House of Commons says

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, seriously you think this will be a localized action???
No one can predict what the outcome will be. We are not talking Grenada here
but a match that could set off the start of WW 111.
There are no simple solutions to this problem. Either side ,in this on going war, could spread these chemical weapons, and neither side can be trusted. Throwing a few missiles will not destroy all their chemical weapons and it will end up being our troops on the ground to find and destroy them. Once started this will neither be localized or short term.

The WW3 talk is just fear mongering. None of the major players would benefit from it and hence it's not likely.

The point here wasn't to destroy all the chemical weapons, it was to send a message that the international community doesn't allow the use of them. At this point what's the cost of doing nothing?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

At this point what's the cost of doing nothing?

-spence

Spoken like a true disciple of Obama, who via his penchant for voting "present", is a great believer in doing nothing.

Spence, the potential cost of doing nothing, is enormous. I cannot believe you don't already know this, but the cost of doing nohting, is that it sends a message to Assad and others like him, that the US is too impotent to prevent this kind of thing in the future.

The cost of doing nothing is that it invites subsequent war crimes.

How can you really ask that? Are you that naive? Or do you literally have zero empathy for anyone who wasn't as lucky as you and I, to be born in a place that values freedom?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spoken like a true disciple of Obama, who via his penchant for voting "present", is a great believer in doing nothing.

Spence, the potential cost of doing nothing, is enormous. I cannot believe you don't already know this, but the cost of doing nohting, is that it sends a message to Assad and others like him, that the US is too impotent to prevent this kind of thing in the future.

The cost of doing nothing is that it invites subsequent war crimes.

How can you really ask that? Are you that naive? Or do you literally have zero empathy for anyone who wasn't as lucky as you and I, to be born in a place that values freedom?

Jim, I believe you are actually agreeing with Spence on this. Spence backs doing something, sending the message that the "international community," whatever that is, does not allow the use of really nasty weapons. Good old fashioned guns, and such, (the very weapons that regular folks should not possess and would be banned by the "international community") are OK.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The WW3 talk is just fear mongering. None of the major players would benefit from it and hence it's not likely.

It doesn't appear that neither of the previous World Wars benefited anyone, but they happened anyway because of, among other things, escalating local and national disputes. Wasn't one of the reasons not to respond "irrationally" to various radical Islamic provocations exactly to avoid inflaming what the radicals wanted--a major worldwide jihad against the West and the infidels?

The point here wasn't to destroy all the chemical weapons, it was to send a message that the international community doesn't allow the use of them. At this point what's the cost of doing nothing?
-spence

Apparently, the "international community" is divided on many, many issues. Various nations within that "community" have stockpiles of such weapons. Not sure of why this international community would produce and stock stuff that it doesn't allow the use of.

And this "community" seems often to be paralyzed against "doing" something because, it seems, it usually contradicts itself. It really appears to be a house divided against itself, a rather rickety, crumbling house. Within such a "community" the cost of doing nothing, in the end, is not much different than doing "something."

The difference, when the dust settles, temporarily, is who gets what. Who is getting what in the dispute between tyrants and jihadists might make a difference to the U.S., but the tyrants may be more to our benefit than the others. And if it were really for the liberation of individuals from the oppression of a dictatorial State, and from the tyranny of an intolerant religion, it might be beneficial for us to actually fight for that liberation rather than merely send a message. Even unilaterally. But the Arab Spring, so far, doesn't indicate such liberation.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

The WW3 talk is just fear mongering. None of the major players would benefit from it and hence it's not likely.

The point here wasn't to destroy all the chemical weapons, it was to send a message that the international community doesn't allow the use of them. At this point what's the cost of doing nothing?

-spence

Fear mongering and not likely?????
If you really think that, you have your head in the sand.
Iran would use any excuse for attacking Israel preemptively before Israel could
destroy their growing nuclear program. You don't think Israel would hesitate to
use nuclear weapons if attacked with chemical weapons? Once nuclear weapons are in play, it's any body's guess. Your not dealing with rational people here but with a myriad of countries with different agendas.
As stated before, NO ONE knows what the outcome of either attacking or not attacking would lead to. O got us into this mess with his pre election rhetoric.

BTW, please explain what O's red line is when it comes to Iran getting nuclear weapons in the very near future and what will he do. Hope he has built up a coalition and has a plan. Not likely.
Spence, this is not like Clinton sending a missile into an abandoned aspirin factory.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Iran would use any excuse for attacking Israel preemptively before Israel could destroy their growing nuclear program.

I think there's zero chance Iran makes a pre-emptive strike on Israel. They are fully aware Tehran would be vaporized in an hour. Iran has no where to hide.

Your not dealing with rational people here but with a myriad of countries with different agendas.

And for all of them the number one agenda item is staying in power.

