Syria -- what type of military intervention? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Clocker

08-23-2013, 09:31 PM

Wondering how the U.S. will get involved in Syria.

Getting involved in Syria requires a decision, something that appears to be beyond the capability of this administration. While new crises break out in the Middle East almost daily, our Ambassador to the UN goes on vacation after 19 days on the job.

Asked why United Nations ambassador Susan Power was absent from an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council on the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, the State Department told reporters to ask the UN why she wasn't there.

Source (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/state-department-refers-questions-about-ambassador-power-un_750073.html)

And in the ultimate show of leading from behind, Obama decided not to decide if the military takeover of Egypt was a coup.
President Barack Obama has formally decided not to decide whether the Egyptian military’s removal of the America-hating Muslim Brotherhood triggers a legal bar against aid to coup plotters.

Obama’s no-decision policy was announced Monday by Josh Earnest, Obama’s principal deputy press secretary.

“We’ve concluded that it is not in the best interest of the United States to reach a determination on a coup,” he said in the daily press conference.

Source (http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/20/obama-decides-to-sidestep-anti-coup-law/)

If the president can't decide if an event took place in Egypt, there is no way he can decide what to do in Syria.

Robert Goren

08-23-2013, 09:37 PM

How is picking a side in either Egypt or Syria in America's best interest? Obama is doing exactly what he should. Staying the Hell out those places.

JustRalph

08-23-2013, 09:46 PM

Not surprised. Do you have any links? I can't find any.

Just saw some tweets reporting missiles flying over Syria. They said cruise missiles.........

Clocker

08-23-2013, 10:18 PM

How is picking a side in either Egypt or Syria in America's best interest? Obama is doing exactly what he should. Staying the Hell out those places.

If that is true, then he should say so. He has not decided to stay out, he has decided not to decide. He is waffling.

If the military takeover of Egypt was a coup, he is required by law to cut off all aid to the country. He won't call it a coup because that would piss off the Egyptian army. He won't say it is not a coup, because that would piss off the Muslim Brotherhood.

He won't make a decision in Syria because that would piss off one side or the other or both in Syria. He committed to action if chemical weapons were used, period. Now that chemical weapons were used, he won't honor that commitment, but he won't back off from it. Now he is blathering about his vow to take action if the red line was crossed has to be subject to international law. So he won't keep his word on that, because it might piss off some people at the UN.

highnote

08-23-2013, 10:28 PM

Getting involved in Syria requires a decision, something that appears to be beyond the capability of this administration.

So how do you propose Obama begin the assault of Syria?

Here is an expert opinion from George Friedman of Stratfor:

The Difficulties of an Intervention

There are tremendous military challenges to dealing with Syria. Immaculate interventions will not work. A surgical strike on chemical facilities is a nice idea, but the intelligence on locations is never perfect, Syria has an air defense system that cannot be destroyed without substantial civilian casualties, and blowing up buildings containing chemical weapons could release the chemicals before they burn. Sending troops deep into Syria would not be a matter of making a few trips by helicopter. The country is an armed camp, and destroying or seizing stockpiles of chemical weapons is complicated and requires manpower. To destroy the stockpiles, you must first secure ports, airports and roads to get to them, and then you have to defend the roads, of which there are many.

Eradicating chemical weapons from Syria -- assuming that they are all in al Assad's territory -- would require occupying that territory, and the precise outlines of that territory change from day to day. It is also likely, given the dynamism of a civil war, that some chemical weapons would fall into the hands of the Sunni insurgents. There are no airstrikes or surgical raids by special operations troops that would solve the problem. Like Iraq, the United States would have to occupy the country.

If al Assad and the leadership are removed, his followers -- a substantial minority -- will continue to resist, much as the Sunnis did in Iraq. They have gained much from the al Assad regime and, in their minds, they face disaster if the Sunnis win. The Sunnis have much brutality to repay. On the Sunni side, there may be a secular liberal democratic group, but if so it is poorly organized and control is in the hands of Islamists and other more radical Islamists, some with ties to al Qaeda. The civil war will continue unless the United States intervenes on behalf of the Islamists, uses its power to crush the Alawites and hands power to the Islamists. A variant of this happened in Iraq when the United States sought to crush the Sunnis but did not want to give power to the Shia. The result was that everyone turned on the Americans.

That will be the result of a neutral intervention or an intervention designed to create a constitutional democracy. Those who intervene will find themselves trapped between the reality of Syria and the assorted fantasies that occasionally drive U.S. and European foreign policy. No great harm will come in any strategic sense. The United States and Europe have huge populations and enormous wealth. They can, in that sense, afford such interventions. But the United States cannot afford continual defeats as a result of intervening in countries of marginal national interest, where it sets for itself irrational political goals for the war. In some sense, power has to do with perception, and not learning from mistakes undermines power.

Many things are beyond the military power of the United States. Creating constitutional democracies by invasion is one of those things. There will be those who say intervention is to stop the bloodshed, not to impose Western values. Others will say intervention that does not impose Western values is pointless. Both miss the point. You cannot stop a civil war by adding another faction to the war unless that faction brings overwhelming power to bear. The United States has a great deal of power, but not overwhelming power, and overwhelming power's use means overwhelming casualties. And you cannot transform the political culture of a country from the outside unless you are prepared to devastate it as was done with Germany and Japan.

The United States, with its European allies, does not have the force needed to end Syria's bloodshed. If it tried, it would merely be held responsible for the bloodshed without achieving any strategic goal. There are places to go to war, but they should be few and of supreme importance. The bloodshed in Syria is not more important to the United States than it is to the Syrians.

Read more: Redlines and the Problems of Intervention in Syria | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

elysiantraveller

08-23-2013, 10:44 PM

May as well make a dozen or so stops on the way there and back as well if we're gonna take the job seriously.

I disagree.

There is a difference between people fighting for independence versus people fighting against indiscriminate WMD's from their government or organized genocide...

You want to fight your fight for independence have at it.

When it comes to people being gassed regardless of allegiance (Syria) or a systematic killing of a certain people (Rwanda) we have a role to play.

This is probably my only idealist stance in my entire political philosophy but I think we are truly better than turning a blind eye...

JustRalph

08-23-2013, 10:53 PM

Air assets could cripple Assad and his government in a week or less.

Cruise missiles would be a great start

elysiantraveller

08-23-2013, 10:54 PM

So how do you propose Obama begin the assault of Syria?

Here is an expert opinion from George Friedman of Stratfor:

The United States has a great deal of power, but not overwhelming power,

:lol:

This is laughable.

The United States, with its European allies, does not have the force needed to end Syria's bloodshed.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Getting better!

Who is this out of touch hack?... oh wait George Friedman the guy who wrote of the coming war with Japan in 1991.... :rolleyes:

highnote

08-23-2013, 11:28 PM

Air assets could cripple Assad and his government in a week or less.

Cruise missiles would be a great start

Suggest reading the first paragraph of the stratfor piece above on the bombing option.

If bombing chemical stockpiles are bombed then chemicals could be released that could kill the general population.

Intelligence is never reliable. The bombs could hit civilians.

And a host of other difficulties.

highnote

08-23-2013, 11:35 PM

Sounds like you are missing his point. Of course, the U.S. could go in and blow everything up. Just drop a nuke. That's overwhelming power.

He says if you want to destroy the chemical weapons you need to secure the ports, airports, highways and occupy the country like the U.S. did in Iraq. Is that something the U.S. has an appetite for?

He also writes:

No great harm will come in any strategic sense. The United States and Europe have huge populations and enormous wealth. They can, in that sense, afford such interventions. But the United States cannot afford continual defeats as a result of intervening in countries of marginal national interest,...

Make no mistake, Syria is of marginal national interest to the U.S. Russia and China are still the main threats. If the U.S. fights in Syria this opens the door for Russia and China elsewhere. Israel, Saudia Arabia and Europe can play a role in Syria.

:lol:

This is laughable.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Getting better!

Who is this out of touch hack?... oh wait George Friedman the guy who wrote of the coming war with Japan in 1991.... :rolleyes:

Tom

08-23-2013, 11:36 PM

Air assets could cripple Assad and his government in a week or less.

Cruise missiles would be a great start

Or we could put them on Obama-Care.

woodtoo

08-23-2013, 11:44 PM

We can probably bomb Assad out of power. Just remember whoever or whatever replaces him is still going to hate us and it isn't going to be safe for Americans to be there.

100% correct' Robert

highnote

08-24-2013, 12:18 AM

100% correct' Robert

So you bomb Assad out of power and risk the release of chemicals on the general population?

But Robert is right that just like Iraq, Americans will be hated no matter who is in charge.

Then when the new regime comes into power "there is much brutality to repay" so they will exact revenge by brutalizing the men, woman and children of the old regime.

If the liberal Sunnis are too weak to take over the radical Islamists might gain control and the revolution will continue. The U.S. could be further drawn in to the conflict and this is when the U.S. becomes hated by all sides.

The Obama doctrine has been to let the middle east balance the power on its own. If one nation state becomes too powerful then the U.S. will intercede on behalf of weaker nation states.

Syria is not a threat to the balance of power at this point. In fact, the war in Syria probably gives Islamic radicals and mercenaries a rallying point. Better for the U.S. and Europe that they fight and die there rather than in the U.S. or Europe.

johnhannibalsmith

08-24-2013, 12:20 AM

I disagree.

There is a difference between people fighting for independence versus people fighting against indiscriminate WMD's from their government or organized genocide...

...

I understand and deeply respect the motive for your position...

...and for that reason, and to avoid derailing this into a broader debate than the actual subject, I've edited out my long ass reply that would probably draw the ire from all corners... laf...

I know your position and that you feel strongly about it. I really don't feel that strongly about mine. Mine's a pipe dream and yours at least has some real application... even if I disagree where and why we draw all these "red lines". :)

newtothegame

08-24-2013, 12:24 AM

Maybe I am getting older and softer, who the hell knows....
But, why should we intervene now? Because of WMD's???
Ok, so it is ok to kill thousands over a period of time but not all at one time???
Syria, like the rest of the middle east, is a no win situation for us at this point.
Obama (in the other thread) has taken a no decision on what to call Egypts actions.....yet now, in syria he will make a decision?? Hardly!

As I get older, and for the sake of what I believe to be best for American interest, I am leaning more and more towards the term of isolationism. Now I know in the strictest sense, its not feasible but what do we gain but crippling the Assad military? We give power to Al Queda (sp). Yeah, thats what we all want right?

Like it or not, I feel we made (Obama admin) huge mistakes by calling for the overthrow of some of the middle east leaders. Khaddafi...total asshole but kept Libya under control.
Mubarack...dictator who kept peace in the middle east for how many years????
Hussein...another butthead but again, he had Iraq under control. Sure he made a lot of threats to neighbors. His mistake was invading the small neighboring country (dumbass move).

Point is I am really getting the feeling of becareful what you wish for. The grass is not always greener.......and sometimes, its down right ugly!
The people who reside in those countries need to decide and they need to get the means to accomplish their wants. Our intervention has led to trouble time and time again in this region. Why we continue is beyond my comprehension....:bang:

Clocker

08-24-2013, 12:28 AM

So how do you propose Obama begin the assault of Syria?

I don't propose that we do. Assad is a criminal tyrant, and the rebels are Al Qaeda. We don't want anything to do with either. My point is that Obama is destroying the power and credibility of this country by making stupid statements that should never have been made and that he has no intention of carrying out.

A president with a set of jimmies would cancel his UN Ambassador's vacation and have her screaming at the UN to show some backbone and do something to protect the people of Syria. And suggest that if the UN broke years of precedent and actually did something, we would back them up.

Clocker

08-24-2013, 12:42 AM

The people who reside in those countries need to decide and they need to get the means to accomplish their wants.

And then if they ask for help, we will help them.

We need to stop trying to impose democracy on people who don't want it.

You can't force democracy on people from the top down. It has to start at the grass roots and rise to the top.

In particular, Islam is not conducive to democracy. The logic tendency of strict Islam is toward a theocracy. The only issue is whether it will be a Sunni or a Shia theocracy. We have wasted incredible amounts of money and effort trying to bring democracy to the Middle East. It ain't gonna happen.

highnote

08-24-2013, 01:06 AM

A president with a set of jimmies would cancel his UN Ambassador's vacation and have her screaming at the UN to show some backbone and do something to protect the people of Syria. And suggest that if the UN broke years of precedent and actually did something, we would back them up.

And what can the UN do that the U.S. or her allies can't do?

As stratfor pointed out, Syria is a large and armed military camp.

Assad can be taken out, but those chemical weapons could quickly disappear out of Syria and into whose hands?

If Assad is bombed to kingdom come the chemical weapons could be blown up and chemicals spread everywhere. Or the bombs could miss their targets because of faulty intelligence and innocents could be blown up.

