Is Assad better for America?

Here is something I thought about when I was watching "hawks" such as McCain and others discuss how Russia has won this war of words over Syria. So what? If Putin gave us the ability to back out of "Pearl Harboring" Syria that's great.

I know the Democrats are spinning; trying to make it look as if Obama was the "strong" man in this case since he was pushing for an attack (a "small," "really small," "one or two-day attack"). Assad got scared of that and begged Russia to intervene. OR the other spin is that Obama planned such a brilliant strategy all along, knowing Assad would panic and Russia would be forced to step in.

I really don't think anyone believes either of those spins.

I don't care if Obama lost face. He created the "red line" thing when he talked tough because he wasn't using a teleprompter and instead ad libbed. That's the weak kid, the community organizer, trying to act tough during the elections. And McCain and the abominable Kerry? One's a warrior; the other a long-winded wart.

But now I have what I consider to be the weirdest thought: Is the United States of America better off with Assad as the head of Syria or are we better off with the extremist Islamist (al Qaeda) rebels in control of Syria?

I do not deny the evil within Assad and his henchmen. I am not saying he is good. But given the choices in that country, who should we want (as in rooting, not deploying bombs or soldiers) to win their civil war? Or, do we want this war to last as long as possible so that the country is completely and utterly devastated?

I wonder how others think about this?

Quote: FrankScoblete

I don't care if Obama lost face. He created the "red line" thing when he talked tough because he wasn't using a teleprompter and instead ad libbed. That's the weak kid, the community organizer, trying to act tough during the elections. And McCain and the abominable Kerry? One's a warrior; the other a long-winded wart.

Obama completely screwed up on the "red line" thing. He wanted to sound like Bush41 when he talked about "a line in the sand." What he didn't get was that 41 was willing to go the entire way, and with the world oil supply in peril he knew he would have backing. He clearly would have talked to Saudi Arabia and knew he would have their support to at the least stage troops there. And Russia was on her knees at the time, if they would have threatened a UN Veto he knew he could just not get approval. China needed us badly then and he knew that as well. He had enough ducks in a row that he could say what he said. And he had the courage to stand behind it, no talk of "pin pricks." IOW, he was a leader.

Obama, OTOH, had none of this. He was elected as an anti-any-war senator from the anti-any-war wing of the anti-any-war party. He thought he could be "another Clinton" with "another Kosovo." He wanted and wants to make Assad cave via air strikes with no casualties so he can say, "SEE, SEE, SEE--we didn't need all this in Iraq and Afghanistan!" He wants to be perceived as being a strong leader.

Thing is, he is not a strong leader but a very weak one. He has a personality where a certain type of people just buy what he is selling and get all gushy-inspired. But he cannot sway people. He cannot build consensus. He does not understand what it means to burn the phones and work Congress, or other leaders. He seems to think he can make a good speech and then all is solved. He acts like a young manager who feels if he writes a memo to his staff all problems are fixed. In reality, he has very little natural leadership ability other than reading speeches, and that only draws that certain kind of person.

He also refuses to make any kind of decision or have himself associated strongly one way or the other. We won WWII in less time that it is taking him to approve Keystone XL.

Quote:

But now I have what I consider to be the weirdest thought: Is the United States of America better off with Assad as the head of Syria or are we better off with the extremist Islamist (al Qaeda) rebels in control of Syria?

Yes, we are better with Assad. There is an old saying that the enemy you know is better than the enemy you do not know. Some thought getting rid of "our SOB" in Egypt was a good thing, it was anything but. Ditto Libya. In Iraq we improved the situation in that Iraq is no longer a threat but at the same time no longer a counterweight to Iran. Castro was a hero for about a week. Further back we got rid of Hitler but let the USSR all the way to Central Europe.

For suggested reading on this I recommend "The Game of Nations" b y Miles Copeland. Old book but good reading. The premise is all diplomacy is a game that goes on and on. You keep trying for better position. The game ends only when war starts, then you have lost.

Obama has lost.

"Did you hear about the new Obama diet? You lose weight fast, all you have to do is let Putin eat your lunch."--Jay Leno

Obama set himself up for getting bitch slapped when he apologized for American arrogance in dealing with Europe, the Middle East, Russia and the Far East, just after he got elected. But, as dictators go, Assad is a much better dictator than the Al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood asshole that would replace him. Things have been pretty stable between Syria and the Israeli's for a lot of years. That will all change if the "rebels" (Islamist extremists) take over. That's the politicians and news media for you. They ain't frickin' rebels, they're Islamist extremists! I'm with the Generals on this one. Stay the hell out of it and let our enemies kill each other.

