In terms of pre-labeling wars, Syria can't be Iraq 2.0

[ProSense]

That was already used before the Libya no-fly zone.

Libya was supposed to be Iraq 2.0

[dawg]

1. Have you seen how things are going there lately?

You might want to wait a few more months before you get all snarky about success in Libya.

[ProSense]

3. The U.S.

"You might want to wait a few more months before you get all snarky about success in Libya."

...isn't at war in Libya. Libya is not Iraq.

[dawg]

4. No, but the place is seriously messed up and may require more "help" before ...

this is over.

Oil production has plummeted. Rebels (or pirates, whatever) are seizing control of terminals. The government, such as it is, is threatening to bomb tankers buying oil from non-government sources.

It's a mess.

[ProSense]

5. When you say "help," you mean aid, right? n/t

[dawg]

12. No one knows for sure. I hope no more U.S. military involvement takes place there, but ...

when you destabilize a country with lots of deep-seeded tribal rivalries, there are lots of unforeseen consequences.

I don't totally blame the Obama administration for participating in Libya, but I don't hail them for their efforts either. I think the French were ready to intervene, either with or without us and the U.S. felt it needed to be involved and take a leadership position due various reasons - some good; some prideful.

But Libya is child's play compared to Syria. This isn't just some esoteric discussion topic on the internet. The U.S. has the potential to make things much worse than they already are, and I don't think the Administration has thought this one out very thoroughly.

Time will tell.

[ProSense]

19. The situation

"No one knows for sure. I hope no more U.S. military involvement takes place there, but ...when you destabilize a country with lots of deep-seeded tribal rivalries, there are lots of unforeseen consequences."

...in Libya was already deteriorating. It would have gotten much worse.

"But Libya is child's play compared to Syria."

When action was being considered in Libya, the case was being made that it could become another Iraq or worse.

I remember Juan Cole finally pointing out the differences.

Having said that, the situation in Syria is not the same as in Libya. Still, does anyone believe that the administration doesn't know the risks involved?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

40. Syria is an order of magnitude riskier.

Libya had maybe three or four major tribes. Syria is Lebanon, but much bigger: lots of different sects, the Kurds are there; there's CW that could fall into someone's hands; Hezbollah; you could go on and on.
Obama is smart enough to know this, but not smart enough to realize Rumsfeld had a point about "unknown unknowns", I think (I will never figure out how that loon could say something so smart). I don't think he gets that he can't control any of the consequences of any of the myriad effects even the mere threat of a US strike has over there.

[ProSense]

43. Of course

"Obama is smart enough to know this, but not smart enough to realize Rumsfeld had a point about "unknown unknowns", I think (I will never figure out how that loon could say something so smart). I don't think he gets that he can't control any of the consequences of any of the myriad effects even the mere threat of a US strike has over there."

...there is no one around smarter or as smart as Rumsfeld, right? It doesn't take brilliance to realize that you can't know everything.

Rumsfeld is a depraved idiot.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

45. It takes a bit of humility,

And after 5 years as Prez, Obama may have lost some perspective on where he's limited.
As for Rummy, even a depraved idiot can say something wise. He never did listen to himself, obviously.

[ProSense]

46. Again

"And after 5 years as Prez, Obama may have lost some perspective on where he's limited.
As for Rummy, even a depraved idiot can say something wise. He never did listen to himself, obviously."

...you seem to believe the President is operating in a vacuum, talking to himself or oblivious to everything being said over these weeks.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

47. No,

Just missing a bit of perspective from being in the WH for so long. That's what I actually said.

[ProSense]

48. I understand what you said.

I'm saying that in such a matter as this, even though he doesn't have a crystal ball, he likely took great care in considering the facts and potential consequences.

You seem to believe that he hasn't done that.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

50. I'm certain he has.

It's simply human nature to fall into the trap of not understanding your limits if you've been so powerful for so long.

[joshcryer]

49. Libya didn't vote for the MB so the MB is trying to take power by force.

This, unfortunately, is what happens when you vote for the secularists.

