Simple two questions to ask: What would it take for the U.S. to get involved in Syria?
And how would we?

Figured most on here are on the non-intervention side of this, but what would it take to get involved?

Currently chemical weapons have been used, but no idea how, chain of command, who did it, and if it is just the start of using them.
Assad remains in power, but it is slowly slipping away. He is counting more and more on Hezbollah to invade with raids, bringing Lebanon into the fray.
So, far, over 70,000 have died since the March 2011 uprising.
Jordan and Turkey have absorbed millions of refugees throwing off the uneasy tensions in those countries.
And, the rebels have started to break down into non-religious and religious elements.

So, what would it take for the U.S. to care?
The way things are going, with the lethal aid now, the U.S. will be involved somehow.

Will it take the death of 100,000+ to die?
Would it take Hezbollah growing in influence?
Would it take regional allies to start to get the impact, like violence in Jordan?
Would it take Israel to start to get involved on the side of the rebels?
Would it take the chemical wepaons falling into the hands of Hezbollah/ Iran or the rebels?

At what point does the U.S. get involved?


Then, how so?
Do we send just aid? Do we use NATO like Libya, but allow the French/ Brits to lead?
Would U.S. troops ever be considered?


I'm torn on this myself, having been to Syria in 2005. But, I know the limits of U.S. force, and the country is a mess and powderkeg for further violence along ethnic lines.
I see intervention, but NATO led and mainly like Kosovo or Bosnia. But, only if Chemical weapons are really, really used, and the whole situation turns into a genocide with over 100,000 dead.

you mean war from Obama, Mister peace? We aren't the world police, not our problem. We go in, we are there forever and the people who take over will hate us just as much

ccrunner609;1436587 wrote:yeah people like Ptown voted for this clown because he was "strong with foreign policy". If he was so popular with the rest of the world then why would we have to go to war. Cant he just talk to them?

He should just flash his magical Nobel Peace Prize and all will be well.

tk421;1436546 wrote:you mean war from Obama, Mister peace? We aren't the world police, not our problem. We go in, we are there forever and the people who take over will hate us just as much

Agreed we aren't the police, but if left unchecked it will impact the U.S.
It will tear the region apart, involve every state, Israel included.
That will force the global economy down, and force states to act.

ccrunner609;1436587 wrote:yeah people like Ptown voted for this clown because he was "strong with foreign policy". If he was so popular with the rest of the world then why would we have to go to war. Cant he just talk to them?

What's your point, that Assad should just give up because of Obama? Really, wow, that is very smart.....
Anything of substance to say there chief?

Pretty simple. We intervene when there is a REAL threat to our national security. Just like how it should be for every conflict.

^^^I think that was sarcasm...

I frankly think we are too war weary. BHO already drew a line in the sand on chemical weapons....and Syria has crossed it with nothing done by us. I guess we are waiting for an 'airtight' case. I guess I'm just a crazy old neo-con for believing that the only thing that keeps the lid on anyone using weapons of mass destruction is the fear/realization that it could/would be returned in spades. If we don't act, who will? The world just became a much more dangerous place.

ptown_trojans_1;1436510 wrote:Will it take the death of 100,000+ to die?

Unless the nation is oil rich the numbers of dead are irrelevant.

ptown_trojans_1;1436510 wrote:Would it take Hezbollah growing in influence?

Hezbollah does not possess the power to save the Assad regime, they just don't want to lose one of their lifelines.

ptown_trojans_1;1436510 wrote:Would it take regional allies to start to get the impact, like violence in Jordan?

No. Egypt a far bigger player in the region has been raked by violence with no direct US military intervention other than the continued supply of military arms.

ptown_trojans_1;1436510 wrote:Would it take Israel to start to get involved on the side of the rebels?

Israel will not get involved with the rebels. The outcome would be unknown. Israeli military responses in the conflict so far would appear to me to be against rouge rebel forces operating along the border. The status quo at least offered known defense and diplomatic protocol.

ptown_trojans_1;1436510 wrote:Would it take the chemical wepaons falling into the hands of Hezbollah/ Iran or the rebels?



At what point does the U.S. get involved?

If their is concrete proof chemical weapons are found to be falling into the hands of rouge elements outside the control of any organized governmental authority and likely are to escape the border of Syria then there would be cause belli to act with limited and temporary military force to destroy or secure such weapons. Not to involve the US or any other nation permanently in the conflict or send in an occupation force. Even the Russians and the Chinese have no interest in rouge elements running around with these types of weapons.

