Syria

tpg said:
He did and it was a foolish diplomatic move. I have always been a person to ask tough questions from both sides of an argument. I understand that it drives my students nuts. However when I look at the the position our President is in along with his current responses, I cannot help but wonder if he is trying to find a face saving way to say "no" or if he really has a moral objection to what is happening in Syria and wants to find a way to do something about it.
Click to expand...

Foolish political move. An interesting article in the recent Economists - how Muslims in Egypt hate Obama, Moris supporters think Obama is backing the military junta and military supporters think Obama is backing the Brotherhood.

I think Obama miscalculated thinking Assad won't use chemical weapons. If so draw the "red" line on use of chemical weapon so he could justify getting involved while thousands of civilians are getting killed. If you remember when first use of chemical weapon was reported, Obama try to down play it.
 
MemberLG said:
Foolish political move. An interesting article in the recent Economists - how Muslims in Egypt hate Obama, Moris supporters think Obama is backing the military junta and military supporters think Obama is backing the Brotherhood.

I think Obama miscalculated thinking Assad won't use chemical weapons. If so draw the "red" line on use of chemical weapon so he could justify getting involved while thousands of civilians are getting killed. If you remember when first use of chemical weapon was reported, Obama try to down play it.
Click to expand...

I agree, but in fairness to the Prez, and I normally do absolutely nothing to defend this guy, I think the prior use was somewhat more questionable and far more limited.

The numbers of Americans who support an attack is rather small. Hopefully the vast majority will find a way to make their voices heard.
 
kinnem said:
I agree, but in fairness to the Prez, and I normally do absolutely nothing to defend this guy, I think the prior use was somewhat more questionable and far more limited.

The numbers of Americans who support an attack is rather small. Hopefully the vast majority will find a way to make their voices heard.
Click to expand...

It's funny you mention defending the President as if he decides to leave Syria alone, I will support his decision.

Politicians only listens to what or who they want to listen to.

Regardless what he does, Syria is a headache for the President. No intervention, he will lose some creditability (I.e. how can you let children be killed in their sleep, didn't you say use of chemical weapon will be a game changer, and etc). Intervention, still lose some creditability (i.e. lack of public support, no UN mandate, Western attack on Muslims, and etc), but we won't be spending billions (the Libya intervention cost was $1 billion +/-. Hey just furlough federal employees to fund the intervention) and lessen the chance of additional commitment. Most 2nd term Presidents are concerned about legacy, hope President Obama is smart enough to avoid another costly foreign intervention to become his legacy.
 
Something my Dad told me growing up:

"When you're on the playground and you draw a line in the sand, daring someone to cross it in the hope that your challenge will force the other guy to back away, don't be surprised if he steps right over it instead...."

I guess there weren't that many playgrounds in Hawaii...
 
Bullet said:
Something my Dad told me growing up:

"When you're on the playground and you draw a line in the sand, daring someone to cross it in the hope that your challenge will force the other guy to back away, don't be surprised if he steps right over it instead...."

I guess there weren't that many playgrounds in Hawaii...
Click to expand...
+1
 
About the only appropriate response I could think of, would be if one of our precision guided weapons happened to be launched from within Syrian Territory and found its way to the President's brother (rumor has it he is the one who controls the chemical weapons).

Plenty of deniability on our part. Geez, how could the rebels have gotten that weapon? And where do we send the flowers? And an appropriate response to take out those responsible and send a warning to those who might repeat the mistake. Might even get someone to the negotiating table?

However, I agree that we shouldn't have drawn the line, because it makes these kind of paybacks look less subtle.
 
Well

We lost the Brits, they voted against. We have Monaco, they are sending bellhops, to carry our Air Force guys luggage.
 
Yes, using chemical weapons crosses a line

But committing genocide isn't - ffs I absolutely hate that argument and its unbelievable how many people repeat that rhetoric. Why is using chemical weapons a big deal? Because its a horrible way to die? I guess getting shot or bombed to death isn't. Civilians have been targeted for the past two years and we didn't blink an eye...everything was a-ok until they used chemical weapons.

Anyway, we lose if we intervene, UN mandate or not. Awful decision to be forced to make...but in the end its better to kick back and watch like we've been doing since it began and let Assad do the dirty work against extremist Islamists.
 