The best strategy is to let this play out internally. There is no guarantee that a new regime would be any better than the current regime.

There is no guarantee a new regime could hold power and then what happens -- more fighting -- more loss of control of chemical weapons.

plainolebill

08-24-2013, 02:50 AM

Quote from the film Lawrence of Arabia: So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people--greedy, barbarous and cruel.

Let them sort it out.

JustRalph

08-24-2013, 05:19 AM

newtothegame

08-24-2013, 05:49 AM

So Ralph,
quick question.....
Youre ok with removing Assad in favor of Al Queda?
There is no question that the "rebels" have become extremist as they are now fighting amongst themselves for power.

I agree that Assad is a dirt bag....notin question. But, in my opinion, we can not go around the world removing those who we think are dirt bags...if we are taking that stance, why now kim jung whatever in N Korea? Why not Imadinnerjacket in Iran? And the list goes on and on....

If the arguement is because he used WMD's against thousands.....as I asked earlier...so if he kills thousands over a period without using WMD's its ok? But, if he kills thousands in a shorter period using WMD's its not ok???

We have had very little success with intervention as I see it anywhere in the middle east. You can not reason with people who believe that the only "reasonable" outcome is death to their enemies. These countries were much more stable with the "dirtbags" that we didnt like.

Egypt seemed to be doing ok and had signed peace treaties with Isreal under Mubarack....we press mubarack hard to step down and look where Egypt is now? This is not to say it wouldnt of happened anyways at some point. But, I believe the U.S. intervention if you will expedited the process. And who came to power? Muslim brotherhood....:faint:

Libya, who in the hell is running that shit hole now???

Iraq? Yeah they love us after we disposed their dictator......:bang:

Afghanistan.....need I say more ???

Isreal has even become more leery of us based on our policy or lack of in their opinion. Its not like BB is running her telling us how great we are either.....

Putin is laughing his ass off at Obama because he knows he is a weak non issue in Putins mind.

China.....they have gotten a lot more embolden.....

N Korea....we say dont shoot missiles or else, and they respond by testing nukes and firing multiple missiles....lol

yeah, our foriegn policy is looking pretty great right now.

And I know Elysian will tell us all how it is more of the same as Bush......
WRONG! The difference is not in the policy, the difference is in the man implementing the policy. Its no different then if I tell my grand daughter she is going to get punished. She listens because there is teeth behind it. My wife will say the same thing and my grand daughter laughs at her ......you get the point. Same policy in theory only one has teeth though.

JustRalph

08-24-2013, 06:57 AM

newtothegame

08-24-2013, 07:55 AM

you make very good points. All salient and unsolvable at this point.

But Chem weapons have always been a "red line" to quote our fearless leader.

All of those questions you propose are the same ones that have been in play in every middle east country since the 40's

All in all, nobody can answer all those questions. But we are playing from behind here. Unlike Libya where the thing had not been ongoing for 2.5 yrs before we started to get involved. Now, it's much worse.

I read where the French said they would intervene. If I was Obama, I would call them out on it. They have an Air Force.......get to work.

All things said........ no ground troops for Syria, ever.
I agree about the French.....
The only thing I would add is the red line comment....Obama had said before about a red line...it came and went. And if the red line is the use of WMD's, I am guessing the death of a U.S ambassador and U.S. soldiers is NOT a red line??? My guess is we have our priorities screwed up as to what is a "red line".......

Robert Goren

08-24-2013, 08:11 AM

When the Arabs are fighting other, they aren't fighting us. I know this harsh, but I hope they keep killing themselves until none of them are left.

johnhannibalsmith

08-24-2013, 10:28 AM

...I know this harsh, but I hope they keep killing themselves until none of them are left.

Don't even think I could say that one seriously, but glad I got to read it from someone other than Tom!

elysiantraveller

08-24-2013, 10:59 AM

I'm not calling anyone out here.

But if we are the leader of the "free" world it is simply our responsibility to get involved.

Tom

08-24-2013, 11:14 AM

What is worse, not drawing a red line, or drawing them and then backing down?
We do NOT want to get into it with anyone under this president.
Saddam Hussein gassed tens of thousands of his people and the left still saw no reason to go into Iraq. The bar has been set.

elysiantraveller

08-24-2013, 11:33 AM

Make no mistake, Syria is of marginal national interest to the U.S. Russia and China are still the main threats. If the U.S. fights in Syria this opens the door for Russia and China elsewhere. Israel, Saudia Arabia and Europe can play a role in Syria.

If you think so.

We are NATO....

Clocker

08-24-2013, 12:19 PM

But if we are the leader of the "free" world it is simply our responsibility to get involved.

We are not the leader of the free world. Obama has abdicated that role by leading from behind.

We had that role by default and by acting like a leader. The question is do we want the role. Even if we wanted it, Obama is not capable of it. He wants the title, but not the responsibility.

And if we were, or should be, the leader of the free world, Syria is not part of that world. Why would we have any responsibility? That is supposedly why we have the UN. If we have to do their job, why do we need the UN? Especially if our Ambassador to the UN is too busy with personal business to attend emergency sessions?

elysiantraveller

08-24-2013, 02:20 PM

We are not the leader of the free world. Obama has abdicated that role by leading from behind.

We had that role by default and by acting like a leader. The question is do we want the role. Even if we wanted it, Obama is not capable of it. He wants the title, but not the responsibility.

And if we were, or should be, the leader of the free world, Syria is not part of that world. Why would we have any responsibility? That is supposedly why we have the UN. If we have to do their job, why do we need the UN? Especially if our Ambassador to the UN is too busy with personal business to attend emergency sessions?

You are politicizing the argument. We are American's and are supposed to care when nerve gas rolls over women, children, and infants.

newtothegame

08-24-2013, 03:12 PM

Elysian,
Serious question that I have asked and got no reply to so I will ask again to you and see if you answer......

You say we have a responsibility to act if Assad ( or whomever) gasses their women and children.....ok fair enough.

Is it ok to kill those women and children by tanks and artillery (or anything not considered WMD's) over a period?
But, if he kills them using gas, its not ok?

elysiantraveller

08-24-2013, 03:46 PM

You say we have a responsibility to act if Assad ( or whomever) gasses their women and children.....ok fair enough.

Is it ok to kill those women and children by tanks and artillery (or anything not considered WMD's) over a period?
But, if he kills them using gas, its not ok?

War is War and I have no problem with people fighting them and civilian casualties happen. We as American's are no different in that category.

But...

When you use indiscriminate weapons against a large group of people I do have a problem with it. All of our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents taught us better than that... Because they went through it...

We could end this in ten days.

highnote

08-24-2013, 06:03 PM

Every place we bomb has chemicals and dangerous fumes etc after bombing. Be them regular chem weapons or plain old normal smoke and debris. Chemical weapons are in lots of places. during WWII there chemical weapons like mustard gas in ammo dumps etc.

I am talking about taking out the command and control centers of Assad. His airfields etc. he won't last long after that. He would go under ground. Flee to some other country. We don't have the balls as a country to carpet bomb anymore, and it's not needed here.

Ralph, it's not just about taking out Assad. You also have to deal with what needs to happen in order to take him out and then you have to deal with the aftermath.

The difference between right-wing and left-wing interventionists is the illusions they harbor. In spite of experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, right-wing interventionists continue to believe that the United States and Europe have the power not only to depose regimes but also to pacify the affected countries and create Western-style democracies. The left believes that there is such a thing as a neutral intervention -- one in which the United States and Europe intervene to end a particular evil, and with that evil gone, the country will now freely select a Western-style constitutional democracy. Where the right-wing interventionists cannot absorb the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq, the left-wing interventionists cannot absorb the lessons of Libya.

Setting aside chemical weapons for a second... if stratfor's analysis is to believed then taking out the command and control centers is going to result in large civilian casualties. So before you can even get to the chemical weapons you are going to kill many civilians. How many civilians are you willing to kill to take out the command and control?

Then to get to the chemical weapons you have to have manpower. You have to secure the ports, airports and roads just to get to the chemical weapons. And there are many roads.

Then, you are assuming the chemical weapons are still in Assad's territory. Now you have to occupy the territory.

So the U.S. takes out Assad, kill lots of civilians and destroy chemical weapons.

Now what? Do you think Assad's followers are going to go easily? You have to kill them otherwise they are going to keep fighting because they have much to lose because they have benefitted. If they come back into power, then the process repeats itself.

What if they don't come into power? Syria is not magically going to turn into a western style democracy. Assad's is a secular regime that is basically Arab socialist. A new regime would be Sunni Muslim and would return to it's political culture -- Islamic religion.

Sometimes a laissez-faire approach is the best thing for the U.S.

ArlJim78

08-24-2013, 06:50 PM

newtothegame

08-24-2013, 06:57 PM

War is War and I have no problem with people fighting them and civilian casualties happen. We as American's are no different in that category.

But...

When you use indiscriminate weapons against a large group of people I do have a problem with it. All of our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents taught us better than that... Because they went through it...

We could end this in ten days.

Your grand father may have taught you certain things but I was always taught that war is ugly and if you are going to get yourself into one, you best be willing to WIN!
You see, this type of (political correctness you're proposing) is what got our butts handed to us in Nam, and now Afghanistan. We are fighting people that would just as soon hang dead bodies from a bridge while we say, we can not shoot at them because they hid in a mosque!

If we are going to put people into harms way, then we should be willing to do whatever is necessary to get those people out of harms way as soon as possible. Again, I know I will catch grief for this...but war is UGLY! Those people in the ME know our thoughts and know we don't have a stomache for war. That's why they do what they do. They play on our (lets treat them nicely) emotions.

Robert Fischer

08-24-2013, 09:02 PM

what is the end-game in syria ?

it sure looks like regime change where we take control.
Then I assume Russia has to lose its investments and its naval port. And China has to lose it's investments.

Then are we planning on threatening Iran next and launching a regime change war into Iran too ?

Progress for the USA and our allies is wonderful, but I'm just trying to see the endgame. How much shift in balance of power in the region can the system sustain ?

What will Russia and China do as the entire region is taken by the west ?

How will the escalation stay cool ?

Escalation increases at an exponential rate.

TJDave

08-24-2013, 09:43 PM

But if we are the leader of the "free" world it is simply our responsibility to get involved.

We are involved...Up to our eyeballs.

To suggest the US is flailing about is to ignore realpolitik.

Clocker

08-24-2013, 10:02 PM

what is the end-game in syria ?

it sure looks like regime change where we take control.

If the current regime is ousted, the rebels take over and have to form a government. The rebels are a bunch of disorganized militias, many of whom are members of or supported by Al Qaeda. We would not be likely to be invited to the table.

plainolebill

08-24-2013, 10:49 PM

the last thing the US should be doing is taking any military action in Syria, or setting explicit conditions for it such as If X occurs we will do Y. Syria poses no threat to the US and we have no authority or reason to bomb them.

My sentiments exactly. It seems like many people on this board have short memories. What exactly have we gained long term by our actions with respects to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya?

Let these guys duke it out until our interests are threatened in some way. If we can't control the outcome or the aftermath - why burn more cash, make more enemies and put our military in harms way?

jerry-g

08-24-2013, 11:25 PM

I heard the late news guy say that the U.S. is sending a cruise missile ship
to within striking distance near Syria. If that is true, then we should not
back down. I don't believe in using our military as a pawn in some game
like war. Let Ass-ed wake up and smell the fumes.

PaceAdvantage

08-25-2013, 02:10 AM

When the Arabs are fighting other, they aren't fighting us. I know this harsh, but I hope they keep killing themselves until none of them are left.This smells racist to me...

PaceAdvantage

08-25-2013, 02:14 AM

I believe when Bush was prez, the old standard was we only got involved when there was big oil to be had.

I don't remember how Syria stands in the Middle East oil rankings...let me look it up...it ranks 32 in the world...right below Australia (lol) and right above Thailand (double lol).

So I guess that's why Obama is waffling...no oil to be had...right left leaners?

TJDave

08-25-2013, 05:19 AM

When the Arabs are fighting other, they aren't fighting us. I know this harsh, but I hope they keep killing themselves until none of them are left.

I'm convinced this is our unofficial strategy. Since we cannot forsee an outcome to our liking we are committed in seeing Syria devour itself. The last man standing turns off the lights.

Marshall Bennett

08-25-2013, 06:39 AM

When the Arabs are fighting other, they aren't fighting us. I know this harsh, but I hope they keep killing themselves until none of them are left.
I suppose this includes woman and children, the entire population? Your statement is not only barbaric, it's dumb.
Terrorist need acreage to plan, train, and operate. They've always been confined to dense quarters and secrecy. Their objective is to move in on a devastated nation and grow. I've always contended that our #1 purpose of having a presence in the Middle East is to insure this never happens because if it does we're in real trouble.

