US hints at military action to retaliate against Assad

[Trung Si]

Actually, it does matter...

Some will appease... Some will buy off...

Some will talk... Some will act!

The former does not solve much, if anything...

The latter, in proper measure, most often does.

I don't give a rats ass if a real enemy or their allies like it or not.

I agree with you, Trump is not like his predecessor, the sob talks a lot of sh-t, but he won't tell you what, where and when, he is unpredictable.

[Admiral]

IIRC, back in the weeks prior to IOF kick-off in 2003 there were reports of truck convoys and cargo aircraft flights out of Iraq and into Syria, many supposedly originating from suspected WMD sites of Saddam's regime.

Some things made it into the Beqaa Valley, too...

[lynelhutz]

I forget was Chump suppose to de-escalate and Clinton escalate in Syria, or is the running narrative now that Chump's supposed virtue is that he is a "man of action" whereas Hillary would have done nothing?

Don't worry, it is a rhetorical question since we here are all smart enough to know that was all pre-election BS and nobody here believed it had any substance. The whole "Hillary is going to start WW3" was just baby food for the masses.

[G David Bock]

Some things made it into the Beqaa Valley, too...

Wouldn't doubt it. Better to "use it"(or "lose it") than let someone find you in custody.

[Daemon of Decay]

Again, an internal problem. We are not the appointed world police.

You understand that the US is not immune to foreign developments, right? A nation declaring "Death to America" using nuclear weapons to cause chaos in a oil-rich area or bomb Israel will have ramifications for the United States.

[dgfred]

Some things made it into the Beqaa Valley, too...

Yep

[TacCovert4]

You understand that the US is not immune to foreign developments, right? A nation declaring "Death to America" using nuclear weapons to cause chaos in a oil-rich area or bomb Israel will have ramifications for the United States.

Of course it will. Just like this 'field test' of Sarin has ramifications if it was left unpunished....or if it had been punished in the previous president's fashion of strong language and maybe some action months later.

But there does have to be balance. We need to establish a modern version of Teddy Roosevelt's mindset. Certain actions, certain weapons, those will make us respond in a certain way. Otherwise we're not going to play globocop every time some tinpot dictator gets into a civil war or executes someone.

Personally, I'm good with the "Ryan Doctrine" a la Tom Clancy. If we could have determined that X base was the precise base that Syria's Sarin attack was launched from, an un-warned precision deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon to 'sanitize' the WMD launching facility would have been acceptable. Set the tone that while you might have WMD, using it WILL result in summary destruction......thereby creating a sort of MAD for the rest of the world.

[dgfred]

'SLAP' of bartender by Ike Clanton in Tombstone...

"see a little rap on the beak... get some respect around here"

[Daemon of Decay]

Of course it will. Just like this 'field test' of Sarin has ramifications if it was left unpunished....or if it had been punished in the previous president's fashion of strong language and maybe some action months later.

But there does have to be balance. We need to establish a modern version of Teddy Roosevelt's mindset. Certain actions, certain weapons, those will make us respond in a certain way. Otherwise we're not going to play globocop every time some tinpot dictator gets into a civil war or executes someone.

Personally, I'm good with the "Ryan Doctrine" a la Tom Clancy. If we could have determined that X base was the precise base that Syria's Sarin attack was launched from, an un-warned precision deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon to 'sanitize' the WMD launching facility would have been acceptable. Set the tone that while you might have WMD, using it WILL result in summary destruction......thereby creating a sort of MAD for the rest of the world.

I agree that balance is very important. Doing too much can be just as bad as doing nothing. Often, it can be worse.

The problem inherent in Syria is that the US is stuck with multiple unpalatable options with no real desirable outcome. There are two strong options: topple Assad, or support Assad. Neither works because (despite the paranoid saying otherwise) the US cannot tolerate a nation falling to ISIS, and Assad is so deep in the pockets of Russia and Iran that allowing him to remain creates the scenario I mentioned previously.

The best case for the US would be to have Assad replaced by anti-government rebels, but considering their inherent weaknesses and how they often swing closer to ISIS than Democrats, that is either a pipe dream or an act of deliberate ignorance.

So what can the US do? It can't have Assad win and can't have Assad go. The only options I see that would allow for the US to significantly alter the situation in their favor are unpalatable at home because they would harken back to Bush and Iraq.

The US is basically stuck trying to figure out how to prevent two different groups of terrorists (ISIS or Iran/Hezbollah) from dominating Syria in the future. Neither Trump nor Obama has had a clear path for Syria because there really isn't one.