I read the arabs do not want US action. I basically like the Pres, but think he may be ahead of himself on this one.
but, the Pres is about to speak in the Rose Garden, so we may know more in a short while.
ready, fire, aim.
 
Yeah, till he gets the million dollar a speach speaking tour after his term. Throw a few million dollars of missles into a camel tent like Clinton and become a hero. Playing Golf Today according to news reports.
 
How I hope Congress votes this thing down now that the Prez has decided to turn to them for approval. And whether you think we should attack, or shouldn't, the Prez should have been working congress right along on this. Good lord, what a mess.
 
kinnem said:
How I hope Congress votes this thing down now that the Prez has decided to turn to them for approval. And whether you think we should attack, or shouldn't, the Prez should have been working congress right along on this. Good lord, what a mess.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a big mess. I think he miscalculated with the allies. Our allies are war weary and want to sit this one out. I think we do too.

Congress should vote down but give him options to arm the Free Syrian Army. It is a way out. Poiitcally he can then blame Congress for failing to act. Interesting thing about this is there will be no more red lines for most countries to cross. Then again it is really a game of picking and choosing who to strike for these type and other crimes.

Maybe we only can and should react where it would actually do some good.
 
NorwichDad said:
Maybe we only can and should react where it would actually do some good.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me. You can't always be effective every where, every time.

Maybe between now and Congress reconvening, we can get all the folks in DC to read "The Guns of August"?
 
kinnem said:
Maybe between now and Congress reconvening, we can get all the folks in DC to read "The Guns of August"?
Click to expand...

Very true.

People forget the horror of that war. 99 years ago, picture on my avatar is grandpa from 1917, lucky man, when the Army sent him to Hawaii for three years. His brother went to France.
 
NorwichDad said:
Very true.

People forget the horror of that war. 99 years ago, picture on my avatar is grandpa from 1917, lucky man, when the Army sent him to Hawaii for three years. His brother went to France.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that (relatively) new avatar NorwichDad. It was horrific. How everyone stumbled into it was asinine. No one calculated correctly.
 
Chockstock said:
Yes, using chemical weapons crosses a line

But committing genocide isn't - ffs I absolutely hate that argument and its unbelievable how many people repeat that rhetoric. Why is using chemical weapons a big deal? Because its a horrible way to die? I guess getting shot or bombed to death isn't. Civilians have been targeted for the past two years and we didn't blink an eye...everything was a-ok until they used chemical weapons.

Anyway, we lose if we intervene, UN mandate or not. Awful decision to be forced to make...but in the end its better to kick back and watch like we've been doing since it began and let Assad do the dirty work against extremist Islamists.
Click to expand...

Research, young man. Research. If you don't have an Economist subscription, gather your ducats and get one. It's the best money you can pay to stay informed.

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...s-weaponry-came-be-seen-indecent-shadow-ypres

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that there are certainly issues which involve the US' interests when a government practices acts of war against its own civilian citizens, whether with chemical weapons or not, and as a signatory of the conventions against the use of those weapons has a real interest in ensuring that they are not used anywhere by anyone.

However I find that the President has not spelled out what our interests are, and what he has publicly announced he is prepared to do (a short duration series of limited strikes to "send a message") is going to be both ineffective and counterproductive. Either we are willing to get involved to a purpose or we are not- but announcing our intents and means beforehand is a sure fire way to guarantee that we will neither cow the Syrian government nor demonstrate our "resolve" nor will it demonstrate that we are willing to do anymore than go thru the motions to enable the President to say he " took action". I don't know where the President learned to negotiate, but it is apparent to me that mishandling here has put us in a position where we now have little to no support internationally should we act, and his unwillingness (till last night) to involve Congress at all has meant he has very little internal support to act unilaterally. And worst of all-that the unilateral actions that he has described will only diminish our stature as they will not end the conflict, while giving fodder to the extremists who will use it convincingly as another example of deadly American meddling in the Arab/ Moslem world. Frankly this might be the most incompetently executed American foreign policy faux pas since the taking of the US Embassy in Tehran.
 
Scout, Thanks for the pointers to the articles. The second was especially instructive not because it was news to me but it's always nice to see it all pulled together in one place.

I read another article last night, can't remember where, which I think speaks well to the situation, Bruno's comments, and how this all fits together with regards to the President. The one statement that summed it up was (and I'm paraphrasing as I don't have it in front of me): "The President has once again voted Present".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top