The Nightman Cometh wrote:I'm not arguing that anything we do is going to change the landscape of Syria, but taking out an Air Force that bombs it's own cities is a universal good IMO.

The possibility of the next dictator going "Oh wait, the US shot a hellfire into Assad's mansion after he used sarin." is completely worth the expense. Maybe I've got a little too much of the liberal internationalist in me, but I'm unwilling to say "#$!&@ it" about genocides and atrocities.

mozartpc27 wrote:Funny thing is, the President says the objective is not regime change.

As in the first Iraq War, I have little interest in bombing The COUNTRY....

But effecting a regime change by targeting Asad for immediate assassination? Oh yes.

This is what the NSA, CIA, Green Berets, Navy Seals, etc., should be working on.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I'm not arguing that anything we do is going to change the landscape of Syria, but taking out an Air Force that bombs it's own cities is a universal good IMO.

The possibility of the next dictator going "Oh wait, the US shot a hellfire into Assad's mansion after he used sarin." is completely worth the expense. Maybe I've got a little too much of the liberal internationalist in me, but I'm unwilling to say "#$!&@ it" about genocides and atrocities.

I realize you made this comment yesterday and I've been way too busy this week to get into this discussion, but why is chemical warfare the difference maker here? The guy has already killed tens of thousands of his own people already... why does the method of death alter the calculus of whether we should get involved? Especially for a country that hasn't signed onto the international treaty?

mozartpc27 wrote:I realize that to say,"Take him out" is a lot easier than to do it. But rather than make big public plans to ineffectively bomb Syria, wouldn't it be better to make quiet plans to aid the rebels... whether by assassinating Asad or by any other means?

In this specific case, they're also a difference maker because Obama said they were a difference maker.

mozartpc27 wrote:I realize that to say,"Take him out" is a lot easier than to do it. But rather than make big public plans to ineffectively bomb Syria, wouldn't it be better to make quiet plans to aid the rebels... whether by assassinating Asad or by any other means?

traderdave wrote:I am hesitant to engage LG too deeply in debate (along with several others) as I am probably as over-matched as the Ravens were last evening but I am not sure I agree that there would be any substantial uptick in American acceptance for an action in Syria even if Obama were to spend three hours next Tuesday night walking us through it step-by-step.

No matter what POTUS has to tell us next week, he, I believe, will have a very difficult time overcoming the war weariness of a public that has watched American soldiers die on a nearly daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 12 years. From the time the first Tomahawks leave their perch next week (assuming that is what is ultimately what is going to happen), the only thought for Americans will be WHEN not IF they will be watching their sons and daughters die in Syria too.

Overall, I understand that POTUS has a visibility issue here but it pisses me off to no end that it always has to be us. Everybody is more than happy to condemn the attacks and talk about how terrible Assad is, etc. but real "discipline" is always left to the United States while our supposed friends and allies slink off to give us a thumbs up from a darkened corner. Just once, I would like to hear us say "Yeah, those attacks were #$!&@. Great Britain, Germany, France; do something about it". Just one man's probably unpopular rant.

pacino wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:I realize that to say,"Take him out" is a lot easier than to do it. But rather than make big public plans to ineffectively bomb Syria, wouldn't it be better to make quiet plans to aid the rebels... whether by assassinating Asad or by any other means?

you cant assassinate a foreign leader like that.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:

pacino wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:I realize that to say,"Take him out" is a lot easier than to do it. But rather than make big public plans to ineffectively bomb Syria, wouldn't it be better to make quiet plans to aid the rebels... whether by assassinating Asad or by any other means?

you cant assassinate a foreign leader like that.[/quoteVery grey area.

We had B1 bombers on station during the invasion of Iraq looking to drop PGMs (Precision Guided Munitions) on Saddam if there was actionable intel. We use drones to fire Hellfire missiles to eliminate/assassinate terrorist leaders.

It's very grey...too much so in my opinion. What's the difference between launching a PGM from an aircraft or drone and using a sniper?

pacino wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:I realize that to say,"Take him out" is a lot easier than to do it. But rather than make big public plans to ineffectively bomb Syria, wouldn't it be better to make quiet plans to aid the rebels... whether by assassinating Asad or by any other means?

you cant assassinate a foreign leader like that.

The Dude wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:I realize that to say,"Take him out" is a lot easier than to do it. But rather than make big public plans to ineffectively bomb Syria, wouldn't it be better to make quiet plans to aid the rebels... whether by assassinating Asad or by any other means?

which rebels? good luck finding the good ones