Quote: FrankScoblete

I know the Democrats are spinning; trying to make it look as if Obama was the "strong" man in this case since he was pushing for an attack (a "small," "really small," "one or two-day attack"). Assad got scared of that and begged Russia to intervene. OR the other spin is that Obama planned such a brilliant strategy all along, knowing Assad would panic and Russia would be forced to step in.

Sure, Assad got scared over an advertised slap on the wrist. It wasn't even good rhetoric. Can you imagine Churchill saying "We will fight them in some beaches, we will fight them in some fields and we may or may not negotiate some kind of surrender"? And had Obama carried it out things would have backfired on him. The first collateral casualty would be an instant, worldwide martyr.

Quote:

But now I have what I consider to be the weirdest thought: Is the United States of America better off with Assad as the head of Syria or are we better off with the extremist Islamist (al Qaeda) rebels in control of Syria?

Did you notice how Obama moved quickly to affect allies in Egypt? Then more slowly in Libya and not at all in Syria? Either he doesn't care about US national interests, or he cares to act against such interests.

The time to have intervened in Syria was earlier on, before Al Qaeda and other Islamists became involved in the matter, and the better to keep them out. Having failed to do so, the "red line" should have involved Iran. As in "We will bomb the hell out of Iran if it gets involved in the Syrian civil war."

Arm both sides, kick back and watch the raghead scum kill off each other over the long term. Re-arm as required.

Quote: FrankScoblete

I know the Democrats are spinning; trying to make it look as if Obama was the "strong" man in this case since he was pushing for an attack (a "small," "really small," "one or two-day attack"). Assad got scared of that and begged Russia to intervene. OR the other spin is that Obama planned such a brilliant strategy all along, knowing Assad would panic and Russia would be forced to step in.

I really don't think anyone believes either of those spins.

Well, you had me fooled, Frank. I would've guessed from your other "Syria" thread you were one of the people convinced Obama was actually threatening Syria, playing the "strong" man, and going to "Pearl Harbor" them, as you say. Now you're calling Obama's bluff in retrospect?

As to the other part, that does sound like wishful thinking since Kerry admitted the offhand remark. Unless that too was planned, then indeed it was brilliant, but I doubt that's the case, and anyway, I don't know any decent or even half-decent pundit who seriously considers that it was all carefully planned.

Our house is pretty firmly in the camp of Obama being indirect and Kerry's drop-in was planned. Regardless of the judgment of both/all sides of this, diplomacy on something as sensitive and hair-trigger as this does NOT belong in the public media, being shot at by anyone with an agenda. I'm sure this would have been better done in camera. And it's not done yet.

So Obama drew a red line, that was wrong, Then Obama wanted to go to Congress, that was wrong, then Obama wanted to use diplomacy, that was wrong. Is there a pattern here or just Right Wing bitching ?

Quote: Buzzard

So Obama drew a red line, that was wrong, Then Obama wanted to go to Congress, that was wrong, then Obama wanted to use diplomacy, that was wrong. Is there a pattern here or just Right Wing bitching ?

There is a clear pattern here--Obama doesn't have a clue what he is doing.

Then you must know what other alternative he should have taken, don't you ?

I guess Obama could have built up a case and sold it to the UN. Wait - that's been tried before.

Obama didn't plan this. It's pretty clear that the best case scenario was for Russia to step in. As several non-partisan experts have noted, it's not in anyone's best interests for the rebels to govern Syria. An Assad regime, dictatorial as it is, is better than the current rebel alternatives.

In my opinion, the United States and every other signatory of the CWBT should have expressed outrage at Syria's use of chemical weapons, and an immediate joint military strike on Syria's Chemical Weapons facilities would have been an appropriate response. But that response would have had a fairly sharp rebuke from both Russia and China.

Obama miscalculated the support he thought he had for military action, but it was the right thing to do, despite its unpopularity. It made him look foolish.

It's sad when a country can treat its citizens like shit and nobody does anything about it.

Quote: Buzzard

Then you must know what other alternative he should have taken, don't you ?

