At the rate Assad is killing off people, I think it's safe to assume that the rebels will be losing their fight.

I adore you and Mags.

I believe [url=http://revueltaredaccion.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/russell_on_denoting.pdf]this[/url] paper will shed some more light on the issue. Enjoy.

About the whole appearing weak thing, I don't think anyone in right mind would consider US weak in the sense of capability to wreck havoc in the middle east..

The question is, who's light saber is red?

I think we will need to strike Syria otherwise we'll lose our credibility and appear weak to Iran, who could potentially escalate their nuclear program if they see America as a pushover because of Syria. If you ask me, Obama should have never put out an ultimatum like that.

[i]Hit Him Hard[/i]

What I posted on The Long War Journal: I, for one, am perfectly fine with a military intervention in Syria. But, before any of you guys jump at my throat, let me explain myself. [url]http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/assad-has-called-obamas-bluff/[/url] Using the above link to help my argument, I think Mr. Gerecht makes a good point about our credibility being on the line. I may be a minority, but I am in favor of keeping strong American influence in the region. Doing nothing, especially after Assad has "called our bluff" on our "red line", would have serious repercussions to our influence and credibility in the greater Middle East. I also think of the message that sends to Iran, a country we've been pressing very hard with sanctions and subtly hinting military action if all else fails. It doesn't send a very powerful message does it? In my opinion, to make any significance at all, we would need to strike hard at various government installations (and maybe we "miss" and end up hitting some al-Qaeda targets). By "striking hard" I mean more than just a one-day ordeal, we're talking at least a few days of strikes. A one-day scenario of a few missile strikes has very little significance in the grand scheme of things; which, that means the strikes would be utterly pointless (similar to Operation Infinite Reach). I don't think this should happen relatively soon, though. I think we should sit down, look at the evidence thoroughly and actually plan a detailed, coherent operation that extensively addresses all the major concerns and problems that comes with this (I know there are many). If we can legally justify such an operation, then it should be implemented. I also don't think this should be a unilateral operation; moreover, I think the only way to go at this is multilaterally. The administration should also outline our strategic goals here and how we would go about securing said goals. If it takes us a month or more to thoroughly plan, set up a coalition and outline these goals, then so be it. Adding on to this: After the strikes, I say we actually start arming the opposition groups we like as well as utilizing SOF/CIA to assist in training and making sure the weapons end up in the right hands. I had you read an article from Defense of Democracies that also outlined something I agree with: Actually targeting the Assad family. I also know you don't agree with me and I'm not looking for a debate (we've already agreed to disagree. Still love you though :)). I do, however, want people to see the opposite ends of this from two people who (somewhat) know what they're talking about.

correct me if I'm wrong, but there's really no clear course of action, because the whole situation is so shit, correct?