So what's different?

[base2final]

Secretary of State John Kerry’s formal accusation today that Syria has used chemical weapons against rebel forces and civilians sounds somewhat similar to Bush Administration charges against the regime of Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq a decade ago.  Saddam had used his chemical weapons numerous times against Iraqi minorities and was all but ignored by the world.

When the U.S. led a coalition of nations to depose Saddam in 2003, the belief that Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons as well as a nascent nuclear weapons program was a major justification for the invasion.  Failure to locate large stocks of the weapons led to charges that President George W. Bush had lied to lead the United States into an unnecessary war.

Now John Kerry tells us to believe that chemical weapons were used against the population and we must do something because of some dumb red lin spoken to be a tough gut during a campaign.

But here's the big difference between Bush and the Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama. Bush went to congress and got permission to attack. Bush went to the public and told them what he was going to do.

Bush lied is what the democrats told us (including Obama) because they never found the actual weapons, which are proboably the ones being used in Syria, and now there is this great silence as we get ready to what, bomb some buildings in Syria?

What if Syria uses chemical weapons after we drop a few bombs? What's our exit strategy? What are our objectives? What if Syria attacks Israel? What if the UN doesn't find wmd's? Will all the democrats then sing that Obama lied?

Now I believe that Syria used chemical weapons, and I believe that in order to keep any respect that might be left in the middle east we must react, but talk about the HYPOCRACY

Bush lied, people died, Kerry and Obama tell the truth, and people will die!

Seems to be a little more difficult to be a card carrying liberal these days.

[ProblemAgain]

read your own words...

When the U.S. led a coalition of nations to depose Saddam in 2003, the belief that Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons as well as a  nascent nuclear weapons program   was a major justification for the invasion. 

we knew he had chemical weapons...the furor was over a rogue state getting nuclear weapons. that turned out to be false information and even colin powell has said he was deceived when he presented 'facts' he was given by the administration to the united nations. let's keep the facts straight.

[exedir]

Ok, not to conflate the issue, but then again, that is what we have been doing since the post-WWII wars that we have fought, to deal with an ongoing situation already in process.  

In the case of Iraq, there was unfinished business left by Gulf War I which was the Saddam Hussein regime which had already be subject to a no fly zone because of the Kurds and the marsh Arabs and the majority Sh'ia who were being oppressed by Hussein's Sunni's.  And we went from one harshly worded letter to another as Hussein ignored demands for international inspection and verification of his chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities.

Move to Assad and Syria, not much difference, actually, situation even includes the Kurds who are being, again, the opportunistic element in all of this.  We have already had the anti-nuclear capacity attack accomplished by the Israelis in 2007, which have been followed up by several Israeli air attacks on Hezbollah weapons depots in Syria without losses to the Israelis.  

So, is the Syria situation the same as the Iraq?  No, not even if conflated.  

If possible, the Syria mess is even more complex, in the mix of what is and is not happening in Arabian sphere,  the Islamic state of mind and the needs of other interested parties such as Iran and Turkey in what happens in Syria.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

The only point cod mentioned remotely intelligent is the aftermath.  Hamas has not had a dog in this fight so far.  A retaliation by the U.S. could be an incentive for them to attack who? I  am guessing Israel again also.

I mentioned in another post I wonder if we will target Assad?  If he's gone I bet Hamas takes the reigns of the country.  Would that be good or bad?

[exedir]

As to Assad, he is safe.  

With the Russians behind him, an attack on Assad, is an attack on Russia.  And the leaders of the Arab states are also squeamish on directed personal attacks as they can strike to closely to home.  

With Assad, as long as he ducks, he is guaranteed exile.  If he does duck, can dodge a bullet, and can book a Black Sea vacation dacha, with armed guards, the worse he could face is the Hague.  Whether he ends up a Muammar Gaddafi, that is his choice.

And as to who takes the reins up in Syria after Assad is gone, that is one of the major problems in this whole situation.  If not Assad, who?   And could he or they be even worse, for the Syrians, others in the region, for the United States and its allies and most directly, for the Israelis.  

And the answer is, probably.

[ProblemAgain]

does anyone recall the game of musical chairs played in viet nam? and that is the exact scenario we don't need ...if it's tuesday, it must be a new coup...this has all the hallmarks of being a riskfilled, no reward mission if we choose to get involved...rather like the dreaded domestic calls for a cop. separate the warring parties to save the victim and get smacked in the back of the head with a frying pan for interfering in their domestic squabbles. so the question becomes who is pushing to get the us further involved and are they the same people who seem to be making a living by hating the current president, people like beck, limbaugh, mona charon, michelle malkin et al...