He should have just left it alone and not said or done anything. The art of leadership is often knowing that you do not have to respond to every little thing, nor should you.

Of Course, do nothing. What a plan. Are you a member of the RNC ?

Quote: Buzzard

Of Course, do nothing. What a plan. Are you a member of the RNC ?

They did not attack us directly. They did not attack any of our allies. They did not threaten our interests in any way. What is wrong with doing nothing? As I said before, not every action warrants a response.

I guess I am getting senile. Those pix of all them kid's corpses sorta made me think we ought do or say something.

Silly sentimental me.

Too lazy to start a thred, but there is this ! SIGH

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57603061/washington-navy-yard-shooting-leaves-at-least-12-dead/

Quote: Buzzard

I guess I am getting senile. Those pix of all them kid's corpses sorta made me think we ought do or say something.

Silly sentimental me.

Happens in lots of places all over the world. We have ignored far more in the past. Sorry, we cannot attack for every little thing. We should only attack when our interests are threatened.

Quote: Buzzard

Too lazy to start a thred, but there is this ! SIGH

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57603061/washington-navy-yard-shooting-leaves-at-least-12-dead/

Maybe we should pass a law that makes it illegal to shoot people?

What has that to do with the news story ? Or am I missing somethinb ?

Quote: Buzzard

What has that to do with the news story ? Or am I missing somethinb ?

What did the news story have to do with Assad?

Nothing I was just posting the latest news. I said i was lazy.

Rxwine, I certainly did think Obama was going to do a Pearl Harbor on Syria. I thought it even more so when the Senate Committee went along with him. I thought it more as McCain and Lindsay Graham were so gung ho. I actually don't think he was bluffing but I do think he was trapped in his own bravado and Putin saved his bacon (or whatever one saves in cases such as this) and gave him a way out. I am glad he took the way out. (Did Obama just give another "red line" speech about Iran this time?)

Since the RNC and the Republicans had many politicians supporting the possible Pearl Harboring, I don't see this as a Democrat / Republican thing but as a what is best for America thing. To me the abominable Kerry and the warrior McCain were slow dancing together on this.

Seeing the babies, children, teenagers and adults gased is indeed upsetting. What were there, 1400? Had I gotten to see the other 100,000+ Syrians on all sides of the conflict slaughtered by knives, bullets and bombs I would have been upset too. Seeing the ones who were wounded and suffered over days, weeks, months and then died in agony from their wounds or are still squirming in pain would be upsetting. Doesn't matter who is suffering. I feel bad for the family of the Assad soldier whose internal organs were eaten by an Islamist rebel (I saw the video). I feel sorry for the troops put in ditches and shot in the head and backs by the Islamists.

Now I turn my attention to other areas of the world where such horror is happening - like villages in Mexico where the drug cartels are slaughtering and beheading people and in...you can finish this sentence with any of your favorite conflicts going on right now all over the world.

I know that if China gased its citizens in some internal conflict we wouldn't Pearl Harbor them. Nor would we Pearl Harbor any country that could stand up to us. To be somewhat extreme, if Canada gased its citizens in some French/English speaking disagreement would we bomb our neighbors up north? Not bombing is not cowardice but reality. We always have to answer the question: What is best for us? Bombing Syria was not best for us. Even with Russia looking like an heroic nation has little impact on us. Those are just newspaper headlines and now the scare tactics being used by the warmongers such as McCain and Graham and the abominable Kerry are just political puffery.

Neither Assad and his forces nor the Islamist /al Qaeda rebels are warm and fuzzy people. These are evil people (or at least bad people) and we shouldn't get in the middle of their disputes unless it really serves our national interest. Bombing Syria served no purpose at all.

The situation with Syria is a good example as to why we need to elect presidents based on their qualifications, rather than how we feel about them.

In hindsight, even Sarah Palin would have been a better leader, based on her qualifications.

Quote:

Neither Assad and his forces nor the Islamist /al Qaeda rebels are warm and fuzzy people. These are evil people (or at least bad people) and we shouldn't get in the middle of their disputes unless it really serves our national interest. Bombing Syria served no purpose at all.

If the intended purpose is to actually stop Assad from using chemical weapons again, I think it would. It won't bring peace to Syria, but that's not the purpose.

A big part of the world that had a lot of experience with the effects of chemical weapons AND all the horrors of conventional warfare decided to ban them specifically? Why do you think you're smarter than them?