Robert Goren

08-25-2013, 06:59 AM

I suppose this includes woman and children, the entire population? Your statement is not only barbaric, it's dumb.
Terrorist need acreage to plan, train, and operate. They've always been confined to dense quarters and secrecy. Their objective is to move in on a devastated nation and grow. I've always contended that our #1 purpose of having a presence in the Middle East is to insure this never happens because if it does we're in real trouble. Well, that plan has never worked, if in fact it was ever a plan. Having an American presence in the area has only increased hatred toward the United States. It is high time we learned that we can't stop other people's civil wars for very long. It just backfires on us.

JustRalph

08-25-2013, 07:15 AM

This smells racist to me...

Bold statement by the Detective. He is relying on the fact that we all know that Dems and people of color cannot be racist. It's a fact Jack!

fast4522

08-25-2013, 08:33 AM

Syria -- what type of military intervention? (from post 1)

Red line this and racist that, but really the why's are about oil and natural gas profits and who gets the lions share. I should shut up being pro Israel personally, but often this President moves like the Muammar Gaddafi move was wanted by the Bilderburg Group. Few here like to acknowledge the power of the European bankers or the Bilderburg Group and its influence on this Administration and other Administrations.

Tom

08-25-2013, 10:06 AM

ArlJim78

08-25-2013, 10:09 AM

According to the UN there is evidence that the Sarin gas was used by the rebels, otherwise known as the people WE are supporting.

If this turns out to be true, (which of course it is, Assad has nothing to gain by using Sarin gas and the rebels have everything to gain what with all of our RED LINE threats) then do we start bombing the rebels?

UN's Carla Del Ponte says there is evidence rebels 'may have used sarin' in Syria (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html)

fast4522

08-25-2013, 10:44 AM

What is in it for us?
How doers putting Al Qeda in power improve our lives?

Let it play out. Nothing will ever change in the Middle East - whoever takes over will be the bad guys in 3 months.

Where were the Syrians when the Iraqis were being gassed by SH?
Where were the Syrians when SH invaded Kuwait?
Where were the Syrians when the Taliban devastated Afghanistan?
Where was the UN when we went into Iraq, who gassed more people?
Where was the rest of the world then?
If they are horrified by Syria's action,s let theses 3rd and 4th rate excuse of nations do something about it. Time for THEM to get off their butts and do something.

Put our ships in the Gulf of Mexico and keep an eye on our REAL enemy - Mexico - the Drug state. They are doing real harm to us with their smuggling.

We DO NOT want to get into a war with this President.
He is totally unprepared and unfit to engage real world leaders.
They already smell blood in the water.

SPOT ON

There is no way our country should get into something that has the potential to escalate into another war and borrow more money from China.
Everything has a price tag, and Tom is correct with the idea about closer to home. Spending closer to home to devastate drug cartel's makes more sense, drone those bastards. Your left wing fruitcakes think everyone has a right to survive which is total bullshit, if you are a threat local (inside the US) burn baby.

Tom

08-25-2013, 11:21 AM

The only country we should go to war with is Mexico.
Long overdue.

Marshall Bennett

08-25-2013, 12:16 PM

SPOT ON

There is no way our country should get into something that has the potential to escalate into another war and borrow more money from China.

And if the rest of the Middle East follows suit with what's happening in Syria, Egypt, and probably Libya, will there not be a higher price to be paid then?
Do we hope then the devastation and what follows just goes away?
Pay now or pay later, cowboy, it will not go away.

fast4522

08-25-2013, 12:27 PM

You folks see everything as some easy turkey shoot, lets not get any more boots on the ground until the war starts with Israel. It is not IF, but WHEN so let there be less of them by their own hands. This thing is not going anyplace soon, so lets just see what doing nothing does.

fast4522

08-25-2013, 03:33 PM

A look into 1953

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMrJu8Gx9eY

fast4522

08-25-2013, 04:04 PM

Now a look into August 25, 2013 (Today)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxO3QqdIUAs

JustRalph

08-26-2013, 08:10 PM

CNN report

Graphic video warning

http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/world/2013/08/23/pkg-pleitgen-syria-chemical-attack.cnn&hpt=hp_t2

Marshall Bennett

08-26-2013, 09:00 PM

The Syrian government will prevail there, so if we don't do anything, it will only continue. Cold hard facts.

cj's dad

08-26-2013, 09:06 PM

And why exactly do we care ???The Syrian government will prevail there, so if we don't do anything, it will only continue. Cold hard facts.

Tom

08-26-2013, 10:15 PM

A decade ago, it was worse.
SH gassed his own people, invaded another country, and threatened to invade more. The left was dead set against us going in, even with congressional approval. Search for PA's video. They were all for it until BUSH did it, then they all reneged.

Today, they are saying it the right thing to do.
Is Obama going to get congressional approval?
Is Obama doing to have an exit strategy? Remember that catch phrase?

As a nation, we are no longer fit to invade other nations.
We are run by leaders who lie and deny.
The CNC is a world clown and he is hopelessly over-matched by real world leaders. We do not want to follow this crew of lying misfits into battle.
We need to minds our own business and take care our country.

Let the rest of the useless nations of the world handle this one.
So far, most of them couldn't put down a street fight in Detroit.

Marshall Bennett

08-27-2013, 06:02 AM

And why exactly do we care ???
If you watched the video that Ralph posted along with others just as bad and even worse available and say you don't care, then it's useless me explaining it to you. Perhaps it simply doesn't hit close enough to home for you to understand, or care.

newtothegame

08-27-2013, 08:29 AM

And why exactly do we care ???

Agree.....Marshall, tell us why we should be the police? Why should we put our young men and women in harms way for a losing proposition???

Saratoga_Mike

08-27-2013, 08:48 AM

Agree.....Marshall, tell us why we should be the police? Why should we put our young men and women in harms way for a losing proposition???

...and dislodge Assad and replace him with Al-Q sympathizers...makes sense

Saratoga_Mike

08-27-2013, 08:57 AM

A decade ago, it was worse.
SH gassed his own people, invaded another country, and threatened to invade more. The left was dead set against us going in, even with congressional approval. Search for PA's video. They were all for it until BUSH did it, then they all reneged.

Today, they are saying it the right thing to do.
Is Obama going to get congressional approval?
Is Obama doing to have an exit strategy? Remember that catch phrase?

As a nation, we are no longer fit to invade other nations.
We are run by leaders who lie and deny.
The CNC is a world clown and he is hopelessly over-matched by real world leaders. We do not want to follow this crew of lying misfits into battle.
We need to minds our own business and take care our country.
Let the rest of the useless nations of the world handle this one.
So far, most of them couldn't put down a street fight in Detroit.

Agreed.

All of this started with the disastrous misadventures in Iraq, though, and now it's a never-ending nightmare. While SH was a brutal dictator, he served as useful counterbalance to Iran and its proxy terrorist organizations. Was US national security enhanced by overthrowing SH? No.

classhandicapper

08-27-2013, 10:22 AM

Agree.....Marshall, tell us why we should be the police? Why should we put our young men and women in harms way for a losing proposition???

I agree, but it's even worse than that.

Every time we pick a side we alienate tens of millions on the other side that then hate our guts and want to attack us at home and abroad. If there was actually a moral upside where it was clear cut who the good guys were and who the bad guys were and the entire world wanted action, it might not be so bad. But in that region you are mostly talking about various shades of oppression, genocide, torture etc... no matter who is in charge.

Beyond that, the US is on the fast track to long term bankruptcy right now. I don't quite understand why people can't comprehend that the government is essentially BUST and our economy is being held together by running deficits that often reach 1 trillion a year that is being financed by the printing press. Without that we'd be in a collapse as bad as we've seen since the depression. It's a horrible economic situation. We simple can't afford this bullshit anymore or we are going to be forced hyperinflate or tax ourselves into economic oblivion within our lifetimes.

badcompany

08-27-2013, 10:37 AM

Question for the Conservatives, here. If I had to label, myself, it would be Libertarian.

How do you reconcile your belief in limited government with an interventionist foreign policy? The military is part of the government, yet, the same Conservatives who believe that the Government should "Get out of the way" at home, believe it should "Get in the way," abroad.

johnhannibalsmith

08-27-2013, 10:54 AM

...How do you reconcile your belief in limited government with an interventionist foreign policy? The military is part of the government, yet, the same Conservatives who believe that the Government should "Get out of the way" at home, believe it should "Get in the way," abroad.

Well, I'm not answering with my beliefs obviously, but most of those that fall into your query usually square it by stating that one of the only legitimate roles of our central government is to protect our national security and strategic military interests. Therefore, even abroad, if it is in our strategic security interests, it is justifiable. That doesn't really work with the whole "we have to be Mighty Mouse" motif that is usually offered up because saving the damsels in distress sells better than some convoluted discussion about borders and stability and whatnot, but to me anyway, the security rebuttal is the best reply to those of us that tend towards non-interventionism as a default.

Greyfox

08-27-2013, 11:08 AM

Beyond that, the US is on the fast track to long term bankruptcy right now. I don't quite understand why people can't comprehend that the government is essentially BUST and our economy is being held together by running deficits that often reach 1 trillion a year that is being financed by the printing press. Without that we'd be in a collapse as bad as we've seen since the depression. It's a horrible economic situation. We simple can't afford this bullshit anymore or we are going to be forced hyperinflate or tax ourselves into economic oblivion within our lifetimes.

Exactly.:ThmbUp:

The Syria situation raises serious moral concerns and most of us loathe the idea of innocents being gassed in chemical warfare.
We get it.
However, if I'm getting beaten on a street, I can hardly expect an anemic senior citizen with a walker to jump into the fray and try and pull off my attackers - especially if he cannot for certain identify who the "bad guys" are.
First and foremost, Syria is a civil war.
In a civil war regimes are expected to defend themselves.
Whether or not they have committed a crime against humanity in defending themselves has to be determined with certainty.
If al-Assad and his generals have committed crimes against humanity, they should be tried in due course at The Hague.
Secondly, this is an Arab middle-east problem.
The Arab states should be showing leadership in whatever interventions are to take place. Certainly a country like Arabia which has a very healthy economy could be suggesting ideas. To date, their role has been somewhat docile.
Thirdly, as this is a civil war, which side is wearing the "white hats" and which side has the "black hats?" Is al-Assad really pulling the strings here for the government or is he a figurehead for his generals. On the other side of the coin, who is funding the rebels?? Ammo costs money. Someone somewhere is fueling them. Who is it?
Without more definitive information one way or another, the U.S., Britain and others, have to be very cautious before committing to any military activity here.

Clocker

08-27-2013, 11:09 AM

Question for the Conservatives, here. If I had to label, myself, it would be Libertarian.

How do you reconcile your belief in limited government with an interventionist foreign policy?

So everyone that believes in limited government believes in an interventionist foreign policy? There aren't just two flavors of ice cream in this pop stand. Not even the Democrats march in lock step to the beat of the party drum. As we saw during the ObamaCare debate, there are pro-life Democrats. And there are Democrats that believe in interventionist foreign policy.

Your characterization of conservatives applies to a relatively small subset of the political right. These are currently referred to as NeoCons. In previous eras, they were called war hawks. The interventionist policy in the Bush administration was driven by the NeoCons, specifically Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense under Rumsfeld.

Another subset of political conservatives are the religious right. Some of them are interventionists, some are not. Some of them are for small government, some are not. They are for prohibition of abortion, a ban on gay marriage, and other fundamentalist roles for government. But there are others on the right that believe in conservative principles like small government but don't believe in bans on abortion or gay marriage.

The "libs" here have tried to stuff me and others into the "rightie" pigeonhole. I can't speak for others, but I don't belong in any of the pigeonholes described above. Including the one labeled "NeoCon".

JustRalph

08-27-2013, 11:19 AM

If you watched the video that Ralph posted along with others just as bad and even worse available and say you don't care, then it's useless me explaining it to you. Perhaps it simply doesn't hit close enough to home for you to understand, or care.

Let me be clear. I think it would be real easy to dethrone the prez of Syria with air assets. That would put an end to this chemical bullshit. Never should we put any troops on the ground.

For those of you who are concerned about Terrorists taking over the country, the country is being run by terrorists now. Syria has been supporting terrorism for 30 years. Officially a terrorist supporting nation since 1979. Assad is a terrorist.

But a terrorist who has now chosen to use chemical weapons is a different breed. It is a real world red line. It could happen in the NY subway system tomorrow. But setting up a real world red line and responding with overwhelming force everytime it happens is a deterrent.

Sadly, standing around in a circle jerk for a week tap dancing with David Cameron lessens the impact

badcompany

08-27-2013, 11:53 AM

So everyone that believes in limited government believes in an interventionist foreign policy? There aren't just two flavors of ice cream in this pop stand. Not even the Democrats march in lock step to the beat of the party drum. As we saw during the ObamaCare debate, there are pro-life Democrats. And there are Democrats that believe in interventionist foreign policy.