The pipeline theft and such is due to lax security more than anything.

[Adrahil]

66. And yet, we're not in a quagmire there. nt

[RobertEarl]

2. Just another dumb mistake

Deadly and dumb. Libya is in ruins because of us, Syria is next. One big plate of ruins coming up!

[Pholus]

22. I seem to remember NeoCons saying the best way to handle the Middle East....

was just to keep kicking over the anthills periodically so that they have to spend all their energy rebuilding.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Have we had a Vietnam 2.0? Afghanistan 2.0? nt

[ProSense]

9. Which one do you think it will be?

Syria = Vietnam 2.0

or

Syria = Afghanistan 2.0


?

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Neither. I

was just giving you #%^&

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. Syria can't be Iraq 2.0.

While you're splitting hairs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3590705

[ProSense]

11. Are you saying that because Clinton strikes makes Bush's Iraq war: Iraq 4.0? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

13. I'm waiting for a response from you to a previous post you are ducking.

[ProSense]

16. You mean, this:

"If President Obama acts unilaterally would you consider it illegal as you have posted that Clinton's operations were?"

The actions were illegal because he didn't seek Congressional approval. I based it on the demand that President Obama seek Congressional approval.

Also, Kosovo wasn't sanctioned by the UN.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

25. No, silly, this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3590705

Since your viewpoint is that some of the Clinton-ordered operations were "illegal" then is he, in your view, a war-criminal?

In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification.

Has Syria signed on to the Chemical Weapons Convention?

http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/non-member-states/

Now that doesn't mean that Syria can use them against civilians, but I would caution on the side of waiting for a full UN report on the matter. If the UN and other member nations can prove that the Syrian government was behind the attacks it would be a good step in the right direction.

In 1998, NATO had established a red line against Serb ethnic cleansing...

Serbia was attacking all of the republics that had been held together from the former Yugoslavia. It wasn't a civil war as was a broader conflict between nation states that felt Serbia wanted large parts of their territory.

But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons.

If President Obama acts unilaterally would you consider it illegal as you have posted that Clinton's operations were?

[LondonReign2]

72. Right and wrong, legal and illegal: It all depends on who is President

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't be changed to make that legal.

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

74. I believe that PS will not give a fair answer.

Whichever one I was conversing with wrote that what Bill Clinton did was illegal.

My query asked if that makes him a war criminal...and conversely President Obama as well?

[ProSense]

82. Illegal in terms of U.S. law. Kosovo wasn't sanction by Congress or the UN, but

it was a NATO operation.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

84. You're still running from the question.

If President Obama acts unilaterally would you consider it illegal as you have posted that Clinton's operations were?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

70. Do you consider former President Clinton a war criminal then?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Bush had a UNSC resolution for Iraq

BTW -- it was also a no-drive-tanks zone as we were also bombing Libyan ground forces.

How soon we forget.

[Tx4obama]

32. Obama is NOT Bush.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. You're right. He doesn't have a UNSC resolution. n/t

[ProSense]

38. Wait,

"Bush had a UNSC resolution for Iraq"

...did the UN know?

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

- more -

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. The UNSC voted unanimously but this knows better than all those governments with all their experts.

Amazing

[joshcryer]

52. This is absolutely false. Bush had no UN resolution.

This keeps coming up here so I will simply link this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002273829#post1

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. Resolution 1441 stated Saddam was in material breach of the ceasefire

ergo it was a legal resumption of hostilities the same as if Saddam was shooting weapons.

[joshcryer]

67. It did not enable action against Iraq.

As John Negroponte said:

This resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.

The United States was not in any threat because Iraq didn't have WMDs (Saddam had already destroyed them). Therefore the "self defense" rhetoric that Bush used was illegal and a war crime.

