ordered this as it doesn’t make much sense.

[SD Realtor]

FIH I know you are not saying we take sides. What I am saying is that it doesn’t matter. I absolutely understand your rationale for a strike. My point is that you need to consider all of the other variables are in the region in order to make your point. Furthermore your point may be viewed as meaningless by many of the organizations out there regardless of whether they are terrorist orgs, sovereigns or just millions and millions of ordinary citizens. Finally that could be used as fodder to incite more violence.

Is it worth taking that risk? Some people say yes, personally I think not… and it is questionable that it would accomplish the intent.

[SD Realtor]

Rand Pauls position would be we don’t touch Syria with a 10 foot pole.

[SD Realtor]

Hilarious… Trying to formulate a strategy on how to deal with this issue in a vacuum is is insane. Do you think that any retaliation to a US strike will be against Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Bahrain? Turkey? Irag? Egypt? Lebanon?

Jeez man pull your head out. Do you want to start a war just to prove a point? Is that it?

Try to get a bigger sense of the instability of the region. That there is a possibility of reactions to your making a point. I know the logic may be tricky here… Out of all the countries in the middle east, which one may be punished as a response to a US military action. Now if you figured that out, what do you think that country may do…do you think they will just sit there and have no response? Okay now if you figured that out, now what will happen…Was it worth you risking a nice little war in the region just to prove your point?

Then go back to square one and think…… hmmm… maybe this could have been prevented….Maybe there are other things here to consider…

It is not a fixation on Israel. It is a simple follow the logical path of possibility of what could happen. Not saying it will… it could… and really I don’t think it is honestly worth the risk.

[SD Realtor]

Not bad Russ. That has some merit.

[SD Realtor]

Gotta respectfully disagree Harvey because I think you have constructed the absolute best case scenario. If it does play out that way, I will be greatly relieved.

[SD Realtor]

Yes we have been adding to the violence. We are friggin idiots for arming the rebels as well. Do you have any idea what percentage of the weapons we are arming the rebels with falls into the wrong hands?

Do we even know what happens if the rebels overthrow the govt?

Do you have some guarantee that it will be better?

Do you have any idea of what happens to all of the existing chemical weapons if the rebels take over?

As pointed out there is no single rebel force. In fact there is plenty of infighting among various rebel groups.

Here is the point. We have very little control over there. We have greatly contributed to the instability by providing arms. Our involvement has led to plenty more loss of life.

I don’t advocate chemical weapon use but before anyone gets on a high horse and waves a flag about the tragedy of them, WAY WAY more lives have been lost due to conventional weapons. Drawing an arbitrary line because of those weapons will not…. do…. crap….

What it will do is make some of our allies like Saudi Arabia happy, and further galvanize enemies of the US in the middle east against us and against Isreal.

I love it… “The goal is for America to lead against the use of chemical weapons”

While America arms everyone else to the teeth….

Nice logic….

[SD Realtor]

Sounds like we are in agreement.

[SD Realtor]

So SK sounds like you advocate adding to the violence. Lots of reasons not to add to the sh-tstorm but I haven’t seen anyone post a good reason to add to it, including yourself.

[SD Realtor]

Yes SK there is no winning hand. There is no way that I can be convinced that bombing Syria in any way shape or form will help the situation. It doesn’t matter if everyone in congress says Aye.

Very simply stated, it is a horrible decision and the variety of outcomes are quite negative.

[SD Realtor]

Better to fold then to play out a losing hand.

[SD Realtor]

yep…yep… and yep…as horrid as Assad is, I cringe to think what happens if he falls. Utter and complete chaos. Unless you have a plan to 100% occupy that country and cleanse it of all the weaponry I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Launching a strike to “prove a point” without any contingency plan in place is the stupidest thing in the world. What happens if Obama proves his point and other countries launch strikes on Isreal who then strikes back and the whole place flares up.

What the hell are we thinking?

Then what? What kind of genius is that?

[Author]

Posts