Your characterization of conservatives applies to a relatively small subset of the political right. These are currently referred to as NeoCons. In previous eras, they were called war hawks. The interventionist policy in the Bush administration was driven by the NeoCons, specifically Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense under Rumsfeld.

Another subset of political conservatives are the religious right. Some of them are interventionists, some are not. Some of them are for small government, some are not. They are for prohibition of abortion, a ban on gay marriage, and other fundamentalist roles for government. But there are others on the right that believe in conservative principles like small government but don't believe in bans on abortion or gay marriage.

The "libs" here have tried to stuff me and others into the "rightie" pigeonhole. I can't speak for others, but I don't belong in any of the pigeonholes described above. Including the one labeled "NeoCon".

Of course, not every Conservative can be pigeon-holed. That said, every single Conservative talk host in my neck of the woods could be described as interventionist. So, unless these guys, Rush, Hannity and Levin are fringe Convervatives, we're talking about more than just a small subset.

Tom

08-27-2013, 12:37 PM

Assad is a terrorist.

Hillary says he is a reformer.
Google it.

Clocker

08-27-2013, 12:42 PM

every single Conservative talk host in my neck of the woods could be described as interventionist. So, unless these guys, Rush, Hannity and Levin are fringe Convervatives, we're talking about more than just a small subset.

I don't pay a lot of attention to those guys, because as far as I can see, they are all preaching a dogmatic conservative agenda that allows for little dissent. They are popular because pretty much everyone right of center likes their position on some issues.

I don't know what their positions are on intervention, but I suspect that they lean more toward a hard line, if not NeoCon, philosophy of American power as the leader of the free world. A lot of people on the right agree with that. A lot don't, but agree with most of the rest of things those guys are saying, so they get the big audiences.

Clocker

08-27-2013, 12:45 PM

Hillary says he is a reformer.

As did Kerry.

sally

08-27-2013, 12:59 PM

This is an interesting debate. But I think we need to realize that this is not about the people of Syria wanting freedom...It's about Sunni power mongers seeing what they thought was an opportunity to dislodge Shiite (Alawite) authority during the so called Arab Spring. They miscalculated and now want the West to do their dirty work.

As to finishing the "war" in 10 days...remember "No strategy survives first contact with the enemy". You have only to remember Iraq for that one to sink in.

If the West enters this war it's not about the Syrian women and children. It's about what the Saudi's want.

We probably have an agreement with them that goes like..."you give 5 Billion dollars to the Egyptian Military (because we don't like the Brotherhood) and we'll kick Assad's ass for you."

I agree with Sarah Palin... "Let Allah sort it out."

Robert Fischer

08-27-2013, 01:05 PM

I support our government here. :ThmbUp:

Marshall Bennett

08-27-2013, 01:14 PM

Agree.....Marshall, tell us why we should be the police? Why should we put our young men and women in harms way for a losing proposition???
This logic could possibly be explained by example during WWII when we entered Europe to fight Germany. Though Japan had attacked us an got us involved in the war, Hitler hadn't laid a hand on us. How many troops did we lose liberating France? Would your position had been to fight Japan and let our allies in Europe fend for themselves? Just curious.

TJDave

08-27-2013, 01:34 PM

This logic could possibly be explained by example during WWII when we entered Europe to fight Germany. Though Japan had attacked us an got us involved in the war, Hitler hadn't laid a hand on us.

Hitler saved us from that dilemma by declaring war. We would have still done it, as Germany was a part of the Axis. It just would have delayed things a bit.

Robert Goren

08-27-2013, 01:38 PM

This logic could possibly be explained by example during WWII when we entered Europe to fight Germany. Though Japan had attacked us an got us involved in the war, Hitler hadn't laid a hand on us. How many troops did we lose liberating France? Would your position had been to fight Japan and let our allies in Europe fend for themselves? Just curious.For the record
Dec 7 Pearl Harbor bombed
Dec 8 US declares on Japan
Dec 8 Germany declares war on US
Dec 11 US declares war on Germany.

Tom

08-27-2013, 02:12 PM

There was no doubt we had to go after Germany as well.
Hitler was planning moving the war to our shores, and he was developing a nuke.

FDR knew there was no choice.
Hitler was a far deadlier threat word-wide that Syria is.
As soon as Syria invades another country, the gloves come off - we bomb them back to the stone ages. That will take what, a couple of M80's? :D

highnote

08-27-2013, 02:37 PM

Hillary says he is a reformer.
Google it.

Saddam Hussein and Khaddafi were probably reformers on some level, too. That doesn't mean their good qualities outweigh their bad.

Think about being a middle east leader from the perspective of the leader. There are so many factions that want you dead. No matter what you do, someone will want to kill you.

As Machiavelli said, "It is better to be feared then loved if you can't be both."

How can anyone lead a country like Syria, Iraq or Libya except with a heavy hand when you could die any day?

Liberal democracies aren't popular in much of the middle east.

highnote

08-27-2013, 02:41 PM

On the other side of the coin, who is funding the rebels?? Ammo costs money. Someone somewhere is fueling them. Who is it?
Without more definitive information one way or another, the U.S., Britain and others, have to be very cautious before committing to any military activity here.

Traditionally, Russia has supported Syria. Iran also lends support and has influence. The conflict between Shiites and Sunnis is also a factor.

The U.S. coming in and taking sides may create change temporarily, but the underlying tensions will always be there.

thaskalos

08-27-2013, 02:48 PM

Question for the Conservatives, here. If I had to label, myself, it would be Libertarian.

How do you reconcile your belief in limited government with an interventionist foreign policy? The military is part of the government, yet, the same Conservatives who believe that the Government should "Get out of the way" at home, believe it should "Get in the way," abroad.

I am not a "Conservative" -- I am more of a "mix" -- but I'd like to take a stab at this.

I think it's hypocrisy, plain and simple. We somehow feel that we are more worthy of being "left alone" than the rest of the world is.

We don't mind supporting a "bully"...as long as we are not being bullied ourselves.

And I hardly think that we are alone in this type of thinking. Citizens of other countries would want the same...if their countries were able of providing it.

Robert Fischer

08-27-2013, 03:22 PM

As a citizen it can hard when the propaganda and the "story" doesn't match the limited view of the system that you have pieced together in your head.

Whether or not your 'BS-meter' goes off,
sometimes things "have to be done", and the propaganda is deemed necessary.

My first reaction when I started to see the system a little better, and then would see that the propaganda on various issues would not match the reality, and was sometimes seemingly immoral, was negativity.
I try to just accept it for what it is now, and keep in mind that the general public "needs" the story lines.

Saratoga_Mike

08-27-2013, 03:30 PM

thaskalos

08-27-2013, 03:42 PM

I wholeheartedly agree. I trust politicians to make all my decisions for me. I don't like to think for myself or know too many facts.

Don't worry...the politicians won't disappoint you.

They'll give you as few "facts" as they possibly can... ;)

Saratoga_Mike

08-27-2013, 03:45 PM

Don't worry...the politicians won't disappoint you.

They'll give you as few "facts" as they possibly can... ;)

I don't need any facts. I trust them. They always look out for my best interest.

thaskalos

08-27-2013, 03:50 PM

I don't need any facts. I trust them. They always look out for my best interest.

You seem to have a lot of faith.

Have you ever considered trying the priesthood...? :)

Saratoga_Mike

08-27-2013, 03:53 PM

You seem to have a lot of faith.

Have you ever considered trying the priesthood...? :)

I've never been misled by an elected official.

thaskalos

08-27-2013, 03:54 PM

I've never been misled by an elected official.

Oh...YOU are the one...

JustRalph

08-27-2013, 04:31 PM

Iran now says they will attack Israel if US attacks Syria.

With this stupid admin in office, who knows what the hell they are going to do.

Saratoga_Mike

08-27-2013, 04:35 PM

Iran now says they will attack Israel if US attacks Syria.

With this stupid admin in office, who knows what the hell they are going to do.

As opposed to the highly analytical, thoughtful previous admin? I don't see much difference...very sad.

highnote

08-27-2013, 04:36 PM

Iran now says they will attack Israel if US attacks Syria.

With this stupid admin in office, who knows what the hell they are going to do.

The pols in D.C. have been wanting to attack Iran for years. This could give them the opening they've been looking for.

Robert Fischer

08-27-2013, 04:44 PM

I wholeheartedly agree. I trust politicians to make all my decisions for me. I don't like to think for myself or know too many facts.

i sense a hint of sarcasm ;)

Robert Fischer

08-27-2013, 04:50 PM

As opposed to the highly analytical, thoughtful previous admin? I don't see much difference...very sad.

I don't see much difference either.

If an Alien studied the most important actions of our government, and didn't know anything about how a democracy works, and didn't know that the people voted in a different president/admin, that Alien would assume that the admin is exactly the same.

JustRalph

08-27-2013, 04:51 PM

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” ---Senator Obama, 12-20-2007

Saratoga_Mike

08-27-2013, 04:53 PM

JustRalph

08-27-2013, 05:11 PM

Correction: Candidate Obama.

Is there a point to that?

Saratoga_Mike

08-27-2013, 05:32 PM

Is there a point to that?

Yes, he was naïve and in campaign mode. Granted, he's still in campaign mode, but he's slightly less naïve.

Saratoga_Mike

08-27-2013, 06:18 PM

The pols in D.C. have been wanting to attack Iran for years. This could give them the opening they've been looking for.

Click the video...I don't agree with Clark on a lot, but this video captures your sentiment...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/7-countries-5-years

Robert Fischer

08-27-2013, 06:27 PM

The pols in D.C. have been wanting to attack Iran for years. This could give them the opening they've been looking for.

One of the ways of looking at this, is that Syria is a step towards Iran.

It's hard for me to see the endgame here.
It's easy to hyped up on the internet, and start thinking that it looks like we are either going to aggressively take Syria and Iran, or force a pre-emptive attack from Iran, and that it will all escalate into a world war.
However, like I said, it's hard to see the endgame. Maybe there are other ways that this could end that aren't so disconcerting.

Jeff P

08-27-2013, 07:00 PM

To me, something about this seems off. At least off enough that it makes me stop and me run scenarios through my head...

Is it possible that we the US (as the world's peacekeeper) are being played?

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that some 3rd party with WMD capability did a covert op involving the use of chemical weapons inside of Syria?... And did so with the intent of making it look like Syria did it?... Fully knowing that a "red line" had been crossed?... Hoping that we (as the world's peacekeeper) would then respond by striking at Syria in order to save face?...

Thus providing the excuse they need to strike at Israel?

Now that nations are lining up and taking sides, before we launch any kind of attack in the area, we had better f'king know a few things:

1. That Syria did in fact use WMD on their own people (and not some 3rd party) looking to play us.

2. That Russia and China are both aware of what we are about to do. (And that neither are going to back Syria or Iran once the shit hits the fan.)

We had better know what the outcome is going to be BEFORE we strike.

The thing I see here that makes this very different from our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that other nations seem to be lining up and taking sides. That gives this the look and feel of something that could easily escalate into something much bigger if we act without having our shit together first.

-jp

.

fast4522

08-27-2013, 07:10 PM

I agree with Jeff, I actually had a long post written and aborted it because it made me feel ill. I would add that Jeff's post is somewhat conservative and I would tag it as a minimum of what may be. Perhaps a prayer might be in order, some of us might need the practice anyway.

Clocker

08-27-2013, 07:23 PM

but he's slightly less naïve.

He has done nothing in the last 5 years to show any evidence of that.

How in the hail does he think he can neutralize Assad's chemical weapons without boots on the ground? This sounds like Bill Clinton's attempt to kill bin Laden. Launch a bunch of cruise missiles, hope for a hit, and pat yourself on the back. Except Obama is giving Assad plenty of advanced warning of what is coming.

elysiantraveller

08-27-2013, 07:24 PM

The thing I see here that makes this very different from our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that other nations seem to be lining up and taking sides. That gives this the look and feel of something that could easily escalate into something much bigger if we act without having our shit together first.

Not a bad theory the problem with it though is that with Iraq if the French hadn't promised a security council veto the Russian's were on record as saying they would.

We are witnessing another Proxy War in the making. Iran, Russia, and China have no problem watching the United States having to go to bat again and will continue to support Syria.

We, under this administration, have destabilized the region against us in a almost remarkable way.

Mike at A+

08-27-2013, 07:48 PM

0bama incited all this nonsense. It reminds me of the fireman who secretly starts a fire and then tries to take credit for putting it out. Only I don't think he's capable of putting it out without opening a whole new can of worms that could easily lead to a full scale shit storm. And shouldn't Congress be consulted before King 0bama unilaterally pushes any buttons?