You're the first DUer I've ever met who is arguing that Bush acted within the confines of the UNSC and ... legally. This is not how the rest of the world viewed it. Ironically Syria, the country which is now being targeted, felt that the resolution did not enable force.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. I din't say it had triggers

I said it declared Iraq in material breach of a ceasefire. Once 1 party is in breach of a ceasefire the opposing party is no longer obligated to observe the ceasefire either; just as if the US were in breach of a ceasefire then those opposing us would no longer be required to abide the terms. That in no way compels action but only a fool would believe "ceasefire ends" would prohibit a resumption of hostilities (unless you were really just that naïve about the previous gang).

[joshcryer]

69. Except it explicitly requested that the UNSC be convened for future action.

Unless there was a need for self-defense. e.g. Iraq was about to launch WMDs, the US or any other parties get to act. The world knew that Iraq didn't have WMDs, there were a half dozen experts making the case, and the intelligence community failed hard to make the case (Powell's fiasco).

Amazing, I swear. A DUer who believes Bush acted legally. Incredible.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. "Amazing, I swear. A DUer who believes Bush acted legally. Incredible."

I didn't say that either.

I said (in the parenthesis of my previous post) you have a monumentally naïve view of the previous occupants of the WH if you think they engineered a resolution that they would be forced to interpret in the terms you state. Anybody who think Bush-Cheney et al would consider "material breach of ceasefire" as anything less than "resumption of hostilities" is probably too ridiculous to be allowed to sit at the adult table.

ETA -- that still doesn't change my point that -- regardless of semantics and the interpretation thereof -- Bush had a UNSC resolution. It doesn't matter that it was based on bad intel or that he exploited its interpretation. I defy anyone to show me where President Obama is even seeking a UN resolution with any degree of earnestness.

[joshcryer]

76. Yes you did and you know it.

Just admit you were wrong, damn, people are wrong, the quoted thread was a poster who admitted they remembered wrong, it's no big deal, a lot of Americans were misled.

You are doubling down and it is utterly embarrassing. I mean you're contorting your justification for Bush's illegal war to an extent I've never seen before. Bush did not have a UNSC resolution to invade Iraq, this is a fact, agreed upon by the entire world. He invaded illegally.

I hope Obama seeks a UN resolution, as without one, I will consider him a war criminal and may be banned from this site if I express that opinion after the fact (I like DU so maybe I'll STFU but we'll see, soon).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. No really, I said you would have to be naive to think Bush would consider 1441 to mean anything else

That in no way compels action but only a fool would believe "ceasefire ends" would prohibit a resumption of hostilities (unless you were really just that naïve about the previous gang).

^ see. It was right there the whole time. You'll notice there isn't even an edit to the post.

[joshcryer]

89. Stop moving goalposts.

You believe that Bush used the UNSC to invade Iraq, that is objectively false. His war was illegal. Embarrassing.

edit: see post #34 for your embarassing justification. You didn't even bother to condition it, it was full stop a comparison to Bush and Obama, acting as if Bush had authority, he didn't. It was illegal. Bush is a war criminal.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. Describing the mechanism used is not the same as claiming it was legal.

Guns are legal. Self-defense is legal. Having a business partner is legal. Killing a business partner for profit with a gun and making a BS claim it was self-defense is illegal. That does nothing to alter the fact the offender killed a business partner for profit with a gun and claimed it was self-defense.

Bush used UNSC 1441 to justify the Iraq war. To get that he went to the UN. Whether it was based on bullshit and improperly twisted to his benefit is irrelevant as far as my point that Obama has done nothing to even come close to seeking international cover. And more is the shame on him. Obama isn't even seeking UN auspices, he's just barging ahead with an illegal war for his personal prestige. He's a piker compared to the previous gang.

[joshcryer]

95. Now it goes from Bush used UNSC to Bush was justified.

Are you serious?

The UN has tried, on over a half dozen occasions, to do something in Syria (with Obama pushing for it on the western state side), and Russia has vetoed it every way. This is just embarrassing, please reconsider your position. Bush didn't even try after 1441 outside of the Powell fiasco which no one bought.

