Syria

[carlfense]

 

[zoogs]

I'd just like to point out that this is about Syria, and overall U.S. interests. Not apportioning blame on a political party basis.

 

If that's all we've got attention for to squabble about then it's really hurting us.

[carlfense]

I'd just like to point out that this is about Syria, and overall U.S. interests.

Agreed but the blame/credit game will dominate the next news cycle.

 

Edit: Just for example . . . I'm sure the part about Obama (potentially, for now) getting exactly what he wanted without firing a shot is buried in one of these stories, right?

 

Not apportioning blame on a political party basis.

 

If that's all we've got attention for to squabble about then it's really hurting us.

Meh. We've squabbled over less.

[rawhide]

Darn, I wanted to talk football; that Kerry forward fumble

[Conga3]

You have to give Obama credit if Syria abandons their chemical weapon program. Obama carried a big stick and looked crazy enough to use it.

 

If Syria does a 180 and abandons chemical weapons completely...that's huge. Frankly, I don't think we care if Assad stays in power.

[HSKR]

You have to give Obama credit if Syria abandons their chemical weapon program. Obama carried a big stick and looked crazy enough to use it.

 

If Syria does a 180 and abandons chemical weapons completely...that's huge. Frankly, I don't think we care if Assad stays in power.

I would agree. If we can get out of this simply by talking big, that is a win for the US and well done by Obama. If Saddam gassing hundreds of thousands of his own people wasn't justification to go into Iraq to people, then Assad gassing 1000 surely isn't.

[Mavric]

But does it leave the barn door open to kill 100k more? Albeit, without WMD capabilities.

I have no idea what Putin's agenda is but I will guarantee it is not to quickly agree to a seemingly offhanded comment from our Secretary of State in response to a reporter's question. He usually goes out of his way to oppose anything the US attempts to do.

 

My guess is he jumped at the chance to basically assure the US takes no involvement in Syria. As long as Assad claims he won't use chemical weapons - which would at least be a good step but not really relevant to the problem at hand - he has effectively tied the US's hands on any involvement. There was scant little support when Obama went looking for support to intervene. There will be even less if we agree to these terms.

 

I'm not convinced we should take any action anyway but I'm not a fan of letting any international entity - least of all Putin - basically call the shots in a situation.

[walksalone]

He said twice, "we're not the worlds police force"...

 

But, if you do something that is criminal, we're going to f*ck you up with cruise missles...

 

Brilliant...

[JJ Husker]

If Assad gives up his chemical weapons and quits using him on civilians and children, then I will give Obama credit for threatening the use of force. However, it has not been my experience, or that of mideat reality, that is what will happen. To me, this feels like and seems to be playing out just like Saddam, delay and misdirect at every opportunity. But I will be extremely happy with any eventuality that does not involve our military in their civil war clusterf#ck.

 

My takeaway from his televised speech was that I feel sorry for him. Honestly. He did not lay out a compelling reason how any action is in our national interest. He did not make any convincing argument as to how limited strikes would change anything in Syria. The only valid point he made is the obvious; use of chemical weapons against civilians and children is a horrible thing. I think we can all agree with that but it's a lot bigger leap to claim the US should be the only ones to have to deal with it. I am stuck on something a democrat congressman said on the Rachel Maddow show. He said- twelve years, over a trillion dollars, and thousands of US military lives and really nothing is different in that part of the world. So my question is; how will some limited military strikes, with no boots on the ground and with Assad still in power, make any difference?

[walksalone]

If Assad gives up his chemical weapons and quits using him on civilians and children, then I will give Obama credit for threatening the use of force. However, it has not been my experience, or that of mideat reality, that is what will happen. To me, this feels like and seems to be playing out just like Saddam, delay and misdirect at every opportunity. But I will be extremely happy with any eventuality that does not involve our military in their civil war clusterf#ck.