TJDave

08-27-2013, 08:02 PM

We, under this administration, have destabilized the region against us in a almost remarkable way.

Wait a minute. You don't get to say that. You want us to do "the right thing" (which I support, BTW) only when it's in our interest?

When it turns out in our favor?

classhandicapper

08-27-2013, 08:27 PM

Exactly.:ThmbUp:

The Syria situation raises serious moral concerns and most of us loathe the idea of innocents being gassed in chemical warfare.
We get it.
However, if I'm getting beaten on a street, I can hardly expect an anemic senior citizen with a walker to jump into the fray and try and pull off my attackers - especially if he cannot for certain identify who the "bad guys" are.
First and foremost, Syria is a civil war.
In a civil war regimes are expected to defend themselves.
Whether or not they have committed a crime against humanity in defending themselves has to be determined with certainty.
If al-Assad and his generals have committed crimes against humanity, they should be tried in due course at The Hague.
Secondly, this is an Arab middle-east problem.
The Arab states should be showing leadership in whatever interventions are to take place. Certainly a country like Arabia which has a very healthy economy could be suggesting ideas. To date, their role has been somewhat docile.
Thirdly, as this is a civil war, which side is wearing the "white hats" and which side has the "black hats?" Is al-Assad really pulling the strings here for the government or is he a figurehead for his generals. On the other side of the coin, who is funding the rebels?? Ammo costs money. Someone somewhere is fueling them. Who is it?
Without more definitive information one way or another, the U.S., Britain and others, have to be very cautious before committing to any military activity here.

I agree with everything you are saying, but for me it goes beyond that.

Right now very few Americans think we should be getting involved in this and IMO many of those that do feel that way because they are being spun and lied to by powerful interests that don't give a rats ass about the US economy, our safety, or our children. They will find a way to drag us into this like they dragged us into Iraq and Afghanistan before because it serves their agenda to do so. And when they are done there they will continue trying to find a way to drag us into a conflict with Iran too. It all has nothing to do with the interests of the average American. It all runs counter to our interests, but our politicians are bought and paid for and too scared to death to do the right thing.

elysiantraveller

08-27-2013, 09:49 PM

Wait a minute. You don't get to say that. You want us to do "the right thing" (which I support, BTW) only when it's in our interest?

When it turns out in our favor?

Nonsense you can do the "right thing" even when its not in your interest. We are losing the proxy war everywhere under this admin. but we still need to do the right thing.

Where did I say anything about this being in our interest? Other than as American's and what we are supposed to stand for?...

Your word in mouth attempt completely fails here...

Tom

08-27-2013, 11:32 PM

We do not want to follow this idiot into any war anywhere for any reason.

PaceAdvantage

08-27-2013, 11:37 PM

So this is where those Iraqi WMDs went...see, Bush was right all along...

mostpost

08-28-2013, 12:10 AM

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that some 3rd party with WMD capability did a covert op involving the use of chemical weapons inside of Syria?..
Yeah, pretty much. We know where the nerve gas was fired from and we know the Syrian military organization which fired it. It was under the command of Assad's brother. We also know that the delivery system was mortar rounds or artillery shells. So unless your mythical third party has artillery in Syria and has access to chemical weapons, I would say your scenario is highly unlikely.

badcompany

08-28-2013, 12:18 AM

mostpost

08-28-2013, 12:23 AM

He has done nothing in the last 5 years to show any evidence of that.

How in the hail does he think he can neutralize Assad's chemical weapons without boots on the ground? This sounds like Bill Clinton's attempt to kill bin Laden. Launch a bunch of cruise missiles, hope for a hit, and pat yourself on the back. Except Obama is giving Assad plenty of advanced warning of what is coming.
Who says he is planning to neutralize the chemical weapons themselves? There are other ways to punish the Assad regime. Destroying the Syrian Air Force would be one. That could be done with the use of air power in conjunction with out allies. They are supporting us in this one, you know.

We could target other bases and military installations. We could target Assad's homes and the places he works.

I do not know the effect of bombing the places where the chemical weapons are stored. It may be that such an action would disperse them into the atmosphere. Not something we would want to do.

mostpost

08-28-2013, 12:31 AM

A radio talk show host, here, said that, in a poll, 9% of Americans believed going into Syria was a good idea.

He then quipped that there was finally something that had a lower approval rating than Congress.
You need to define "going into Syria." If you mean sending ground troops, that is a terrible idea. If you mean some kind of measured air and sea response, it may be necessary.

badcompany

08-28-2013, 01:05 AM

You need to define "going into Syria." If you mean sending ground troops, that is a terrible idea. If you mean some kind of measured air and sea response, it may be necessary.

And when that turns out to not be enough?

mostpost

08-28-2013, 01:20 AM

And when that turns out to not be enough?
IF we do anything, we need to be laser focused. No support for the rebels (beyond what we are providing now). Total concentration on punishing the Assad regime for disobeying international law by using chemical weapons. And the absolute understanding that not a single American troop sets foot on Syrian soil.

This is what we did in Kosovo when Clinton was President. Not a single American troop set foot on Syrian soil. I mean Kosovan soil or any of those Balkan countries. Yet we achieved all of our goals.

plainolebill

08-28-2013, 01:46 AM

Interview with London Times columnist (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/newsmakers/fears-larger-war-middle-east-180559605.html?vp=1)

Clocker

08-28-2013, 01:58 AM

Who says he is planning to neutralize the chemical weapons themselves? There are other ways to punish the Assad regime. Destroying the Syrian Air Force would be one.

So Obama is planning to punish Assad, but not to do anything about the WMDs that he has. Good idea. I am sure that if we shoot up his air force, he will learn his lesson and never use them again.

That could be done with the use of air power in conjunction with out allies. They are supporting us in this one, you know.

No, I didn't know that our allies support this punishment while not doing anything about the WMDs. You might share that with the media. They don't seem to know it either.

johnhannibalsmith

08-28-2013, 02:16 AM

IF we do anything...

The lines are few at this point and reading between those that exist make it hard to imagine that we won't be doing something in about 36 hours. The debate has almost overnight shifted from whether we should go to whether we will do something meaningful or if we will put on a non-committal show that by design will not produce any serious political fallout before the next wave of elections.

TJDave

08-28-2013, 02:56 AM

Clocker

08-28-2013, 03:05 AM

TJDave

08-28-2013, 03:18 AM

The president does not have legal authority to take action at this point without the consent of Congress. Under the War Powers Resolution, the president can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The President gets to notify Congress after the fact and has 60-90 days without approval or declaration of war. It's a BS resolution. Both sides know it. There's not much Congress can or would do about it anyways. Prior administrations have ridden roughshod over it.

ArlJim78

08-28-2013, 03:44 AM

a good summation below on the folly of the whole "limited surgical bombing" approach. Where are the other proposals which were considered and discarded?
I defy anyone to show me a coherent rationale for how a limited bombing campaign will result in a positive outcome. Funny how recently Assad gained the upper hand in the dispute, and then out of nowhere decided that it was time to start crossing the "red line" and gas his own citizens? are people really buying into that fiction?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before You Conclude That 'Precision' Bombing Makes Sense With Syria ... (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/before-you-conclude-that-precision-bombing-makes-sense-with-syria/279086/)

* Coercive diplomacy assumes that carefully calibrated doses of punishment will persuade any adversary, whether an individual terrorist or a national government, to act in a way that we would define as acceptable.
* Limited precision bombardment assumes we can administer those doses precisely on selected “high-value” targets using guided weapons, fired from a safe distance, with no friendly casualties, and little unintended damage.

This marriage of pop psychology and bombing lionizes war on the cheap, and it increases our country’s addiction to strategically counterproductive drive-by shootings with cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs.

Clocker

08-28-2013, 09:51 AM

The President gets to notify Congress after the fact and has 60-90 days without approval or declaration of war.

I couldn't find that part in the Constitution. What I found in Article 1, Section 8, which lists the powers of Congress, is this:

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

highnote

08-28-2013, 10:33 AM

CNN report

Graphic video warning

http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/world/2013/08/23/pkg-pleitgen-syria-chemical-attack.cnn&hpt=hp_t2

The question is, was it the Assad regime that fired off the chemical weapons? Was it a third party who fired off the chemical weapons and is blaming Assad? Were the deaths staged?

Just because something is on video doesn't mean it is what they say it is.

If Assad knew the red line was the use of chemical weapons why would he use chemical weapons 15 blocks from where the UN inspectors were staying? asks Pepe Escobar in a post on the Asia Times website yesterday.

U.S. classified white phosphorous as a chemical weapon, but used it widely in Vietnam and also in the assault on Fallujah. Many countries have used white phosphorous in war -- not just the U.S. Point is, it is kind of hypocritical to blame Assad for the use of chemical weapons when 1.) it isn't clear that he actually used them and 2.) the U.S. and other countries use them.

So to use chemical weapons as an excuse for the U.S. to go to war in Syria needs to be examined closely.

Side story... Saudi's tried to cut a deal with Russia regarding Syria. Putin said no.

Lots of positioning going on.

Clocker

08-28-2013, 10:39 AM

In a Boston Globe Q&A session, Senator Obama said:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

Source (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/)

JustRalph

08-28-2013, 12:41 PM

Since when do you punish a regime for using WMD's?

If you have the means you end it.

Anything less is hypocrisy.

Yep.............but that's an Obama specialty.

We could shut down Assad with Air assets. It could be done. If we have the will.

Israel and American Air Forces train for this scenario. They will have a plan. It takes balls to do it though. I don't worry about Netanyahu but Obama may back out in an untimely manner

Being a Nobel Peace prize winner, do we trust him? :lol:

Marshall Bennett

08-28-2013, 01:10 PM

Being a Nobel Peace prize winner, do we trust him? :lol:
You have a point there. :cool:

Saratoga_Mike

08-28-2013, 01:18 PM

Yep.............but that's an Obama specialty.

We could shut down Assad with Air assets. It could be done. If we have the will.

Israel and American Air Forces train for this scenario. They will have a plan. It takes balls to do it though. I don't worry about Netanyahu but Obama may back out in an untimely manner

Being a Nobel Peace prize winner, do we trust him? :lol:

Doesn't this tilt the game toward the insurgent forces, many of whom are very sympathetic to Al Q? No easy answer --- besides heeding the words of Ronald Reagan and staying out of the Middle East.

ArlJim78

08-28-2013, 01:36 PM

apparently one of the main objectives of this mission is to not be mocked.

One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on
Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just
muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a
response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-obama-dilemma-20130828,4290748,7039944.story

Clocker

08-28-2013, 02:00 PM

Tom

08-28-2013, 02:45 PM

Is there any response acceptable shy of targeting and killing the man who used WMD on his own people? If we are willing to do that, stay out of it.
Especially when Obama spent 6 months dancing a jig when we got Bin Laden.
This ain't Chicago and we ain't organizing hoods.
This is the big leagues - when people use WMD you kill them. End of of story.
I warned not to follow this into a war - we haven't even started yet and the game plan has been leaked.

Walk away.
Now.
We elected this idiot - time to pay the piper.

highnote

08-28-2013, 03:05 PM

when people use WMD you kill them.

First, it isn't known for certain who used the chemical weapons and second it isn't known for certain chemical weapons were used.

Just because their use has been reported doesn't meant those reports are true.

Second, assuming chemical weapons are WMDs, and people who use WMDs should be killed, how do you reconcile this with the fact that the U.S. reportedly used chemical weapons in Fallujah and Vietnam and Israel reportedly used them over Gaza, etc. etc. etc. You kill everybody who used them and no one will be left.

Maybe that is the purpose of nuclear Armageddon? That will solve the problem once and for all.

JustRalph

08-28-2013, 03:24 PM

First, it isn't known for certain who used the chemical weapons and second it isn't known for certain chemical weapons were used.

so, you are calling John Kerry a liar............

FantasticDan

08-28-2013, 03:34 PM

First, it isn't known for certain who used the chemical weapons and second it isn't known for certain chemical weapons were used.
Just because their use has been reported doesn't meant those reports are true.
And the 3600 patients with neuro-toxic symptoms that suddenly bombarded Damascus hospitals on 8/21 all had, what, food poisoning? :ThmbDown:

Saratoga_Mike

08-28-2013, 03:34 PM

Is there any response acceptable shy of targeting and killing the man who used WMD on his own people?.

If 100,000 people are killed by conventional means (guns, bombs, drones), NO action is taken? But 1,000 people are killed by chemical weapons and action is taken? Seems off.

highnote

08-28-2013, 03:37 PM

so, you are calling John Kerry a liar............

I dont know what kerry said. Maybe he is misinformed? Maybe he doesnt know what he doesnt know?