Hopefully Obama pushes ahead with the UN, especially after his "I didn't make the red line" statement, which, btw, he was mocked for repeatedly on this forum. I think if Obama acts against the UN then he will of course be like Bush, but you already clearly believe that Bush was justified and that he was better than Obama in that he used the UNSC. It's deplorable.

I am truly blown away by your argument. I know of no other DUer who believes that Bush acted in accord with the UNSC. WTF.

[joshcryer]

101. What I said is truthful.

And you boxed yourself in with the ignorant "Bush acted within the UNSC" BS. Just admit you were wrong.

[telclaven]

90. I'll say it

Like it or lump it, the fact is President Bush did, in fact, follow the letter of the law. Yelling Iraq was illegal simply drowns out any other message that might be drawn.

President Obama would do himself and the US a great service gaining UN sanction AND an AUMF through Congress. Anything less and I believe there would be severe repercussions.

[joshcryer]

91. So that makes two DUers believing Bush acted legally.

I never thought I'd see the day.

Unbelievable.

[joshcryer]

103. "Guns are legal. Self-defense is legal."

"Bush had a UNSC resolution for Iraq"

Your words. Not mine.

[joshcryer]

104. "it was a legal resumption of hostilities"

Your words.

[telclaven]

98. Lots of things that are legal aren't right

Just as many things that are illegal aren't wrong.

It's important to differentiate the two. In an ideal world, they would be one and the same. We don't live in an ideal world.

[joshcryer]

102. I'm saying it was illegal.

And the vast majority of the world agrees with me. It was completely illegal. Bush did not, in fact, go to the UNSC to invade Iraq. He explicitly ignored resolution 1441 which demanded that he return to the UNSC for further action.

[Thinkingabout]

14. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and Syria was in trouble before the US ever made any moves.

I don't know where this will all get corrected, time will tell.

[NuclearDem]

15. And again with conflating Libya and Syria.

Even though the two situations couldn't be more different.

[ProSense]

17. Is Syria the same as Iraq?

Do you have problem with "conflating" Syria and Iraq?

The OP doesn't equate Libya to Syria.

[NuclearDem]

18. No, it's not, and yes I do.

I don't like the comparison because it's not apt to describe the situation. Iraq wasn't in a civil war. Syria is.

And, yes, you do conflate Libya and Syria. You're dancing around the idea that because Libya wasn't a disaster (which, arguably, it actually has become), Syria won't be either.

[ProSense]

20. Please,

"And, yes, you do conflate Libya and Syria. You're dancing around the idea that because Libya wasn't a disaster (which, arguably, it actually has become), Syria won't be either."

...point to the exact text in the OP where I "conflate" Libya and Syria.

[wandy]

21. How about WW III...................

Their's some gosh awful tensions built up in that part of the world. Iran has a fair sized military and they just might feel threatened.
Any doubt Israel is itchen to shoot something at somebody.
The Russians want the Oil too.
This all being above and beyond the normal background warnoise caused by religious differences that is just plan normal for that part of the planet.
No not just Muslims, Christians kill in the name of their god also.

Very nice hornets nest. Let's go poke at it with a few Cruise Missiles.
Just for empire and profit. Must not forget profit.

Hell why not, we've gotten away with it so far.

[Tx4obama]

27. Iraq is situated 'between' Syria and Iran

Iran would have felt more threatened when we were in Iraq - not so much when we are further away.




Additional map: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aQOfeUCZfIg/T4F9Fa7MdjI/AAAAAAAABiM/rVTPHuWvFGc/s1600/political+map+of+north+africa+and+middle+east.jpg

[wandy]

37. Yes. I guess they haven't heard factions in the US..........

singing Bomb, Bomb, Bomb; Bomb, Bomb Iran for the last few years.
They probably figure that Israel will invite over for Tea.
Not that Israel has ever initiated any hostel activity.
Naturally no one in that part of the world holds any ill will towards Israel.

Borders are nice but all bets are off when fighter bombers and missiles get involved.

[Tx4obama]

41. McCain was singing that song in 2008 - five/six years ago.

We've been in Iraq all of that time.

I think Iran would have expected bombs a long time ago if he was worried by that song.