This is pretty much the Syria story as well. Assad recognized he need to start showing some reforms as the Arab Spring heated up and had a new administration willing to talk...but the resistance was more than he gambled on and escalated quickly into a full on civil war.

As stated before, NO ONE knows what the outcome of either attacking or not attacking would lead to. O got us into this mess with his pre election rhetoric.

That's nonsense, it would be a messy situation no matter what.

BTW, please explain what O's red line is when it comes to Iran getting nuclear weapons in the very near future and what will he do. Hope he has built up a coalition and has a plan. Not likely.
Spence, this is not like Clinton sending a missile into an abandoned aspirin factory.

Iran will get a nuke regardless of any red line...even Israel can't stop them now...the bigger question is if that's a show stopper. Remember, that regime doesn't want to lose power as well.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think there's zero chance Iran makes a pre-emptive strike on Israel. They are fully aware Tehran would be vaporized in an hour. Iran has no where to hide.


for all of them the number one agenda item is staying in power.

This is pretty much the Syria story as well. Assad recognized he need to start showing some reforms as the Arab Spring heated up and had a new administration willing to talk...but the resistance was more than he gambled on and escalated quickly into a full on civil war.


That's nonsense, it would be a messy situation no matter what.


Iran will get a nuke regardless of any red line...even Israel can't stop them now...the bigger question is if that's a show stopper. Remember, that regime doesn't want to lose power as well.

-spence

"I think there's zero chance Iran makes a pre-emptive strike on Israel. They are fully aware Tehran would be vaporized in an hour. Iran has no where to hide"

Spence, think for a minute. Many of these people (perhaps the leaders of Iran, perhaps not) are so committed to their cause, that they don't fear consequences, that's how you get so many suicide bombers. You can't necessarily apply logic to these people. The kooky president of Iran has said he would gladly be a martyr to wipe Israel off the map. Whether or not he means it, who knows?

"for all of them the number one agenda item is staying in power."

Not for all of them. For some, the really scary ones, the number one item is serving Allah, even if, or especially if, they have to die in the process.

"Iran will get a nuke regardless of any red line...even Israel can't stop them now"

Sure they can. Israel has nukes today. Iran doesn't.

My bet is that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, and it won't be Obama that stops them, it will be Israel. The Israelis will never allow Iran to get a nuke, they will do whatever it takes to stop that, and they will be justified to do it. That's my prediction.

[justplugit]

Spence, Jim did a nice job answering you point for point. Nothing further to say.

You and I are both speculating here as to the results of O's plan of a "shot across the bow" working,without need for further action or escalation of problems in the region. If that is your thinking, and it works, my hat will be off to you.
My problem has been, since day one, that there was no strategy or end game plan
and shooting from the hip, instead of looking at all your options , usually
doesn't turn out well. No crystal ball here, just looking at present and past history in that region.

Only time will tell.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, think for a minute. Many of these people (perhaps the leaders of Iran, perhaps not) are so committed to their cause, that they don't fear consequences, that's how you get so many suicide bombers. You can't necessarily apply logic to these people. The kooky president of Iran has said he would gladly be a martyr to wipe Israel off the map. Whether or not he means it, who knows?

Seriously, how many Iranian suicide bombers have you seen lately?

Not for all of them. For some, the really scary ones, the number one item is serving Allah, even if, or especially if, they have to die in the process.

How many people in Iranian leadership positions have given themselves to "the cause"? Seriously, you don't think these guys enjoy their drivers, chefs and tailored suits just like the rest of us?

See point above.

Sure they can. Israel has nukes today. Iran doesn't.

There is zero chance Israel will launch a nuke attack to stop Iran from getting one. If they thought they could take it out in one strike conventionally perhaps, but the program is so well dispersed it's impossible.

My bet is that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, and it won't be Obama that stops them, it will be Israel. The Saudis will never allow Iran to get a nuke, they will do whatever it takes to stop that, and they will be justified to do it. That's my prediction.

Fixed.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Seriously, how many Iranian suicide bombers have you seen lately?


How many people in Iranian leadership positions have given themselves to "the cause"? Seriously, you don't think these guys enjoy their drivers, chefs and tailored suits just like the rest of us?

See point above.


There is zero chance Israel will launch a nuke attack to stop Iran from getting one. If they thought they could take it out in one strike conventionally perhaps, but the program is so well dispersed it's impossible.



Fixed.

-spence

"There is zero chance Israel will launch a nuke attack to stop Iran from getting one"

I disagree. If Iran gets a nuke, there's every reason to believe Iran would use it against Israel. Therefore, there's no valid reason for Israel to leave anything off the table to prevent it.

We'll see on that score, time will tell.

Chalk it up to another blown opportunity for Obama/Clinton when they chose to do nothing during the Iranian uprising some time ago...