Saratoga_Mike

08-28-2013, 03:39 PM

I dont know what kerry said. Maybe he is misinformed? Maybe he doesnt know what he doesnt know?

Your skepticism is obviously warranted - surprised more don't share it

Tom

08-28-2013, 03:44 PM

And the 3600 patients with neuro-toxic symptoms that suddenly bombarded Damascus hospitals on 8/21 all had, what, food poisoning? :ThmbDown:

Bad Gefilte?

JustRalph

08-28-2013, 03:52 PM

If 100,000 people are killed by conventional means (guns, bombs, drones), NO action is taken? But 1,000 people are killed by chemical weapons and action is taken? Seems off.

Then you don't understand the difference in Chem weapons. ever heard the term "Mass Destruction" or WMD ?

It's a whole different animal. And it crosses a threshold that borders on insanity and complete indifference to the suffering of your enemy. There is a treaty against using these weapons......... for a reason.

highnote

08-28-2013, 04:04 PM

And the 3600 patients with neuro-toxic symptoms that suddenly bombarded Damascus hospitals on 8/21 all had, what, food poisoning? :ThmbDown:

So how do you know this is true? It might be, but how do you know?

Saratoga_Mike

08-28-2013, 04:05 PM

Then you don't understand the difference in Chem weapons. ever heard the term "Mass Destruction" or WMD ?

It's a whole different animal. And it crosses a threshold that borders on insanity and complete indifference to the suffering of your enemy. There is a treaty against using these weapons......... for a reason.

I won't respond with condescension and say you don't understand proportionality (100k people dead vs 1k).

TJDave

08-28-2013, 04:05 PM

And the 3600 patients with neuro-toxic symptoms that suddenly bombarded Damascus hospitals on 8/21 all had, what, food poisoning? :ThmbDown:

That chemical weapons were used is a given. Which side used them is still unclear. If it turned out that the rebels were at fault would we punish them? ;)

highnote

08-28-2013, 04:06 PM

Then you don't understand the difference in Chem weapons. ever heard the term "Mass Destruction" or WMD ?

It's a whole different animal. And it crosses a threshold that borders on insanity and complete indifference to the suffering of your enemy. There is a treaty against using these weapons......... for a reason.

But it is OK for the U.S. to use chem weapons in Vietnam and Fallujah or Israel over Gaza or for all the other countries to use them but are too numerous to name here, but when Assad ALLEGEDLY uses them the U.S. is supposed to go to war?

Saratoga_Mike

08-28-2013, 04:06 PM

So how do you know this is true? It might be, but how do you know?

I don't doubt some sort of chemical was used, but how the hell do we know the source?

Saratoga_Mike

08-28-2013, 04:08 PM

But it is OK for the U.S. to use chem weapons in Vietnam and Fallujah or Israel over Gaza or for all the other countries to use them but are too numerous to name here, but when Assad ALLEGEDLY uses them the U.S. is supposed to go to war?

Go to war and perhaps install insurgents who are highly sympathetic to Al Q. Makes total sense.

highnote

08-28-2013, 04:09 PM

Here is why there is reason to be skeptical of Assad using chemical weapons:

The one thing that could defeat him [Assad] is foreign intervention, particularly by the United States. It was therefore assumed he wouldn't do the one thing Obama said would trigger U.S. action.

Read more: Obama's Bluff | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

highnote

08-28-2013, 04:10 PM

That chemical weapons were used is a given. Which side used them is still unclear. If it turned out that the rebels were at fault would we punish them? ;)

Again -- how do you know they were used? Has anyone reputable seen those 3600 people with chemical burns or neuro-toxic symptoms?

Saratoga_Mike

08-28-2013, 04:12 PM

Again -- how do you know they were used? Has anyone reputable seen those 3600 people with chemical burns?

I don't know about the 3,600 number, but there's news footage and independent groups that have confirmed some sort of chemical was used. I don't even think Assad is denying that, at this point. But who was behind it?

highnote

08-28-2013, 04:14 PM

I don't know about the 3,600 number, but there's news footage and independent groups that have confirmed some sort of chemical was used. I don't even think Assad is denying that, at this point. But who was behind it?

Or was it staged?

Not saying it was, but how do you verify the tape is authentic -- or that the tape was even shot in Syria this week? Maybe it's an old tape?

Saratoga_Mike

08-28-2013, 04:17 PM

Or was it staged?

Not saying it was, but how do you verify the tape is authentic -- or that the tape was even shot in Syria this week? Maybe it's an old tape?

How do you know we really put a man on the moon? At some point, you accept basic facts from news organizations, especially when they aren't disputed by either side. Is Assad stating chemicals weren't used OR he wasn't the one using them? I believe the latter.

JustRalph

08-28-2013, 04:29 PM

John Kerry having dinner with Assad? This photo going around twitter

Saratoga_Mike

08-28-2013, 04:31 PM

Is there a point to the Kerry picture?

How about a picture of Don Rumsfeld with Saddam Hussein?

TJDave

08-28-2013, 04:48 PM

How do you know we really put a man on the moon?

Because we left stuff there. Even footprints. ;)

JustRalph

08-28-2013, 05:15 PM

Is there a point to the Kerry picture?

How about a picture of Don Rumsfeld with Saddam Hussein?

I thought it interesting..... Kerry obviously has the ability to make a phone call to this guy, huh? If you can arrange for dinner with him.......

It would be quite the coup and feather in Kerry's hat if he could bring this whole thing to an end peacefully............ here's some comment from a Blaze article on this dinner..........

Kerry has met with Assad on numerous occasions and once lauded Assad in 2011 as being a “very generous” man, according to the Weekly Standard.

“Well, I personally believe that — I mean, this is my belief, okay?” Kerry said. “But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to — the last several trips to Syria — I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward.”

Kerry's comments from a few days ago:

Kerry, speaking to reporters at the State Department, said last week's attack "should shock the conscience" of the world.

"The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and - despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured - it is undeniable," said Kerry, the highest-ranking U.S. official to confirm the attack in the Damascus suburbs that activists say killed hundreds of people.

"This international norm cannot be violated without consequences," he added.

JustRalph

08-28-2013, 05:16 PM

Because we left stuff there. Even footprints. ;)

http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2012/07/28/can-you-see-the-american-flag-on-the-moon-yes/

see the pic's here

Saratoga_Mike

08-28-2013, 05:20 PM

I thought it interesting..... Kerry obviously has the ability to make a phone call to this guy, huh? If you can arrange for dinner with him.......

It would be quite the coup and feather in Kerry's hat if he could bring this whole thing to an end peacefully.

I read something into your posting of the pic that didn't exist. I agree with your sentiment here, but I think we both know it isn't likely.

JustRalph

08-28-2013, 05:26 PM

I read something into your posting of the pic that didn't exist. I agree with your sentiment here, but I think we both know it isn't likely.

you're right.........if it was, it would have probably happen last week.

highnote

08-28-2013, 07:02 PM

Kerry's comments from a few days ago:

Kerry, speaking to reporters at the State Department, said last week's attack "should shock the conscience" of the world.

"The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and - despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured - it is undeniable," said Kerry, the highest-ranking U.S. official to confirm the attack in the Damascus suburbs that activists say killed hundreds of people.

"This international norm cannot be violated without consequences," he added.

Kerry doesn't say who used the weapons.

elysiantraveller

08-28-2013, 07:03 PM

If 100,000 people are killed by conventional means (guns, bombs, drones), NO action is taken? But 1,000 people are killed by chemical weapons and action is taken? Seems off.

I agree that your logic is hard to argue with but my problem with the use of WMD's is that they are an indiscriminate genocidal weapon. I believe one responsibility we, as a nation have, is to prevent those type of actions. Machete's, not WMD's, were used in Rwanda and I still feel its a black eye on our nation, and the world, when we could have put an end to it very quickly...

We simply see things differently.

badcompany

08-28-2013, 08:47 PM

I agree that your logic is hard to argue with but my problem with the use of WMD's is that they are an indiscriminate genocidal weapon. I believe one responsibility we, as a nation have, is to prevent those type of actions. Machete's, not WMD's, were used in Rwanda and I still feel its a black eye on our nation, and the world, when we could have put an end to it very quickly...

We simply see things differently.

While I can respect your moral argument, if this escalates to another trillion dollar tab, would you support a War Tax?

Isn't paying for these wars and not sticking the next generation with the bill "Doing the right thing"?

Robert Fischer

08-28-2013, 08:51 PM

Yea, some of these weapons (WMDs) are so powerful that they deserve special notoriety.
Then again a lot of so-called 'conventional' weapons are horrible. In the end it's hard to really be too logical for these kind of debates. Human life is considered worthless and expendable at best (and an overpopulated pest at worst), and war is horrible, and we've gotten better at killing, at targeting civilians, at everything that is to hate about war. Not that past battles from various stages of human technology should be glorified, but now we've basically perfected the art of controlled genocide(even with so-called 'conventional weaponry).

Robert Fischer

08-28-2013, 09:10 PM

Some of the propaganda is unsettling, for example this work of fiction about the beginning of the rebels in Syria:
2. How did the civil war begin?

It all started in February 2011 in the city of Daraa, when authorities arrested 15 schoolchildren for painting anti-government graffiti on the walls of a school. The children didn't mince words with the message they painted: "The people want to topple the regime."

Word spread that the children were allegedly mistreated while in custody. Outrage over their arrest grew, fueling protests.

Security forces opened fire, activists say, killing at least four protesters.

These four, activists say, were the first deaths in Syria's civil war.

Within days, according to Human Rights Watch, protests grew into massive rallies made up of thousands.

Their rallying cry: "Daraa!" the city whose children sparked a national movement.

It's obvious that the rebels were a 'destabilization effort' which we along with allies trained, funded, armed, broadcast with media, etc.. etc...

But it's almost sad reading some kind of manipulative fiction that involves school kids.

Truth is something we use so little, it makes it hard to believe what you want to believe. I want to believe that Syria used the chemical weapons. And I do believe it.

I stand by the USA and our Allies 100%. I stand by their official government and media story on the chemical weapons 100%.

I understand that the killing is necessary, and that we have to do everything we can, and that includes broadcasting our own truth and fully utilizing the mass media.

I do not like politics. It's hard for me to deal with.

elysiantraveller

08-28-2013, 10:45 PM

While I can respect your moral argument, if this escalates to another trillion dollar tab, would you support a War Tax?

Isn't paying for these wars and not sticking the next generation with the bill "Doing the right thing"?

I am the next generation, especially on this board, and would help foot the bill...

I know I'm in the minority but beyond being a realist in foreign policy I'm also a human.

Unlike Libya, which was a walkover the second our planes showed up, this one requires some investment. I'm willing to invest to know some 6 year old kid isn't going to go into seizures in a playground and then die...

highnote

08-28-2013, 11:10 PM

Bring back the draft and then see how popular war with Syria is.

Are you willing to invest your life or just your tax dollars? The U.S. pays mercenaries.

I am the next generation, especially on this board, and would help foot the bill...

I know I'm in the minority but beyond being a realist in foreign policy I'm also a human.

Unlike Libya, which was a walkover the second our planes showed up, this one requires some investment. I'm willing to invest to know some 6 year old kid isn't going to go into seizures in a playground and then die...

fast4522

08-29-2013, 06:07 AM

If this thing blows up and goes global, he will get real quiet fast.
I think Sammy The Sage is correct, the die is cast on this one to happen.

ArlJim78

08-29-2013, 06:56 AM

I am the next generation, especially on this board, and would help foot the bill...

I know I'm in the minority but beyond being a realist in foreign policy I'm also a human.

Unlike Libya, which was a walkover the second our planes showed up, this one requires some investment. I'm willing to invest to know some 6 year old kid isn't going to go into seizures in a playground and then die...
you're no realist if you believe we can prevent that no matter what the investment. more like a sheep being led by the nose by interventionists who claim to be acting on behalf "of the children". the evidence regarding the chemical attack points to it coming from the rebel side, with Saudi and al Qaeda help. any attack from us is in support of these people. this is what we do to help children, support al-Qaeda?

after spending nearly a trillion in Iraq to this day they are still strapping bombs to women and children.
children in Chicago are in more danger than Syria. they are now calling for drones to protect school children in Chicago as they walk through the designated "safe passage" routes to school.
we need to mind our own business and take care of our own problems and work on these problems in other ways.

this abhorrent chemical attack happened because WE (Obama) publically stated that this was our Red line, our line in the sand so to speak. that declaration made it certain that CW would be used.

jerry-g

08-29-2013, 07:13 AM

Now that we have loaded missile war ships heading for close range to
Syria, the "leader of the free world" now says he hasn't made up his
mind yet. C'mon, you don't pull a gun on someone and tell them you
can't decide to use it yet. Our military personnel will be sitting out
there in those waters with their hands tied waiting to see if he can
make up his mind or not. In the meantime, they will be in harms way
and subject to attack since the enemy may figure he won't be able
to decide.

