It makes exactly ZERO difference to me if the Assad regime committed the Ghouta atrocity

[cali]

when it comes to a U.S. military intervention. Never has.

No, that doesn't mean that I don't care about those who died and suffered in that attack or the other 50,000 civilians that have been killed in this civil war by the various parties.

Pros and cons of military intervention have to be weighed and the list of reasons to oppose military strikes is both more substantive and longer than the list for military intervention. Putting aside the morality of military strikes, what are the practical reasons pro and con?

We know to a near certainty that any strikes will be very limited in both duration and number. Experts almost universally agree that they will not be conducted to oust Assad's regime or to do irreparable damage to Syrian military infrastructure. The U.S. administration has spoken in terms of "punishment".

Pro:

Assad could potentially get "the message" and refrain from use of chemical or biological weapons in the future. But, even if this is so, the civil war will continue on its brutal path.

That's the only pro I can think of and it's an awfully slim hope.

Con:

Strikes do more to harden the resolve of the Assad regime than deter it.

The conflagration widens. It's already bled into Lebanon. More foreign fighters flood into Syria.

U.S. standing takes a whomping big hit at a time it can ill afford it.

Blowback abroad against U.S. interests and within the U.S.

Political damage to democrats

[Scuba]

1. Why not one cruise missile aimed directly as Assad?

Not enough profit for the MIC, that's why. If we intervene, we'll be careful to make sure the bad guys remain in place. The MIC loves having boogymen around to scare people.

[scheming daemons]

2. Which is why Hussein, Osama, and Khaddafi are still around....

Oh... Wait...

Nevermind.

[SwampG8r]

3. the first two

required boots on the ground
American boots
the third was done in by his own people
so how many missiles?
why are you so hungry for war?

[scheming daemons]

7. Why do you infer that I am hungry for war?

I indicated no such thing.


I want Obama to find a way that doesn't involve military, if he can.

[SwampG8r]

8. ok then

I have been reading posts and you seem to be pretty solid on the kill someone stuff this morning from what I have read.
oh and I inferred nothing I came straight out and asked it there was no inferring going on

[cali]

4. Which name doesn't belong on your list?

In any case, Iraq is a mess and Libya isn't exactly a picture postcard of stability.

[scheming daemons]

5. Syria is a mess without our action.... It will still be a mess either way

Which is why I advocate not acting.


But to infer that our action will plunge Syria into a mess like Iraq and Syria is silly..... Syria is already there.

[cali]

9. You know what's silly? Putting words in my mouth

I inferred nothing of the sort. Not even fucking close.

take your fevered imagination and put it to a better use, why don't you.

[el_bryanto]

6. One potential additional Pro

If we took out his chemical weapons facilities he would lack the means to put them back in the field, at least until he rebuilt.

Bryant

[cali]

10. everyone seems to agree that attempting to take out chemical weapons facilities is

far too risky.

There is evidently no plan to do anything like that.

[TwilightGardener]

11. A strike to retaliate for chem weapon use is meant for more than Assad and Syria.

It would also be a message to Iran, North Korea, any other group or state that might deploy WMD's (and hates us or Israel). I think that's why Obama is afraid NOT to answer to the nerve gas attack--and why it was his red line to begin with.

[cali]

12. It's far from assured that it would deter any actor.

[TwilightGardener]

13. Understood. But even if it doesn't totally deter any of these nuts from pursuing

their weapons or stated goals, it demonstrates resolve from the US. I really think that's where Obama is coming from. I am not sure it's worth it, and I don't see an eagerness to do this. He's been dragging his feet on Syria for quite a while, which was a good thing.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. So how many deaths does it take to 'demonstrate resolve'?

Is that a moral reason to kill, as demonstration of resolve? To show off, basically? How many bodies equals resolve?