Quote: Keyser

The situation with Syria is a good example as to why we need to elect presidents based on their qualifications, rather than how we feel about them.

In hindsight, even Sarah Palin would have been a better leader, based on her qualifications.

How would seeing Russia from her front porch help ?

Quote: rxwine

If the intended purpose is to actually stop Assad from using chemical weapons again, I think it would. It won't bring peace to Syria, but that's not the purpose.

Then what would be the purpose? Would it be better if they were killed some other way?

It is like the time on "All in the Family" where Gloria says how many people were killed with guns and Archie asks if she would feel better if they were pushed out of windows.

Quote: AZDuffman

Then what would be the purpose? Would it be better if they were killed some other way?

It is like the time on "All in the Family" where Gloria says how many people were killed with guns and Archie asks if she would feel better if they were pushed out of windows.

If conservatives who bleated the most about WMDs during Iraq don't know, then it's just hypocritical to even ask.

Ask Hitler

Quote:

In World War II, their use was extremely limited. Adolf Hitler, himself a victim of gas in World War I, never used his stockpiles on the battlefield.

But one guess is here, they don't primarily kill soldiers.

Quote:

Thielmann, who worked in the State Department for decades, points out that militaries have learned how to shield their troops with protective gear.

"And what that meant is that the main victims of chemical weapons in modern war are those who were not so equipped, which means mostly civilians," he says.

here

Quote: rxwine

If conservatives who bleated the most about WMDs during Iraq don't know, then it's just hypocritical to even ask.

We knew WMD was just what Iraq had to be "sold to the public on." There were other powerful reasons for doing Iraq. Only suckers believe WMD was the main reason.

Hmmmm... CBO estimated the cost of the Iraq war at 1.9 trillion dollars. Death and wounded: 67,000 civilians killed, 21,000 - 27,000 enemy deaths, 4,409 US soldiers killed, 31,928 US soliders wounded. A 100% increase in real dollars in veteran benefits between 2001 and 2012 of $64 billion/year.

Iraq did not attack America. So what were the powerful reasons for doing Iraq, again? How many WMDs did Iraq use against coalition forces? Absolutely stupid war. 9/11 was committed by Saudis housed by Al Queda in Afghanistan. Yeah, Saddam was a terrible dictator, but he was no Kim Jong Il.

American imperialism didn't work out, did it? That's why there is massive opposition for America to get involved in Syria or anywhere else in the world for that matter. That last thing we want to see is Obama flying in on an aircraft carrier with a Mission Accomplished sign.

Quote: boymimbo

Iraq did not attack America. So what were the powerful reasons for doing Iraq, again? How many WMDs did Iraq use against coalition forces? Absolutely stupid war. 9/11 was committed by Saudis housed by Al Queda in Afghanistan. Yeah, Saddam was a terrible dictator, but he was no Kim Jong Il.

I've stated it many times before, but once again:

1. Iraq was in violation of peace terms of Gulf War
2. Iraq threatened oil supplies in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
3. Invading Iraq staged USA Troops next to Iran
4. Invading Iraq got Saudi Arabian cooperation in fighting al-Queida
5. Regime change in Iraq was the stated USA since 1998, signed into law by Bill Clinton

There are surely more if you think geopolitically and not what the lamestream media says.

If Iraq was a success, I'd hate like hell to see a US failure !

Quote: Buzzard

If Iraq was a success, I'd hate like hell to see a US failure !

The initial mission was a success, Saddam was removed. The follow-on was the problem when you had a country thought an occupation could be over in a matter of months when 10 years or more was needed.

Doesn't help when you have a media trying to undermine things the entire way. I still remember "TIME" saying how we were in a quagmire because it took 3 weeks to topple the regime. Due to printing delays we finished up as that issue came out.

If it was WWII the media and the left would have had us quit at the Battle of the Bulge, saying all was lost.

BTW: Failure looks like Egypt and Libya.

1. If Iraq was in violations of security council directives, it would be up to the United Nations to authorize an invasion as a result of failing to follow various security resolutions. The UN and various other legal experts around the globe have declared the US invasion illegal.
2. Oil supplies could have easily been protected via a well positioned aircraft carrier for a hellofalot cheaper than an invasion.
3. So? Did the US have any capability to launch ground forces into Iran? A US aircraft carrier group likely has more firepower than Iran does.
4. Why did the invasion of a country result in cooperation? You'd think that Saudi Arabia, being such a huge ally would cooperate fully without having to invade a country.
5. Yep, Clinton signed the bill into law. But a policy supporting regime change is much different than sending in ground troops and killing more civilians than enemy combatents.