Btw, we had fighter bomber and missiles in Iraq - and Iran didn't shit their pant over it.

So, I guess I really can't make any sense out of what you're saying.

Edited to add...

In case you hadn't heard - Iran has a new president. This one is supposed to be not as radical/extreme as the last one.

[wandy]

56. Well, you see, to tell you the truth..........

I'm not that much worried about Iran doing something stupid.
I'm not even all too very worried about Israel doing something stupid.
Were we to go back about six months the people I most worry about doing something stupid would be,,,, us.

Now?
Now that the doves have turned into hawks?
Oh boy.

And by the by. McCain never stopped singing. For what it's worth McCain was one of the first to get over ODS simply because it might prove a way to satisfy his blood lust.

Oh, and do not forget profit. Profit will drive the U.S far more than any ideology or even religion will drive any of the other players.
After all what was the real motivation for Iraq.

Please don't tell me something about somebody trying to kill someones Daddy.

Oh and I forgot. Iraq and Iran weren't exactly friends at the time Halliburton was making money hand over fist during that war.

[pokerfan]

57. Twain...

[Tx4obama]

59. I am embarrassed to admit it, but...

... I've learned quite a bit of geography regarding the middle east, that I hadn't previous known, during the Arab Spring.

[Hydra]

23. Syria is Iraq 2.0

Because all of the same people are lying about it. Libya was a different kind of mistake, but had some striking similarities too. Like a dictator we were happy to prop up until we weren't.

We could just call it "Endless PNAC Fuckups" and be done with it.

[ProSense]

26. You envision a 10-year war, in which a million Syrians and thousands of U.S. troops are killed? n/t

[Hydra]

29. No, I envision worse

A poorly thought out invasion(Iraq) with violence spilling into other countries like Israel, while having pissed off our "ally" Russia and screwing our image at the UN once again.

I could easily see it leading to years of occupation in various places while we try and put the lid back on the pot we'll have blown up, and plenty of death. Millions? Maybe. If it leads to an regional WMD war? Could be worse. Israel has 400+ nukes it's been itching to use.

The real kicker, and why it's a PNAC plan: What would victory look like? Remove Assad and put another oil crony like Hamid Karzai in? Pay off Al-Qaeda to hold territory for us? Find some other "secular" "freedom fighters" to build a gov't there? And who will pay for all of this?

It's all a bad rerun. The Ministry of Truth didn't bother to write a new script for this sequel.

[ProSense]

33. Then not "Iraq 2.O"? How about Vietnam 2.0?

WWIII 2.0?

[Hydra]

35. I gave you my vote

"More PNAC BS."

Why is PNAC still in office?

[Tx4obama]

24. Syria will be: Obama intervention 2.0 (minus the no-fly zone)

Libya was: Obama intervention 1.0

[Marr]

28. If Obama was against military action in Syria, none of the people here

who currently support the idea would be arguing for it.

[Tx4obama]

30. I disagree. I thought Assad would have been booted out a few years ago.

I am surprised that Assad has held on this long.

If Obama was not for going against Syria for gassing the 1,400+ I'd be hollering about it and asking 'why' aren't we standing up for 'human rights' and calling for Assad to be tried for 'war crimes against humanity'.

[LondonReign2]

73. +1,000

When Obama changes policy, so will they

[NuclearDem]

75. We have a winner.

If this were McCain or Romney we would be calling this Iraq 2.0

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. Those straws just seem to get smaller and faster all the time, don't they?

But you just keep right on grasping... I have to give you that.

ANY foray into Syria will destabilize the region, cause our allies (namely Israel) to suffer needlessly, and require the United States to expend more and larger military assets (namely personnel) in an effort to stem the change in momentum this foreign policy failure will cause.

Chemical weapons are now firmly placed in residential neighborhoods in Syria. Artillery, APCs, and other weapons are now in residential neighborhoods. Have fun explaining civilian deaths if and when President Obama gets his wish to be a President who has presided over his own military action.

