"I think he's being completely honest about his concern for human rights and the desire to defend the norm against the use of chemical weapons. It's just that he's cocked it all up so badly."

Um perhaps Obama doesn't really want to get involved but is feeling politically pressured in both directions but he knows its really a no-win situation? That occur to you?

agreeing with bosox for the second time in my life.

Now? No.

This isn't now? Huh?

You can't be this stupid. No, don't intervene now.

okay, then what do you suggest for a current policy?

just drunk, not stupid

Current policy? No attacks on Syria unless it attacks us, our interests (shipping, embassies, etc.), or our allies (Turkey, Jordan, Israel, etc.).

But there really are no good policy options. Intervention of some kind is probably inevitable. I'm not the president, I'm not in a position to make a call on what's the best thing to do. I do know that what's been happening for the past two and a half years is not it, though. Not by a long shot. And if Obama goes to war in Syria after Congress votes against authorizing it then get ready to start saying President Biden.

Now if you excuse me, it's my turn to go get drunk.

@Thucydides where you at brah

130 members of Congress have requested some form of talks with Iran... use their influence, Obama... you can do it...

Why would Iran stop supporting syria, he is falling more and more into their pocket and the defeat of Assad would mean Sunni rule, militant or not. Iran has its own interests.

The solution to Syria is no mystery. It's exactly the same as the solution to pretty much every other conflict that has every happened.

All the sides will fight it out until they believe they can no longer make any gains from fighting, then they will fight on for a bit longer because humans are bloody minded idiots at the best of times, and then they will reach an agreement that stops the conflict.

The easist thing for an outsider to do is "push for a diplomatic solution". In reality this achieves absolutely nothing, but the diplomatic solution will inevitably happen at some stage and when it does you can claim it as a victory.

I'm fighting for peace ..... hahaha, 'cos that always works.
I prefer to be bombing for peace, then I don't have to tidy up the mess the bombs make or ferry the casualties to mortuaries or hospitals, I also don't have the sights and smells of death in my head or on my clothes.
Let's all bomb for peace, it's all the rage in downtown Baghdad.
We did a good job there ..... gave them democracy, I heard they are all over the fucking moon about that.
soon we'll be able to say we did for Afghans what we did for the Iraqis and we will all live as one big happy family with a Starbucks and a Maccy Ds on every street corner. Start that chant now ...... USA, USA , USA

Fuck off Nigee. An overwhelming majority of the American people representing all sides of the political spectrum are opposed to any intervention in Syria.

@Octavious - I think you've nailed it as regards the long game, but in the meantime as the war is progressing the options appear to ne
1 - Do nothing and wait until all sides are war weary
2 - Missiles and bombs from afar
3 - Ground troops in blue helmets

in terms of expense (in cash terms) we are looking at 1 being cheapest and 3 the most expensive

In terms of effectiveness we're looking at 3 being the best.

In terms of cost calculated in 'peacekeeping' lives lost. 3 would mean the most body bags and 1 the least.

I still expect to see option 2, but maybe Americans on here can tell me if they feel Obama will win necessary votes?

3. Will not happen, especially while there is a Chinese neutral veto - which claims we should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations (notable, China also claims that Taiwan is a part of China and that the US is interfering in it's internal affairs, not to mention Tibet)

@ Maniac

I'm not sure how effective option 3 would be. Worst case is you enforce a fake peace at considerable cost that breaks down as soon as you leave. Best case... I don't even know what that is now, but even if I did it would be damned difficult to get there.

I am something of a fan of option 2 in the guise of acting because of chemical weapons. We bomb a lot of airfields and bases and let Assad know that chemical weapons are not an effective military option for him, and it reduces the scope of the gains he thinks he can make. If he feels he can use chemical weapons freely then he has a great oportunity to use them to flush his country of undesirables (even more so than he has done already). I would dearly love to see the US make it clear that this is not an option for him.

@GunF - I don't accept insults from an idiot who thinks it's clever to go down the pub carrying a loaded gun, tell it to someone who cares :-)

I don't carry my gun into bars because it's illegal. I just argued that it *should* be legal for non-drinking and qualified gun owners to do so.

Here is a petition: http://www.avaaz.org/en/solution_for_syria_loc/?copy

@Gunfighter What penalty would you impose if someone brought their firearm into a bar but decided to have a drink anyways?

Also: www.globalresearch.ca/syria-obamas-pretext-for-war/5348361

@ Celticfox

Confiscate their firearm, suspend any firearms licenses that they have, and levy a steep fine.

I never drink for that reason: firearms and alcohol do not mix well. If someone is in possession of a firearm, it is incumbent on them to abstain from any mind-altering substances.

@Gunfighter I can agree to. But, I would also say only while they have a firearm with them.

Yes, of course. My abstinence from alcohol is because I have a family history of alcoholism and I'd rather not play with that particular fire.

But no one should possess (or have immediate access to unsecured) firearms while intoxicated by any substance. I'm all for common-sense legislation that forces individual firearm owners to be responsible, but I am vehemently opposed to any legislation that bans firearms by type or by place.

Banning a certain kind of gun because someone goes on a killing spree is tantamount. banning a certain kind of car because someone goes on a hit-and-run spree.

But that is neither here nor there. As for Syria, America should not get involved. Period.

@Gunfightr Mr. CF doesn't drink for the same reason so I completely understand. Those laws make total sense, but then again I work for a company that allows firearms on property if the law allows.

Also, like no one wants us to into Syria. I don't know a single person who thinks it's a good idea.

As I've said, some sort of involvement is probably inevitable. What else can we do besides go in if Assad or Islamist rebels attack Turkey, a NATO ally? Even the most committed doves would be hard-pressed to argue against America going in if, say, Assad launched chemical weapons against Israel as a final act of defiance.

But when it comes to the plan that exists now and he circumstances that exist now, it's obvious we should stay out. Nothing good can come of our intervention. All that would happen is that we'd be committed to a long, long war fighting both sides with no clear standard of victory. That's without even considering the potential for the conflict to escalate as a result of our involvement, which may be quite likely.

Add in that there may be a serious constitutional crisis at home if Obama intervenes after losing the vote in Congress on authorization and you've got yourself a real pig's breakfast. It's amazing how badly he's handled this whole thing. You'd think it was his first month on the job.

@ Invictus

"What else can we do besides go in if Assad or Islamist rebels attack Turkey, a NATO ally?"

Well, they haven't so we shouldn't go in, as you pointed out. Even then, IF Turkey gets attacked, our support should be limited to logistic support only. Turkey is big enough to defend themselves if push comes to shove.

"Add in that there may be a serious constitutional crisis at home if Obama intervenes after losing the vote in Congress on authorization and you've got yourself a real pig's breakfast."

I completely agree.