 

My takeaway from his televised speech was that I feel sorry for him. Honestly. He did not lay out a compelling reason how any action is in our national interest. He did not make any convincing argument as to how limited strikes would change anything in Syria. The only valid point he made is the obvious; use of chemical weapons against civilians and children is a horrible thing. I think we can all agree with that but it's a lot bigger leap to claim the US should be the only ones to have to deal with it. I am stuck on something a democrat congressman said on the Rachel Maddow show. He said- twelve years, over a trillion dollars, and thousands of US military lives and really nothing is different in that part of the world. So my question is; how will some limited military strikes, with no boots on the ground and with Assad still in power, make any difference?

 

+1

 

The other thing his speech showed that, even though this is a job for the U.N., that they have become a completely worthless organization. You're sending guys over to look at what happened, great. But wasn't the U.N. designed to combat things such as this?

[JJ Husker]

I also thought he came off as extremely weak and unable to make a decision. He scheduled the speech to make a case for action but then requested the vote be delayed. It seems like he would never be able to get to the point of actually doing something about anything. As you all know I'm not his biggest fan but he came off as a grade schooler raising his hand to ask permission to go to the bathroom but then couldn't decide if he needed to go. Very weak and non-decisive imo. Embarrassing really.

[JJ Husker]

I agree walks. If the UN cannot get behind doing something about Assad gassing innocent children, that whole organization is a joke. Of course we already knew that.

[zoogs]

He did not lay out a compelling reason how any action is in our national interest. He did not make any convincing argument as to how limited strikes would change anything in Syria. The only valid point he made is the obvious; use of chemical weapons against civilians and children is a horrible thing. I think we can all agree with that but it's a lot bigger leap to claim the US should be the only ones to have to deal with it.

 

Not the only ones. But if the US doesn't lead the way, it simply will not happen.

 

Even when we do lead the way, we have serious obstacles against us: the specter of the Iraq War and the failure of intelligence. That's hugely embarrassing. The domestic weariness of war is also a problem. And of course, Russia. Who smartly seizes upon both.

 

Nonetheless I'll pin it on the administration for failing to be convincing enough to date, but Secretary Kerry has done a darn hard job of staunchly and resolutely advancing the U.S. case.

 

We're not the world police (at least we certainly don't want to appear something so unpopular), but we are the police of our own interests and this area of the world firmly falls within our own interests. The Middle East has been a mess for a long time and it's a difference place than it was twelve years ago. For the better, maybe not, but different in a lot of ways. Wars may not be the answer and certainly a war against Syria is not what's even on the table...but American retreat from involvement in the region is not going to happen. It's only a question of how best to accomplish our aims.

 

I'll credit the administration for not simply embracing the sudden enthusiasm from the Russian/Syrian side and demanding that the acquiescence be quick and total. Russia's already thumbed their noses at the French proposal at the UN for leaving open the possibility of military action, so it seems they're intent on playing the politics game full hilt as a delaying tactic. Let's see what happens, but I hope we don't put up with any cow manure. I wonder how it feels for Russians to be under a government that sanctions homophobia and sponsors a regime that gasses its own people. I'm sure you can come to terms with it somehow and end up full of national pride.

 

Also I applaud Susan Rice for denouncing their roadblocking and maneuvering in the U.N. as shameful.

 

"I was there for all of those U.N. debates and negotiations on Syria. I lived it — and it was shameful. [...] There aren't many nonpartisan issues left in Washington. This is one is one of them. Or, at least, it should be."

[JJ Husker]

I also find it somewhat amusing how Obama's definition of a coalition of countries or the international community has changed to serve his immediate purpose. When Bush was in office and had a coalition of fifty countries backing him, Obama said that was acting unilaterally without international support. Now however, when only the French want us to do something (of course the French don't do anything themselves) he portrays it as us acting in the interests of the international community. I guess he is counting on his supporters to continue being stupid. Probably a good plan- it did get him re-elected. I just thank God he wasn't in the White House for the Cuban missile crisis. Kruschev would've ate him for lunch.

[sd'sker]

The other thing his speech showed that, even though this is a job for the U.N., that they have become a completely worthless organization. You're sending guys over to look at what happened, great. But wasn't the U.N. designed to combat things such as this?

when were they not?

 

i think the u.n. could have an important role in geopolitical affairs, but with certain countries having veto power it will never be effective in the most important and necessary areas.