Syria is not a civil war, but the location of a conflict between and among many groups with differing ideology. Citizens from all the countries in the region have taken up arms within Syria and contributed to the hostilities. It's like four gangs going to the local park to decide which is going to take control of the neighborhood. They chose Syria as the staging area for the "war" because the Assad government was too weak to keep order.
Each group hopes to take control of Syria, but to do so must defeat not only Assad, but all the competing groups. Returning to the gang analogy, each gang must defeat three other gangs in order to take control of the neighborhood.
Chemical weapons were not used during WWII because both sides recognized that the other would respond in kind. We have avoided nuclear war (thus far) because each side realizes that the other would respond in kind. Although it seems like the most ridiculous idea ever, the United States could probably be very effective in keeping Assad from ever using chemical weapons in the future if we lobbed a chemical bomb into his neighborhood. Likewise, Iran may have second thoughts as to the usefulness of a nuclear bomb.
We have not yet seen the conclusive evidence as to who actually used the chemical weapon. Assad does not have the motive to use it. The rebels on the other hand have a strong motive to use it. Don't get fooled easily.
My best guess is that Iran ordered the use of chemical weapons to see what our reaction would be.
The talking heads on every network fail to understand the nature of the situation. Assad is a pawn of Iran. It's fairly well understood that he would not have survived this long without Iranian money and arms. Iran needs to keep control of Syria because it connects to friends in Lebanon and surrounds Israel.
Obama is playing this game with Iran, not Syria. If he can prompt Iran to respond on behalf of Syria, he could have the justification to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. Let's face it, if we are to deny Iran a nuclear bomb, they will have to be bombed. It's just a matter of the timing and justification.
Requesting congressional approval is simply part of the ploy. Obama needed to delay the response to accomplish other objectives, perhaps including establishing ties between the chemical weapons and Iran. Those congressional leaders that have met with the president in person have been given more info than the rest of the congress. When they leave the meeting, they come out with strong support for the president though having bad-mouthed him for the last five years. This is not going to be over with a quick strike on Syria. We now have an opportunity to castrate the two remaining bad actors in the Middle East, and Obama will not pass on this opening.
I look back at history...and wonder if we can ever really create the outcomes we'd like...i.e. futile + a great waste of resources. I'd certainly like to build the Canadian Pipeline (which O seems not to want) and strive for oil / energy independence ASAP...and just remove ourselves from the MiddleEast. I don't think we have any great chance at dictating outcomes, unless we want to make a couple of them the 51st and 52nd States...just kidding. And Russia / China just seem to tip the global power balance so that our efforts are thwarted...i.e. become as independent as possible but form alliances with those who desire our presence...(as for IRAN, I think they are a big part of the problem - so, "cut the head of the snake off" or deal with them in a few years, when they have 'nukes'...I get the idea we'll have some bigger issues as time goes by...and if IRAN is not stopped, then the future looks quite chaotic...IRAN , Russia and China can pretty much thumb their noses at us...Better to achieve some greater independence, build the darn pipeline with Canada....and become more pragmatic...and work on the Star Wars projects...We're NOT going to be dictating policy anymore.
There is one problem with your analogy. In the US and Russia we did not want nuclear war because we cared about the destruction it would cause to life and the economy. We knew if we fought one both countries would become third world countries after the war with mass starvation due to a lack of a working infrastructure. Assad on the other hand is one guy and probably does not care who dies aside from his own family and close friends. If you killed 10,000 people but not him the only thing he would care about is that he was still alive. All those other innocent people would have died for nothing. His country is already a third world country and if you kill off millions of people it will still be a third world country.
You have to realize that most of these people have formed alliances because they have to be on someone’s side or they have left the country. I doubt that most of the men in the army actually want to be in the army but it was the only job they could get. If a division of US troops showed up to their thin lines they would immediately run or surrender because they really feel no loyalty to Assad either. These are the people you would be killing. Which is basically people that are in their situation not because they wanted to be but because they had no other alternative other than leaving the country.
I'm not suggesting that we send in troops. My preference is to let them fight on and see who wins and accept that as the result. I'm OK if that is Assad. Because I am convinced that if one of the other factions win they will be no better and they too would have used chemical weapons if they had them to use. This is the Arab world which has only been stable for long periods of time when it is run by a dictatorship or a single party from which to choose candidates to vote which is a dictatorship by proxy. This is how it will be as long as they have the philosophy which is to force upon others your will and claim it is gods will to justify it.
The situation in Syria is subject to analysis by game theory; in fact, it's a perfect application. Regarding the nuclear standoff between the USA and USSR, each side knew that the other side would not retaliate to a preemptive strike, because doing so could have destroyed the human race. Since game theory only applies if all players are rational and aware of all possible alternatives, the USA tried to send messages to the USSR that Nixon had a screw (or two) loose and so could not be counted on to be rational. Likewise, the USSR tried to convince the USA that Brezhnev drank heavily and might respond irrationally because he was drunk.
Applying game theory to Syria, it appears likely that Iran motivated Assad to use chemical weapons to see how the USA would respond, to provide additional excuses for developing nuclear weapons, and to drain support of the American people for a future attack against Iran . Since Assad would have believed it likely that the USA would respond with either support for rebels or a direct attack, he knew it was not in his best interest to do what he did. Iran must have made promises and has now taken center stage in the Syrian matter.
None of the simpletons on CNBC have discovered the connection.
Raybans , also if Assad is defeated new alliances will firm among the various religious ,ethnic and foreign Islam radical organizations . The war goes on no matter who wins or loses thus round. A limited strike early on when Assad was weak might have lead to a quick rebel victory before the Islam radicals moved in. Nero fiddled while Syria burned. Our Benevolent Father Leader is the worlds laughing stock.
interesting thoughts, but what, if anything, do they have to do with the price at the pump?
this board is about AGNC. you seem tuned into the wrong station. but then, i need some help
with my taxes. know a good tax lawyer?