Karlo Remigio - Intervention in Syria
2 views | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Karlo Remigio from AP Government & Politics

The Syrian regime’s military assets

The Syrian regime’s military assets | Karlo Remigio - Intervention in Syria | Scoop.it
As the U.S. contemplates air strikes on Syria, observers say the regime has scrambled to move many assets, including chemical weapons stockpiles, into hard-to-attack areas or close to large numbers of civilians.

Via Teresa Herrin
Karlo Remigio's insight:

Syrian millitary assets aren't very lacking for the small country it is. A strike on Syrian assets would no doubt prompt a response from their anti-aircraft assets. An effective strike would be a very large expenditure, no matter how limited, and the financial situation of America at the moment isn't the most solvent. If the strike is not effective, a violent response from the Syrian regime is not unlikely, and the Syrian people we're trying to benefit may end up being caught in the backlash of the Syrian regime.

Joseph Rumbaut's curator insight, September 12, 2013 7:31 AM

A lot of Syria's military power is concentrated to the West. This makes Syria easy to flank and I'm sure Assad knows this and the U.S. could easily take down Syria but now that Russia's involved it seems like military action will not be necessary

Victor Osorto's comment, September 21, 2013 7:10 PM
The idea of Obama not deploying American Feet on Syrian Soil, but now the focus of attention for our attacks will be the Navy, who as stated in this article, has excellent history in Naval Combat. This just might U.S. the upper-hand if given the go to combat Syria. But Syria's response of equipping war machines in the citizen's villages could trigger Obama on to where to specifically attack and not be guilty for killing innocent lives. U.S has potential to win the war against Syria, but we aren't sure on what Russia has in support for Syria. Although, our Navy has extraordinary missiles, U.S Navy must make sure they make pin-point targets or else they could be facing more drastic measures.
Linh Phan's comment, September 23, 2013 7:14 PM
The Syrian military assets is not the problem. Its out of date and poorly operated, so its not going to be a problem for US attacks because we use missile launches from warships and airplanes. We don't even need to go into Syrian airspace.
Rescooped by Karlo Remigio from AP Government & Politics

3: Roundtable: Crucial week for Obama - Video on NBCNews.com

3: Roundtable: Crucial week for Obama - Video on NBCNews.com | Karlo Remigio - Intervention in Syria | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: A Meet the Press roundtable forecasts the pressure on this upcoming week for the president to make his case for intervention in the Syrian conflict.

Via Teresa Herrin
Karlo Remigio's insight:

Many points made in the video express merit in the idea of taking military action against the use of chemical weapons, especially the point of protecting the international principle and our principle against such torturous weapons, but I'm sure the chances are great that such a strike may even escalate the situation. Being drawn into another war, which many Americans would oppose, has a good chance with such a strike. Perhaps instead, America and supporting nations should impose economic and political pressures on the Syrian regime to halt the use of chemical weapons. If countries like Russia join the effort, the success of such a strategy seem even more likely than a military strike.

Melissa Aleman's curator insight, September 11, 2013 10:36 PM

Really enjoyed this video in the sense that it gave me more insight to what's going on and different points of view. Several points like the fact that innocent civilians will die on our watch because of the airstrike was one i especially liked because it made me think more deeply into why we shouldnt intervene. It's clear that this is a huge predicament that even the Round table finds difficult to choose a side in the sense that as a nation we are stuck on deciding whether to be or not to be the "world's policemen."

Daniel Guo's curator insight, September 11, 2013 11:49 PM

I think that Newt Gingrich brings up good points about why it's hard for the public to support an airstrike on Syria. I think that this dicussion is a fair representation of the current public opinion on the matter- nobody wants to directly support a strike; there is no clear right answer.

Rachel Murphy's curator insight, October 2, 2013 8:13 PM

All of the politicians here are hesitant about military strikes in Syria. because they aren't sure about the effect that it would cause. Newt Gingrich makes some excellent points about the importance of communication. I believe some action needs to be taken in Syria, but a strike would only unleash more problems for us. Syria's allies are too powerful. 

Scooped by Karlo Remigio

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict | Karlo Remigio - Intervention in Syria | Scoop.it
President Obama’s approach to Syria is likely to create an important precedent in the often murky legal question of when presidents or nations may lawfully use military force.
Karlo Remigio's insight:

Obama faces a novel decision, a decision that could set a precedent for future presidents, on whether to take military action to carry out a punishment on the Syrian regime that don't concern any American citizens, without the approval of the Security Council, and possibly without the approval of Congress. In such an crucial decision, and possibly historical decision, I feel it best that the president has at least the backing of Congress before any such strike, if a strike is even the best way to go about the situation. Without ignoring the need for something to be done about the use of chemical weapons, I'm sure a more effective, but less fiery reaction could be implemented against the Syrian regime.


Tianna Kelly's curator insight, September 11, 2013 1:23 PM

I don't understand President Obama's statement that we must attack Syria because of U.S. national interests. What interests are these? Also, while Obama does legally have the right to launch a military attack on Syria without Congressional approval, the fact that public opinion says that we should not intervene, and that the U.S. is a supposed Democratic country, mean that he should not take it upon himself to act outside of public and Congressional approval. Otherwise, how is he any better than Assad?

Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 1:13 AM

I think Obama was facing all of this superficial, but ever-growing, pressure to do something about Syria, ANYTHING, as long as he just didn't sit idly by. Then, when he finally chose his only viable path (at the time), most people balked at the severity. Iraq and Afghanistan linger more than Kuwait, Kosovo, and Libya. Saving face became the only possible measure afterwards, and forget the actual politics, weapons, and lives at stake.

My personal opinion, of course.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 12:31 PM

Events like this happen in hundreds of different countries yet the US has never gotten involved. Also, the law against chemical weapons is international, therefore, the United Nations should be dealing with this, not the US alone. Of course, the UN would never go for it seeing as how Russia is an ally of the Syrian government. more importantly the situation is lose, lose. We do not need to be involved in this fight, it's not ours.