First, I cannot believe this is actually going to happen, and last, I can't believe there are DEMOCRATS who are actually pining for it's beginning. All because one man wants it.

Own it. Own it now, because we will surely wrap each and every innocent civilian death that happens around YOUR shoulders the very MOMENT they're reported in the press. I will personally do it until my fingers bleed.

[ProSense]

36. Seems your repetition of that claim is your own shriking "straw."

ANY foray into Syria will destabilize the region, cause our allies (namely Israel) to suffer needlessly, and require the United States to expend more and larger military assets (namely personnel) in an effort to stem the change in momentum this foreign policy failure will cause.

You envision Iraq or worse?

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. I envision things you and the President are either not smart enough to plan for or are willing

to hide in order to get the war you want.

If this goes badly I will crow about it until I am banned. I have no misconceptions that would make lots of people happy but I'll have my integrity and you'll have blood on your hands. I'll live with that.

[ProSense]

42. What will

"I envision things you and the President are either not smart enough to plan for or are willing to hide in order to get the war you want.

If this goes badly I will crow about it until I am banned."

...you do if it doesn't? Will you admit you weren't "smart enough"? That maybe the President is smarter than you?

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. Yes and yes.

Bookmark it.

On the other hand? Pray you and President Obama aren't responsible for a SINGLE innocent civilian death because I won't let you live it down seeing how much you've begged for permission to cause it.

You prove my theory that no person can be President without needing to flex that military penis. It's like having a car with 700 horsepower and not being able to resist the urge to smoke the tires at least one time.

Hope it works out. Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of what President Obama thinks is justice.

[ProSense]

55. Have you been

"On the other hand? Pray you and President Obama aren't responsible for a SINGLE innocent civilian death because I won't let you live it down seeing how much you've begged for permission to cause it."

...taking lessons on threats from Glenn Greenwald?

Wait, I have to laugh, LOL! OK, you're planning on holding me accountable? Seriously, are your thinking straight?

As for the President, I don't think he's going to take your threat into consideration in his decision-making process.

[bobduca]

80. " you're planning on holding me accountable?"

nobody can do that here, NOBODY...

[Savannahmann]

63. If Russia gets involved

We'll wish it was only as bad as Iraq. You do know that Russia has a military port in Syria right? How would we react if someone started to attack Italy while our ships were in the harbor? Our radars would pick up the incoming, and we'd be shooting. Even if some missile goes stray, or a bomb drops by accident, they will shoot back.

We are liable to find ourselves wishing that Syria was only as bad as Iraq.

[ProSense]

81. What if Russia has no plans to get involved?

What if Russia joins a UN solution?

Putin 'does not rule out' approving Syria strike with evidence Assad used poison gas
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023593635

[Savannahmann]

88. Oh they'll get involved.

We've ruled out sharing our intelligence with Russia. Then we refused to meet with Russian Lawmakers. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/5/speaker-john-boehner-nixes-meeting-russian-lawmake/

This is after President Obama canceled any one on one time with Putin over Snowden.

The question was what happens if they do get involved. We are looking at World War III, potentially the most dangerous situation we as a world have faced since 1962, and you wonder if somehow the same people that can't organize a Diplomatic game of horseshoes without screwing it up will convince Putin. Seriously?

Let's game it out shall we? We launch our missiles, and the Russian ships between our ships and Syria see the launch, and fire countermeasures. They launch their own anti-missile missiles. At the same time they lock radar targeting on our ships. Our ships see the counter fire, and the radar locking, and fire before they are destroyed. Game on, we lose some ships, they probably lose more.

Now, Putin has dead sailors, and destroyed ships. What does he do then? What does any leader do if he doesn't want to be lynched by his own people? He launches a counter attack. President Obama has no choice either, he orders that we fire on the Russians. Submarines are exchanging shots, ships and subs are sinking on both sides. Planes are shooting each other out of the sky.

How does this end well for anyone? Eventually in this game of continual escalation either we fire at them, or they launch the missiles at us. Either way, a third of the world goes up in a blinding flash. Anyone not wearing sunscreen with an SPF of about two billion is having a very bad, but very short time of it.