Saratoga_Mike

08-29-2013, 09:58 AM

I agree that your logic is hard to argue with but my problem with the use of WMD's is that they are an indiscriminate genocidal weapon. I believe one responsibility we, as a nation have, is to prevent those type of actions. Machete's, not WMD's, were used in Rwanda and I still feel its a black eye on our nation, and the world, when we could have put an end to it very quickly...

We simply see things differently.

Your approach to the Middle East has been in place for the past 50 years. It has failed. Time for a change.

highnote

08-29-2013, 12:11 PM

this abhorrent chemical attack happened because WE (Obama) publically stated that this was our Red line, our line in the sand so to speak. that declaration made it certain that CW would be used.

Obama should know that you never make this kind of a threat unless you are prepared to back it up. What he didn't anticipate is that someone other than Assad might unleash the CWs. Now what to do? Go after the rebels whom the U.S. supposedly supports? How about killing Assad and his backers and the rebels, too? This way you kill everyone in Syria. Now there's a solution. :rolleyes:

johnhannibalsmith

08-29-2013, 12:24 PM

... Go after the rebels whom the U.S. supposedly supports? How about killing Assad and his backers and the rebels, too? This way you kill everyone in Syria. Now there's a solution. :rolleyes:

I actually liked the blunt commentary from Ralph Peters that echoed this concept. He was trying to argue with esteemed military strategist William O'Reilly one night recently by clarifying that killing any civilian in any capacity was an affront to the same standing resolutions that chemical warfare falls under. His gist was that you have a piece of shit like Assad and his minions fighting a group of wackadoos comprised at least partially of the same idiots that we are killing elsewhere in the world...

And the problem is?

Arm them both and let them get the job done for us even faster. Bad guys killing bad guys and we want to get in the middle of that wet dream?

I'm not endorsing that attitude or even strategy, but it was amusing and somewhat refreshing to hear enunciated so directly.

highnote

08-29-2013, 12:39 PM

Of all the middle eastern leaders, Jesus, probably had the best solutions.

Problem is, no one wants to take his advice.

Saratoga_Mike

08-29-2013, 01:26 PM

I actually liked the blunt commentary from Ralph Peters that echoed this concept. He was trying to argue with esteemed military strategist William O'Reilly one night recently by clarifying that killing any civilian in any capacity was an affront to the same standing resolutions that chemical warfare falls under. His gist was that you have a piece of shit like Assad and his minions fighting a group of wackadoos comprised at least partially of the same idiots that we are killing elsewhere in the world...

.

I'm sure General O'Reilly provided Solomon-like advice on the matter

highnote

08-29-2013, 01:27 PM

johnhannibalsmith

08-29-2013, 01:38 PM

I'm sure General O'Reilly provided Solomon-like advice on the matter

It was pretty classic. There's nothing better than watching the self-proclaimed "simple man" lecture experts on every subject he's ever considered even if for a mere moment. He had two former military, both respected enough for their opinions to routinely be called upon for their opinions in the media, and he spent the bulk of the time (as usual) telling them everything that was wrong with their perspectives in his usual condescending "know-it-all" way. It was O'Reilly at his absolute best doing a stereotype of himself.

elysiantraveller

08-29-2013, 01:39 PM

Are you willing to invest your life or just your tax dollars.

Yes.

Saratoga_Mike

08-29-2013, 01:45 PM

It was pretty classic. There's nothing better than watching the self-proclaimed "simple man" lecture experts on every subject he's ever considered even if for a mere moment. He had two former military, both respected enough for their opinions to routinely be called upon for their opinions in the media, and he spent the bulk of the time (as usual) telling them everything that was wrong with their perspectives in his usual condescending "know-it-all" way. It was O'Reilly at his absolute best doing a stereotype of himself.

Who interrupts guests more - Bill O or Chris Matthews?

Saratoga_Mike

08-29-2013, 01:47 PM

Yes.

The strongest rebel groups are Al Q-sympathizers; I haven't heard anyone dispute this. Why would you be willing to give your life to potentially install such a group? Again, we have no business in Syria.

johnhannibalsmith

08-29-2013, 02:01 PM

Who interrupts guests more - Bill O or Chris Matthews?

Hard to say, but at least Billo doesn't sound like he got kicked in the nuts whenever he gets into rapid interruption mode. Both men are hard to watch if you are hoping to hear from the guests.

HUSKER55

08-29-2013, 02:29 PM

THAT is precisely why I "TURN THE KNOB"

Tom

08-29-2013, 03:30 PM

Who interrupts guests more - Bill O or Chris Matthews?

Cavuto.

Saratoga_Mike

08-29-2013, 03:38 PM

Cavuto.

So they do exist - a FoxBusiness viewer!

highnote

08-29-2013, 04:14 PM

For those of you who know Dr. Z from horse racing; here is an interview his daughter gave to CNN (today?) about how Syria is affecting the global markets:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/business/2013/08/28/syria-chemical-crisis-global-markets-ziemba-intv.cnn.html

Roubini Associate thinks the most likely scenario is an escalation into a regional conflict.

Seems like it will get worse before it gets better.

Saratoga_Mike

08-29-2013, 06:22 PM

...at least there's some sanity in the British Parliament - of course Congress won't be given the same opportunity

JustRalph

08-29-2013, 06:28 PM

Well, so much for a surprise attack

Tom

08-29-2013, 08:33 PM

So they do exist - a FoxBusiness viewer!

No, 4:00 drive home on non-racing days (Ubercapper can't work every day!) ;)

highnote

08-30-2013, 12:30 AM

The Carter Doctrine is why the US will go into Syria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

The US will use military force to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The US also intends to deter Russia from gaining a foothold in the region.

Who is backing Assad? The Russians.

Petroleum is of major importance to the US military. No way US allows Syria to spiral out of control.

The US wants to maintain stability and balance of power in the middle east so that oil flows uninterrupted.

If someone says this isn't about oil they're either ignorant or lying. Its about the oil and its importance to the US national interests.

badcompany

08-30-2013, 10:18 AM

That could be done with the use of air power in conjunction with out allies. They are supporting us in this one, you know.
.

Actually, I don't know.

UK parliament votes against military action in Syria
The Associated Press 08/29/13 5:55 PM ET

British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes Thursday, a stunning defeat for a government which had been poised to join the U.S. in strikes to punish Bashar Assad's regime for an alleged chemical weapons attack this month.

Saratoga_Mike

08-30-2013, 10:35 AM

1) The Carter Doctrine is why the US will go into Syria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

The US will use military force to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The US also intends to deter Russia from gaining a foothold in the region.

Who is backing Assad? The Russians.

Petroleum is of major importance to the US military. 2) No way US allows Syria to spiral out of control.
The US wants to maintain stability and balance of power in the middle east so that oil flows uninterrupted.

If someone says this isn't about oil they're either ignorant or lying. Its about the oil and its importance to the US national interests.

1) If you listened to Obama in his PBS interview a few nights ago (you may have), it sounded like he was citing the Bush Doctrine (of preemption). PRESIDENT Obama is very different from CANDIDATE Obama.

2) "Allows" implies we can control the situation. Doubtful, imo

Saratoga_Mike

08-30-2013, 10:42 AM

Who says he is planning to neutralize the chemical weapons themselves? There are other ways to punish the Assad regime. Destroying the Syrian Air Force would be one. That could be done with the use of air power in conjunction with out allies. They are supporting us in this one, you know.
.

Classic Most - you assumed Obama could bring our allies on board. The MPs in the UK are too smart to get involved in this mess. What happened to your great leader's power of persuasion? Sounds like you now support the Bush Doctrine -- I know, I know, it's different when it's implemented by someone as thoughtful and smart as Obama.

Tom

08-30-2013, 10:44 AM

With the Russian fleet in the area, we now fond ourselves in a serious situation.
A POTUS who shoots off his mouth and then doesn't back it up is dangerous for Americans all over the world. Benghazi, Part II. And if he does, how much leash will Russia give him?

And if regime change is not the mission, why are we talking about it?

The Skipper has fallen overboard, Gilligan is at the helm.
We do not want to follow this idiot into any war, anywhere, anytime.

Saratoga_Mike

08-30-2013, 10:45 AM

Tom

08-30-2013, 10:48 AM

I have vivid memories of the Cuban Missile crisis.
I was young, and it scared the hell out me that all the grown ups were worried.
we came perilously close back then.

I shudder at the thought of Obama in that situation.

Tom

08-31-2013, 10:05 AM

Breaking news!
Obama has decided on an appropriate response to Syria using WMD on its own people.....if he ever visits the White House, he will absolutely refuse to bow to Assad! And Assad will have to leave by the back door.

That should silence his critics.

Good to know we have a real leader on top of this.

Greyfox

08-31-2013, 11:22 AM

And if regime change is not the mission, why are we talking about it?

Exactly! :ThmbUp:

ArlJim78

08-31-2013, 12:33 PM

Saratoga_Mike

08-31-2013, 02:03 PM

the "mission" now defined as limited and narrow in focus, is all about Obama's ego and him not wanting to be mocked.

Five years of Obama and Vladimir Putin emerges as the sensible voice of reason amongst world leaders.

After reviewing polling results, President Obama has decided to seek Congressional approval before he authorizes military action against Syria. I'm hopeful Congress will not approve military action.

For those who support action against Syria, what's the military objective? It isn't to overthrow the Assad regime, according to Obama.

JustRalph

08-31-2013, 02:24 PM

After reviewing polling results, President Obama has decided to seek Congressional approval before he authorizes military action against Syria. I'm hopeful Congress will not approve military action.

For those who support action against Syria, what's the military objective? It isn't to overthrow the Assad regime, according to Obama.

Ten days ago it might have made a difference ........not anymore. .......

johnhannibalsmith

08-31-2013, 02:41 PM

Wow. What a difference a day makes. This is like a television show... plot twists almost for the sake of having plot twists.

Clocker

08-31-2013, 02:43 PM

News flash!!! Obama votes "Present" on Syria, passes the buck to Congress.

Congress is in recess. When they come back in a few weeks, they immediately have to deal with a possible government shutdown due to the lack of a budget and with yet another debt ceiling crisis. And no doubt the Republicans will be stirring up some more "phony scandals" to take Washington's eye off the ball. So Obama is in fact just ignoring Syria until it either gets a lot worse or it goes away or a bigger crisis comes up.

ArlJim78

08-31-2013, 03:19 PM

tweet from NBC 15 minutes ago "From the pool: Obama and Biden are now playing golf"

fast4522

08-31-2013, 03:45 PM

After reviewing polling results, President Obama has decided to seek Congressional approval before he authorizes military action against Syria. I'm hopeful Congress will not approve military action.

For those who support action against Syria, what's the military objective? It isn't to overthrow the Assad regime, according to Obama.

The United States Congress is not quite that stupid to endanger its best friend in the region, Israel.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/31/amateur-hour-krauthammer-slams-obamas-sudden-decision-to-delay-syria-strike-video/

elysiantraveller

08-31-2013, 03:49 PM

The absolute worst leader we have ever had in that office.

Tom

08-31-2013, 04:34 PM

A leader who consults polls in time of war......fascinating!
Obama belongs on the links - it is the ONLY place he has any BALLS.

fast4522

08-31-2013, 04:55 PM

Now take it easy on him Tom, that one you could have saved for later.

FantasticDan

08-31-2013, 05:02 PM

The circle jerks wrists are getting sore! :lol: Obama sucks for acting rashly! Obama sucks for not going to congress! Obama sucks for taking too long! Obama sucks for going to congress!

Classic. :cool:

fast4522

08-31-2013, 05:07 PM

Tell you the truth, I heard that rumor.

Saratoga_Mike

08-31-2013, 06:53 PM

Saratoga_Mike

08-31-2013, 06:57 PM

The United States Congress is not quite that stupid to endanger its best friend in the region, Israel.

]

I take it you support a strike against Syria? What's the military objective? Do you support dislodging Assad from power? If so, we'll most likely end up with a much more radical (and hostile toward Israel) regime. To paraphrase Ryan Crocker (former ambassador to Syria) in yesterday's Financial Times, we know very little about Syria and that type of ignorance can be very dangerous.

Saratoga_Mike

08-31-2013, 06:59 PM

johnhannibalsmith

08-31-2013, 07:14 PM

No, your knee-jerk defense of all-things Obama is nauseating.

I thought he did a pretty good job of illustrating why the criticism is warranted. He can't seem to be decisive and stick with an opinion for more than a day or two tops. As much as I loathed Romney, I never understood at all how camp Obama got away with using the phrase "flip-flop" to describe their opponent. Just when a guy finally thinks he has some idea what Obama is thinking, he disagrees with himself.