There are plenty of reasons to invade Iraq if you think geopolitically. There are plenty of reasons to invade Mexico and Canada, too, all of which would make geopolitical sense too. Us Canadians have a LOT of oil and natural resources, we control the northern shipping passages, we've got 9.8 million square kilometres of free space.

It doesn't make it right.

Quote: AZDuffman

The initial mission was a success, Saddam was removed. The follow-on was the problem when you had a country thought an occupation could be over in a matter of months when 10 years or more was needed.

Doesn't help when you have a media trying to undermine things the entire way. I still remember "TIME" saying how we were in a quagmire because it took 3 weeks to topple the regime. Due to printing delays we finished up as that issue came out.

If it was WWII the media and the left would have had us quit at the Battle of the Bulge, saying all was lost.

BTW: Failure looks like Egypt and Libya.

Delusional.

' If it was WWII the media " Hurry to the way back machine. Pur Rosie the Riveter back in the kitchen where she belongs.

Quote: boymimbo

1. If Iraq was in violations of security council directives, it would be up to the United Nations to authorize an invasion as a result of failing to follow various security resolutions. The UN and various other legal experts around the globe have declared the US invasion illegal.

Check Resolution 1441. The UN Security Council authorized the invasion.

Quote:

2. Oil supplies could have easily been protected via a well positioned aircraft carrier for a hellofalot cheaper than an invasion.

Not really, it has been proven that air power alone will not work. Air power did not eject Iraq from Kuwait in 1991.

Quote:

3. So? Did the US have any capability to launch ground forces into Iran? A US aircraft carrier group likely has more firepower than Iran does.
4. Why did the invasion of a country result in cooperation? You'd think that Saudi Arabia, being such a huge ally would cooperate fully without having to invade a country.

When we were in Iraq we surely did. Saudi Arabia was not co-operating until the saw we were serious. Ally or no, when they think their own regime is threatened, as they did think al-Queida did, they are not likely to cooperate.

Quote:

5. Yep, Clinton signed the bill into law. But a policy supporting regime change is much different than sending in ground troops and killing more civilians than enemy combatents.

Not sure how, except that Clinton did the liberal thing about talking tough, just like Obama, not realizing that eventually you have to back up your policies.

Quote:

There are plenty of reasons to invade Iraq if you think geopolitically. There are plenty of reasons to invade Mexico and Canada, too, all of which would make geopolitical sense too. Us Canadians have a LOT of oil and natural resources, we control the northern shipping passages, we've got 9.8 million square kilometres of free space.

It doesn't make it right.

But you seem to be in favor of bombing Syria? I don't get it.

Quote: AZDuffman

BTW: Failure looks like Egypt and Libya.

Bush actually initiated the total destabilization of Iraq. Libya and Egypt were already engaged in internal destruction.

Syria is in the same situation as those two.

Guess we have to blame Bush. He's the worst living president.

Quote: AZDuffman

We knew WMD was just what Iraq had to be "sold to the public on." There were other powerful reasons for doing Iraq. Only suckers believe WMD was the main reason.

Actually we knew that they did have WMDs because we had the receipt. Now, some of those weapons have found their way into Syria.

Quote: rxwine

Guess we have to blame Bush. He's the worst living president.

You must have a strange definition of worst. Obama and Carter have far worse records. Not much good from either of them.

And Omabacare has not fully kicked in yet! Wait until the low-information voters find out their free health care is not free!

Quote: AZDuffman

You must have a strange definition of worst. Obama and Carter have far worse records.

Two wars and the economy free falling. Yeah, you call it success.

Resolution 1441, paragraph 12: "[The United Nation Security Council] Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"

Violating 1441 required more discussion. It was not an authorization for war.