Now, instead of trying to work with the Russians, we're stopping just short of ignoring them. We refuse to meet with them, and make even the most rudimentary of efforts to reach an understanding. Instead of laying out our evidence for the world, we're beating our chests like children screaming we know what we know and everyone needs to get on board. We're snubbing the British, which is asinine. We're pretending that the ones who offended us don't exist. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023601186

[ProSense]

93. What the hell? n/t

[Savannahmann]

99. They have a navy base in Syria.

Where they put their warships in for fuel etc. Like our navy bases in Spain and Italy. How would we respond if someone attacked our ally? How would we respond if someone shot missiles even generally in our direction. We'd shoot back. From there, things escalate.

War is often what comes when warships fire on each other.

[Rex]

44. Ya branding is kinda a republican issue.

I think all wars deserve their own special place in hell.

[AverageJoe90]

53. And it can't be "August 1914 2.0" for that matter, either.

The murder of the Archduke, two months earlier, was just the final spark that ignited the forest fire after years of terrible drought(international tensions).

[indie9197]

54. More like Syria will be like Libya 2.0

Obama learned from Bush's mistakes. We will just bomb Syria like we did Libya- just enough to allow for the regime change. Then we will be gone.

[David__77]

61. And then al Qaeda comes to power! Yippee!

...seriously, though, the type of "analysis" above typifies thinking among the highest-paid researchers at think tanks in DC. For posterity, I shall recall the post above.

[Jamastiene]

58. Wars?

So, you are admitting this is going to be a war and not "just" a limited strike, like we were lead to believe initially?

Anyhow, I thought Iraq 2.0 was the "surge" when things were going bad. You know, that "surge" that made things go from bad to worse.

[David__77]

60. I don't remember anyone even implying that.

I certainly did not. I did oppose a no fly zone over Libya, but only because I think that a negotiated political solution was possible (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x689630). I still do think that would have been both possible and preferable to what has befallen Libya.

Syria is not Libya, by any means. Very different scenarios indeed. Syria has greater self-defense capacity, a significant mass base of political support internally, allies abroad that actually are standing by it, etc. The US strategy is WORSE than the NATO/UN-endorsed strategy for Libya, by far.

Iraq? No, Syria would not be an Iraq. It could be considerably worse, depending on whether or not the US allowed itself to follow the logic of intervention to its conclusions.

[KG]

65. Syria can stand as its own clusterfuck

[bobduca]

77. Yeah EMO PROGS get your snarky names for the upcoming non-war right!

welcome to the new low.

[NuclearDem]

79. We gotta keep up with the new names

Especially considering all the bombings and wars the pragmatists and super srs progressives want to march us into.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

85. EMO Progs?

[Romulox]

86. I know you think you've made some clever point here, but this is inane, even for you. nt

[ProSense]

87. The fact that you think the OP is an attempt at "clever" is telling. It was a simple point.

The reason that people don't compare possible action in Syria to Libya is that comparing it to Iraq, Vietnam and WWIII is much more scary.

It's simple.

[Chisox08]

97. Syria can't be Iraq 2.0 because Syria isn't in Iraq

Attacking Syria is a bad idea just like attacking Iraq. We don't know the entire situation on the ground in Syria, a country in the middle of a civil war. We don't know the total makeup of the rebel forces, even though we do know the Al-Qaeda is allied with some of the rebels. We don't know what China, Russia, Iran and Syria will react to our bombing. This is like kicking a hornets nest, nothing good can come out of this.

[Savannahmann]

100. Libya would be Somalia 2.0

Not Iraq. Give it another year, and there won't be a shadow of a government left in Libya.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023593996

[Erose999]

105. Is Iraq even over? Libya would be "Iraq 1.2 Bobcat" and Syria would be "Iraq 1.3 Maine Coon " or

some shit. I'll have to consult with the Official Apple Store Rules of Cat Based Nomenclature v. 5.3 Tigon