How Would The US Feel?

[Gregg]

If say...China decided they thought President Obama crossed a red line and threatened to attack us. Then Brazil stepped in and said hold on, we will make those whacky Americans toe the line. Is there ANYTHING about the Syria story to date that makes any sense at all? Other than denouncing Assad for his repugnant behavior I haven't found a thing. We're talking about attacking a sovereign nation who has done nothing to us, but at the last minute decide to hand the reigns over to a guy who likes to pose shirtless with bears and put adversaries in the freezer. I just can't get my head around what is going on...

[Lainey]

Funny, I mentioned something similar to some co-workers when they were touting the idea of "only" sending in drones.
I said that you realize one day they will have the capability to send drones our way - then what? Of course they didn't like that idea, or just scoffed that it could ever be possible.

It's good to be king, as the U.S. is right now, but it sure distorts how we Americans perceive reality.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Is there ANYTHING about the Syria story to date that makes any sense at all? Other than denouncing Assad for his repugnant behavior I haven't found a thing. We're talking about attacking a sovereign nation who has done nothing to us, but at the last minute decide to hand the reigns over to a guy who likes to pose shirtless with bears and put adversaries in the freezer. I just can't get my head around what is going on...

It makes NO sense at all. The war made no sense as policy if some good solution is desired. I had to pinch myself. Is this really happening? After Iraq? Pinch, pinch, pinch, is this really happening all over again? I did get out in the streets to protest when war still seemed very likely. I'm proud of that. But still the whole thing had a quality of unreality to it - like am I sleepwalking?

Then the agreement not to go to war also makes no sense. Ok I'm very happy there is no war for now, but if all that was needed to stop a war was a diplomatic solution with Syria to get rid of their chemical weapons, then why didn't the U.S. government just try for that in the FIRST PLACE? Why didn't they THEMSELVES FIRST try diplomacy? Why did Russia even need to step in? Really think about that, does anything make any sense?

A nonsensical war I could more easily make sense of than a non-sensical decision to drop the war. I could just say: well it's probably a war over resources and so on and so while it isn't good for the Syrian citizens OR the U.S. citizens, there are economic players blah blah. But to be on the verge of war and then call the whole thing off - I don't even know how to make sense of that, neither sense based on proclaimed motives nor cynical sense based on more base motives.

There is more going on here than meets the eye, than we are being told in either the mainstream or alternative media. Maybe there was some kind of infighting going on within the military and intelligence communities (some senior people there opposed the war) so there was no consensus for war, and it's possible even a consensus *against* war there - and that won out. Maybe it really was about resources and some backroom pipeline deal or something we don't know about was reached (in addition to the chemical weapons deal). Yea the Obama administration may just be incompetent but for this level of irrationality I'd need a better explanation than just that - like maybe the incompetence of not really consulting the military on this war (the decision is not the military's, but the military does have input on the technical tactical stuff and making military predictions of exactly what type of war we are getting into).

I don't know how the U.S. would feel. Does one mean the government or the people? With people I understand that ex-pats and radicals from Syria want their revolution. If one has been personally fighting to overthrow a dictator or had to leave their country because of one, who wouldn't want some outside force to come like the fairy godmother and overthrow him - although I don't think they understand the FULL horror of U.S. war - contamination of your country for generations with depleted uranium etc... But I also understand U.S. bombs are going to kill innocent men, women, and children, just going about their lives - often the poorer people who can't afford to flee! So I think most people, (and radicals are pretty much never most people), would prefer a foreign country like the U.S. NOT bomb them and kill them and their loved ones.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Funny, I mentioned something similar to some co-workers when they were touting the idea of "only" sending in drones. I said that you realize one day they will have the capability to send drones our way - then what? Of course they didn't like that idea, or just scoffed that it could ever be possible.

Aren't drones pretty easy technology to build? Heck the Occupy movement had it's own drone (not an armed drone of course) - I mean yea they had smart people in the movement to build them, but so do other countries. It's not a difficult technology to build like a nuclear bomb.

[Gregg]

Aren't drones pretty easy technology to build?

DS' friends flew RC planes almost 20 years ago. Essentially a very low tech drone. A more up to date, sophisticated version of those toys with a payload of sarin mixed up in some terrorist's garage could cause a lot of anxiety. One of these days someone is probably going to get tired of the US bully pulpit. I just hope that whoever it is *only* has little remote control planes!

[ToomuchStuff]

Politicians make sense? Greg, what are you thinking.:laff:

Next thing, you will be saying that Peggy makes sense and you should get rid of your guns and that you won't be able to easily build a bomb, and showers killed millions of people (not the Nazi's behind them), so lets get rid of those as well.


Years back, there was an article about how a cheap plane could be built (I think it was $20K) that was small, and maneuverable and someone used a simulator that I think was a Tom Clancy game, to show how an attack with a bunch of those, could pretty much wipe out our navy and do quite a bunch of other damage. These were small prior to drones (ie, drones which really are just remote controlled planes, with some AI (in case of communications loss) and better remote control.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I think policies usually make some kind of sense for whoever they serve (though whoever they serve is not necessarily the majority of the citizenry). Policies without rhyme or reason that is visible to us, pure absurdity and non-sequitor, hmm, update the mental model with that? And not in some minor domestic law but in matters of war.

[Rogar]

Is there ANYTHING about the Syria story to date that makes any sense at all? Other than denouncing Assad for his repugnant behavior I haven't found a thing. We're talking about attacking a sovereign nation who has done nothing to us, but at the last minute decide to hand the reigns over to a guy who likes to pose shirtless with bears and put adversaries in the freezer. I just can't get my head around what is going on...

Well...it makes sense to me that the UN has confirmed that Syria has violated international law banning the use of chemical weapons. A law which the majority of the world powers agreed upon. It isn't just an arbitrary red line invented by Obama. And probably someone should do something to enforce international laws like this. That is the sense of it to me.

As far as US military involvement, I think it's time for us to go into semi-retirement as the sole global policeman. There are plenty of humanitarian issues around the world that we could help without being involved into military action.