Saratoga_Mike

08-31-2013, 07:18 PM

elysiantraveller

08-31-2013, 07:25 PM

I thought he did a pretty good job of illustrating why the criticism is warranted. He can't seem to be decisive and stick with an opinion for more than a day or two tops. As much as I loathed Romney, I never understood at all how camp Obama got away with using the phrase "flip-flop" to describe their opponent. Just when a guy finally thinks he has some idea what Obama is thinking, he disagrees with himself.

:ThmbUp:

FD is right some on here will hate him no matter what he decides to do. I'm not... I'm simply attacking his leadership which @#$%ing sucks.

Regardless of what your opinion is in the matter here is what has happened.

1) Drew a "red line."
2) Ignored said "red line."
3) Another attack can't ignore "red line."
4) Sends out Kerry (who should be pissed about this whole thing BTW) and other administration officials to beat the war drums.
5) Hang's allies out to dry in foreign country's while still beating war drums.
6) Loses as do as his allies... checks polls...
7) Today holds a press conference saying "this is what I want to do but, even though I am completely within my right to act, I'm going to punt the REAL decision to congress in 10 days..."

Pure leadership... :faint:

Accountability ----> Deferred :lol:

fast4522

08-31-2013, 07:27 PM

I take it you support a strike against Syria? What's the military objective? Do you support dislodging Assad from power? If so, we'll most likely end up with a much more radical (and hostile toward Israel) regime. To paraphrase Ryan Crocker (former ambassador to Syria) in yesterday's Financial Times, we know very little about Syria and that type of ignorance can be very dangerous.

Saratoga_Mike,

Still don't have you figured, so I will let you read me.

I find this administration inept, and would prefer just about anyone else making decisions of war. This is a powder keg ready to go off, and it is Iran's best chance to redraw lines and draw these United States in. What I did like about the Bush administrations was that they knew how to keep those heathens screwed to the wall. This guy the odds are that everyone gets screwed but the Muslim Brotherhood, who has had US support.

johnhannibalsmith

08-31-2013, 07:32 PM

:ThmbUp:

FD is right some on here will hate him no matter what he decides to do. I'm not... I'm simply attacking his leadership which @#$%ing sucks.

...

Agreed.

You and I are on totally opposite ends on the meat and potatoes of this one as we both know. I'd just assume we didn't go near the place, but if we do and are going to continually engage in these "kinetic military actions", I would prefer that someone started thinking about looking to Congress from time to time. So ultimately, I like the idea here. Unfortunately, as you outlined with your timeline of our national policy towards Syria, at this point, it means nothing to me because the last half-dozen proclamations meant nothing. Mr. Prez, just make a decision and stick with it. I may disagree, but at least I'll have a shred of respect for the fact that you made a big boy decision and stuck with it.

Saratoga_Mike

08-31-2013, 07:36 PM

Saratoga_Mike,

Still don't have you figured, so I will let you read me.

I find this administration inept, and would prefer just about anyone else making decisions of war. This is a powder keg ready to go off, and it is Iran's best chance to redraw lines and draw these United States in. What I did like about the Bush administrations was that they knew how to keep those heathens screwed to the wall. This guy the odds are that everyone gets screwed but the Muslim Brotherhood, who has had US support.

I'm easy to figure out - I oppose the use of our armed forces when there is NO military objective. Moreover, I oppose neo-Wilsonian interventionism. I opposed it under Bush, and I oppose it under Obama. I consider Calvin Coolidge a model president.

Now, realizing Obama is president, do you support military action against Syria or not? If so, what's the military objective?

I'm opposed to it. Why? If we opt for a surgical strike (the Obama approach), we accomplish nothing. In fact, Assad may react with slaughter on an even larger scale. Then what? Ground troops? We dislodge Assad? Who takes over? Wait, we end up with Egypt. The end.

elysiantraveller

08-31-2013, 07:50 PM

Agreed.

You and I are on totally opposite ends on the meat and potatoes of this one as we both know. I'd just assume we didn't go near the place, but if we do and are going to continually engage in these "kinetic military actions", I would prefer that someone started thinking about looking to Congress from time to time. So ultimately, I like the idea here. Unfortunately, as you outlined with your timeline of our national policy towards Syria, at this point, it means nothing to me because the last half-dozen proclamations meant nothing. Mr. Prez, just make a decision and stick with it. I may disagree, but at least I'll have a shred of respect for the fact that you made a big boy decision and stuck with it.

We are and that's fine because we are allowed to disagree.

The WH sent this down to the Hill today for review and I totally agree with this approach.

White House sends Use Of Force resolution to the Hill (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/obama-syria-aumf-resolution-96131.html)

Now without the actual text a lot of lawyers need to read it first but I agree with the jist of it.

However, he is the Commander in Chief, he is empowered by the War Powers Act, he has set our foreign policy on the matter, and, is well within his right now to ACT and let Congress decide when session begins...

Instead of making a real decision he punts...

He had no problem with Libya... ;)

Saratoga_Mike

08-31-2013, 07:53 PM

We are and that's fine because we are allowed to disagree.

The WH sent this down to the Hill today for review and I totally agree with this approach.

White House sends Use Of Force resolution to the Hill (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/obama-syria-aumf-resolution-96131.html)

Now without the actual text a lot of lawyers need to read it first but I agree with the jist of it.

However, he is the Commander in Chief, he is empowered by the War Powers Act, he has set our foreign policy on the matter, and, is well within his right now to ACT and let Congress decide when session begins...

Instead of making a real decision he punts...

He had no problem with Libya... ;)

No surprise here - he did the same thing with ObamaCare, which was basically enacted because of the leadership of Pelosi and Reid. He isn't a leader. He's an observer. I think he'd make a decent White House staff member.

fast4522

08-31-2013, 07:55 PM

I'm easy to figure out - I oppose the use of our armed forces when there is NO military objective. Moreover, I oppose neo-Wilsonian interventionism. I opposed it under Bush, and I oppose it under Obama. I consider Calvin Coolidge a model president.

Now, realizing Obama is president, do you support military action against Syria or not? If so, what's the military objective?

I'm opposed to it. Why? If we opt for a surgical strike (the Obama approach), we accomplish nothing. In fact, Assad may react with slaughter on an even larger scale. Then what? Ground troops? We dislodge Assad? Who takes over? Wait, we end up with Egypt. The end.

Where are you coming from man, of this thread #61 I basically said let them kill each other, less to deal with later.

Robert Goren

08-31-2013, 07:56 PM

Amazing! Two days there was bitching because he going to act without going to congress. Now that he is going to do that, the same people bitching that he is going to congress. Do those people have no shame. Of course now the GOP in congress is being put on the spot and some people don't like that especially the GOP. But as it has pointed a numerous times the president is suppose to get congressional approval according the constitution.

elysiantraveller

08-31-2013, 08:06 PM

Amazingly, the French now want to slug it out against Syria with us... :faint:

Saratoga_Mike

08-31-2013, 08:07 PM

Where are you coming from man, of this thread #61 I basically said let them kill each other, less to deal with later.

Apologies - tough remembering everyone's position.

elysiantraveller

08-31-2013, 08:08 PM

elysiantraveller

08-31-2013, 08:14 PM

No surprise here - he did the same thing with ObamaCare, which was basically enacted because of the leadership of Pelosi and Reid. He isn't a leader. He's an observer. I think he'd make a decent White House staff member.

I'm glad that even though we disagree on policy decisions we agree that we have a horrible leader. I just wish when discussing that with the left on here they would realize we aren't trying to make it partisan. We are simply pointing out failures regardless of the final decision.

Bush made horrible policy decisions but at least he put his neck out there when doing them, to me, its a key difference between him and Obama.

Tom

08-31-2013, 08:30 PM

Us and the French......ho-boy~!

The only nation to respect Obama is the one that poops its pants in battle! :lol:

PaceAdvantage

08-31-2013, 08:33 PM

Leadership has never been Obama's strong suit. It's refreshing to see even the media can't cover up this fact anymore...

Saratoga_Mike

08-31-2013, 08:33 PM

Us and the French......ho-boy~!

The French who John Kerry called our "oldest ally" earlier this week, an obvious dig at the Brits because of the Parliament vote. He was referencing their role in the Revolutionary War (the siege of Yorktown)...wow.

johnhannibalsmith

08-31-2013, 08:43 PM

Leadership has never been Obama's strong suit. It's refreshing to see even the media can't cover up this fact anymore...

I watched the presser on MSNBC today. Even they struggled to not just rip him up. Well, Andrea Mitchell put on a brave face and blamed Republicans for something, but Todd and Miklaszewski seemed almost amusedly astounded and Richard Engel actually sounded downright irate at the whole punt job.

Clocker

08-31-2013, 08:49 PM

I watched the presser on MSNBC today. Even they struggled to not just rip him up.

Alas, the thrill is gone.

highnote

08-31-2013, 09:05 PM

I started this thread back on June 19.

The old link is no longer valid. Here is a new one to the same story. It's worth a read as it shows how an invasion has been in the planning stages for sometime now.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-us-war-games-send-signal-assad-211855222.html

I would look for Jordon to play a big role here.

Marshall Bennett

08-31-2013, 09:15 PM

Doesn't matter which move Obama makes, he has little to worry about. Liberals and the MSM will simply blame Bush. This may seem ridiculous to many, but that's been the case with nearly everything Obama's screwed up thus far. :cool:

elysiantraveller

08-31-2013, 09:41 PM

Not to go OT but the country has needed someone with Nixon/Kissinger Foreign Policy chops for about 10 years now.

fast4522

08-31-2013, 10:40 PM

Horseshit, what this country needs is someone like Ronald Reagan.

TJDave

09-01-2013, 03:31 AM

Horseshit, what this country needs is someone like Ronald Reagan.

Yeah, that's just what we need. :rolleyes:

Google October 23, 1983 and how President Reagan handled that situation, then get back to us.

iceknight

09-01-2013, 04:05 AM

Horseshit, what this country needs is someone like Ronald Reagan. So US could begin selling weapons to Iran via Israel again?

fast4522

09-01-2013, 08:33 AM

Face some facts gents, when they are too busy killing each other their minds are not on the oil. Now you think Obama really gives two shits about these folks killing their own people and his little red line in the sand. Its the OIL stupid. It is just as easy to play you as the ants who run around the desert. Our thirst for the oil will not let up anytime soon. When we went after Gaddafi it was for the same reason, it was about the oil and not his poor little people. Grow up and realize Obama does what he is told to do by the Bilderburg Group.

Greyfox

09-01-2013, 10:33 AM

Its the OIL stupid. .

It is not about the OIL.

It is about the U.S. mid-term elections next year. The man never stops campaigning.

fast4522

09-01-2013, 11:21 AM

Posts 242 & 243 was what the response was to, why we do things in the middle east. A given politician will do things for mid term elections and polls they are watching. Each post interlocks with others, your trying to interlock with what you want, not post 242 & 243, yes we kill for oil. We install puppets, and then get rid of them when they no longer serve our needs. Our history in the middle east is well documented. We would not even know what some asshole is doing, because we would not even be there if it was not for the oil. Picture is case in point, this asshole who we installed could do anything he wanted until he no longer served our needs.

fast4522

09-01-2013, 11:41 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/01/obama-leaving-door-open-to-syria-strike-even-if-congress-votes-no/

Kerry takes case for Syria strike to the public.
Kiss his chances for any Presidential aspirations goobye

JustRalph

09-01-2013, 12:18 PM

Yeah, that's just what we need. :rolleyes:

Google October 23, 1983 and how President Reagan handled that situation, then get back to us.

Oh, you mean when he ordered me onto a plane in full battle gear and was talked out of responding by his security advisors? I sat in a hanger with two airplanes outside ready to go, for 18 hours waiting for orders. We actually boarded the plane and sat for two hours in the middle of the day. It was the first time live ammunition was issued to our team, for a deployment.

After 18 hours of waiting they sent us home. Somebody pulled the plug. You have to remember there were very few terrorists in the world at that time. I'm pretty sure Reagan had no idea who to attack. It was a common problem back then.

Robert Goren

09-01-2013, 12:33 PM

No matter how this turns out Obama found a way for the GOP in congress to own the decision. The ball is in their court now instead of Obama's. It was the last thing they wanted. It is a no win situation and Obama found a way out. The GOP will bitch no end about Obama not making the choice for them, but in the end, it will be the republicans who have to take the heat. A brilliant political move.( I would have preferred he had made it himself and decided to stay out.) They can't hide back home any longer. They actually have to step up to the plate and vote. From a purely political point of view, it will be interesting to see them vote on something a lobbyist hasn't bought their vote on. It will also be interesting to see which congressman takes which side. I am sure of one thing, there will be a lot of jockey go on. This is one vote they want to be on the losing side.