Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Think about it, you have your back to the wall and you have two choices: fly to Russia or use the chemical weapons. What are you gonna do? What was the point of having those weapons if you can't use them when your life and the lives of your people are on the line? And just exactly what does Hillary plan to do about it?
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-12-03 16:09||
#14 So ... can I take him off my Christmas card list?? No point in spending the extra postage.
Posted by Raider 2012-12-03 16:11||
#15 If Assad really has those weapons and if he is desperate enough to use them it will become clear that arming those rebels and staking US credibility on them was a very dangerous game. Is it possible Putin would conclude that Obama doesn't have the balls for a real fight? And then what? Does Obama back down and make us all look ridiculous or does he get us into WWIII? Would China loan us the money for it? Syria isn't worth it. If we had to face Russia it should have been over Iran and we should have made it clear from the get go that we meant business. That would have given the Russians a chance to back down without losing face.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-12-03 16:26||
#16 Curious question -- will the left treat more harshly the fellow whose foreign policy resulted in the use of WMD, or the fellow who believed all the information available and mistakenly believed there were WMD?
Posted by Rob Crawford 2012-12-03 16:46||
#17 Your comments are well thought out EU6305, what do you think of the option of letting them kill themselves like 12 rats in a 3 rat cage? One side might need gas, so might the other.
And shitloads of it too.
Posted by Shipman 2012-12-03 16:53||
#18 Everything the Champ does, every action he takes
has a political dividend which will benefit him and his regime. I can see no political dividend with regard to any aspect of US involvement in Syria, bugs and gas or no bugs and gas.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-12-03 17:04||
#19 I'm all in favor of letting them do whatever they want to each other. But Hillary told them not to use gas. Isn't that kind of a line in the sand? So my question is: what is her boss gonna do about it if they do? Is he gonna show himself to be impotent or is he gonna risk a confrontation with Putin? And if he risks a confrontation with Putin, what is Putin gonna do about it?
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-12-03 17:57||
#20 So my question is: what is her boss gonna do about it if they do?
Stage a diversion.
Posted by Pappy 2012-12-03 18:29||
Posted by tu3031 2012-12-03 18:56||
#22 Stage a diversion.
Works for me. Shameful, but then, the man has no shame.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-12-03 19:20||
#23 As per FREEREPUBLIC, Israel has repor asked permission from JORDAN to attack Syria's CHEMWAR sites, + the Bammer has warned Syria that iff it does resort to using its CHEMWAR weapons there "will be serious consequences', inferring possible US, UNO mil intervention to which both Russia + China will have a hard time disagreeing to.
IRAN per se may not do anything iff only an Israeli air strike(s) agz Assad's ChemFacs, not agz Assad himself, because even Iran doesn't want a Syria ally par or stronger than itself in alliance, but IMO Iran may de facto militarily intervene iff the US + regional rivals Turkey, KSA send ground troops into Syria, even under UN auspice, AS SYRIA IS IRAN'S LINK TO AIR, NAVAL PORTS IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN.
The key as always will be RUSSIA.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-12-03 19:30||
#24 If anyone busts out wmd in Syria, then the US should use vast amounts of small precision bombs, deep penetrating ordnance, followed up with an incendiary over-strike to destroy and sterilize every wmd site in the country.
20 B-1s and a carrier's worth of strike aircraft could do it all in an hour. And it would be better to do it all again 12 hours later.
There is no down side to putting the hammer down on any tinpot dictator using wmd on civilians, and there is real value in going all out to break something hard.
Posted by rammer 2012-12-03 21:00||
#25 Here I mean, "break something hard" not as in
"break something hard to break", but instead
"break something fragile, with such exponentially excessive force as to cause Iran to pause and re-consider their ways."
Posted by rammer 2012-12-03 21:06||
#26 #24 If anyone busts out wmd in Syria, then the US should...
Personally, I can't see the present Admin doing *anything* that calls for an actual decision, much less decisive action.
Posted by SteveS 2012-12-03 22:10||