I support a military strike (by anyone) to remove chemical weapons stockpiles when diplomacy proves absoultely useless. Syria used chemical weapons on civilians and the evidence is clear. The world (not just the US) needed to do something about it. The world also needed to do something with Iraq when it used its chemical weapons against Iranians throughout the 80s and against its own population in 1991. The world also needs to do something about the genocides in Rwanda, human rights violations in North Korea and so on and so forth. Now I realize that I'm being idealistic and that there's a pile of geopolitics that exists that prevents the world from solving these conflicts. For me, when I read about what North Koreans have to go through in their daily lives, it makes me sick. When I read about the destruction of a society and we idly stand by and watch it happen, it makes me sick. When Assad uses chemical weapons against civilians, it makes me sick.

The US and coalition forces liberated Kuwait (the right thing to do, BTW) and Saddam was forced to comply with UN weapons sanctions, and since 1991, there was no chemical weapons use or stockpiling since then, though Saddam certainly got under the skin of the United Nations to be sure. Diplomacy and the threat of force worked. There was no reason to invade Iraq in 2003. It was pure warmongering and American Imperialism brought about by Bush 43. Al Queda was the excuse.

And if the US government was serious about taking Saddam out of power in 1991, they had the ground troops available to take out Saddam then. Instead, they liberated Kuwait and left.

Selecting targeting is far different than a prolonged 7+ year military occupation costing trillions of dollars and killing 10s of thousands. Clinton and NATO shortened the conflicts in Yugoslavia to bring about peaceful resolutions.

Quote: rxwine

Two wars and the economy free falling. Yeah, you call it success.

Economy did well until the Panic of 2008. Wars happen. I will take Bush over Obama by any measurable stat and plenty of subjective ones. On unemployment alone Obama loses by a mile. Oh, and Bush didn't steal any large companies from their rightful owners and give them to someone else!

As to recovery, there have been many financial "panics" similar to 2008. The Panic of 2008

Quote: AZDuffman

I will take Bush over Obama by any measurable stat

How about number of dead Osama bin Ladens?

Quote: rxwine

Two wars and the economy free falling. Yeah, you call it success.

The economy boomed until the Dems took congress, then was almost steady until the Panic of 2008. Wars happen, it is history. Bush handled them well, didn't claim he would just do a quick pinprick. He fought them to win.

You seem to be the kind of person who think Bush was only POTUS from July to December of 2008.

By any measurable stat, and plenty of subjective ones, Bush beats Obama hands down. Unemployment was far lower under Bush and job growth quality far better. Oh, and Bush did not steal a multi-billion dollar corporation from its rightful owners and give it to someone else like Obama did!

On the economy, the Panic of 2008 was not all that much bigger than other "panics" in our history. But the recovery from it has been far slower. Obama cannot lead, and really does not understand how and why jobs get created. But hey, he can read a teleprompter!

EDIT: When you look at the financial crisis, it is apparent that Bush did the heavy lifting before Obama took office.

More detail here

Quote: AZDuffman

But hey, he can read a teleprompter!

That's funny every single time I see that because no other politician has ever used a teleprompter so it's like funny and stuff but I don't know why, every single time.

Quote: s2dbaker

That's funny every single time I see that because no other politician has ever used a teleprompter so it's like funny and stuff but I don't know why, every single time.

It is funny because people think he is some great genius when he speaks just because he is reading it. And it is funny because without it he can barely speak.

Quote: AZDuffman

The economy boomed until the Dems took congress, then was almost steady until the Panic of 2008. Wars happen, it is history. Bush handled
EDIT: When you look at the financial crisis, it is apparent that Bush did the heavy lifting before Obama took office.

More detail here

Oh, look, a FoxNews opinion piece and another from Bush's team of economic advisors. No bias there!!!

But we're way off topic here, aren't we.

Quote: boymimbo

Oh, look, a FoxNews opinion piece and another from Bush's team of economic advisors. No bias there!!!

But we're way off topic here, aren't we.

We are indeed. Even Biden thinks it is crazy to go to war with Syria!

It is crazy for the US to go to war against Syria. The chemical weapons have got to go. I don't care how that's accomplished, but if it can be done without military intervention, great, and if it can be done by the military, hopefully, it would be supported by the international community.

If Syria fails to comply with demands, a limited military strike would be fine by a coalition of forces that hopefully would include NATO with Russia and China being ambivalent. Only America has the military resources to pull such a strike off with little risk of immediate damages. A few dozen drones launched frome Incerlik, Turkey would do it. Several cruise missiles would do it. It would be great if the UN would authorize such a strike, but that won't happen until all diplomatic channels are exhausted.