That said if the Syrian people want to kill themselves over politics and religion and they keep it within their borders well so be it. If they want to use their chemical arsenal against each other I don't want my son getting killed there to stop them.

ptown_trojans_1;1436510 wrote:But, only if Chemical weapons are really, really used, and the whole situation turns into a genocide with over 100,000 dead.

The US civil war over 600,000 dead with a US 1860 population about 10 million larger than that of Syria. Granted in modern war civilians face death with the soldiers they support but hardly a genocide.

If we are going to invade countries to protect hundreds of thousands of people from dying, we are going to be in a lot of countries. What's going to stop whomever the CIA inevitably places in power in Syria from doing the exact same thing? We'll have to pay them off for the rest of eternity and the country and citizens will still hate this country and everything that we stand for.

ptown_trojans_1;1436510 wrote:Simple two questions to ask: What would it take for the U.S. to get involved in Syria?
And how would we?

A six pack of Bud and a balogna sadwich.

Figured most on here are on the non-intervention side of this, but what would it take to get involved?

A six pack of beer and a balogna sandwich.

Currently chemical weapons have been used, but no idea how, chain of command, who did it, and if it is just the start of using them.

Chemical weapons for we...but not for thee.

Assad remains in power, but it is slowly slipping away. He is counting more and more on Hezbollah to invade with raids, bringing Lebanon into the fray.

So perplexing. Who are the bad guys? Usually we finance the bad guys.

So, far, over 70,000 have died since the March 2011 uprising.

Maybe China can pony up a bit of their 3 trillion invested in US bonds to help out here. We have no money to play good Samaritan.

So, what would it take for the U.S. to care?
The way things are going, with the lethal aid now, the U.S. will be involved somehow.

We never turned away from a good war...for 20 years now. Time to flip a coin and figure out which team is the good guys.

Will it take the death of 100,000+ to die?

We didn't care about the 100K killed in Iraq...Why care now? Non sequitor

Would it take Hezbollah growing in influence?

Would it take the chemical wepaons falling into the hands of Hezbollah/ Iran or the rebels?

Again....chem weapons for we...but not for thee. We used chem weapons many times. In Vietnam, Falluja, and other places.

Do we send just aid? Do we use NATO like Libya, but allow the French/ Brits to lead?

Gotta advertise it first and then sell it. We're real good at that. Gotta tie in the"imminent threat" to our national security first.

Would U.S. troops ever be considered?

Absolutely...gotta fight em over there...so we don't have to fight em over here. It's a great slogan. Works every time.

I'm torn on this myself, having been to Syria in 2005. But, I know the limits of U.S. force, and the country is a mess and powderkeg for further violence along ethnic lines.

Don't be torn on this. They aren't real people, they're all Islamic fascists. Negroes of the 19th Century were worth a lot more.

I see intervention, but NATO led and mainly like Kosovo or Bosnia. But, only if Chemical weapons are really, really used, and the whole situation turns into a genocide with over 100,000 dead.

We sold components used to make chem weapons to Saddam Hussein. If we can make some money here, well then.....

None of this would be happening if the CIA didn't stir the shit up in the first place over there, and then our government is giving weapons to the Al-Qaeda rebels. I wouldn't be surprised if we are giving them any chemical weapons they are using.

Will it take 100,000 to die? Do you really think that would mean anything? We kill 100,000 like it's nothing.

What will it take to get U.S. troops involved? Some kind of event that will get the people back in the mood for perpetual war. Boston wasn't enough, so they will have to come up with something else, and they will.

What should we do? Stay the fuck out of it. We have no money. We don't need any more enemies. Let them kill each other if that is what they want to do.

I am torn.

Politically I am a 'non-interventionalist" most of the time, but ethically I have a deep heart for those that are abused, etc.

The one thing that this does give evidence too is that Iraq did have these type of "WMDs" back when we invaded and the weapons filtered out to other surrounding nations before we got to them.

So it's not the Syrian government, but the U.S. backed Al-Qaeda rebels that used the chemical weapons, no doubt supplied by the CIA. Another job well done. So what will be the new tale trying to raise support for a ground war over there?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

Question, aren't most despot countries previous US backed? We probably cause more terrorism and "evil" rulers in the world than happen just by chance. We need to stop sticking out noses in places it doesn't belong.

Cleveland Buck;1439264 wrote:So it's not the Syrian government, but the U.S. backed Al-Qaeda rebels that used the chemical weapons, no doubt supplied by the CIA. Another job well done. So what will be the new tale trying to raise support for a ground war over there?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

The US supplied chem weapons? No way!!