carlfense Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 It's a good thing it is being taken seriously. I just wished the administration thought so, too. Do you know that they don't? Heck of a coincidence that this is a possibility mere days after Obama was mocked for "engaging" Putin. As far as the strike goes, I think it will depend on the vote tally. If it is closer to even , they will probably do it. If it is largely a no vote, I think they will play the diplomatic card and see where this other option goes. I would be very surprised if Obama orders a strike after/if Congress votes "no." I'd certainly disapprove of it if it happens . . . but I really can't see it happening. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 It's a good thing it is being taken seriously. I just wished the administration thought so, too. Do you know that they don't? Heck of a coincidence that this is a possibility mere days after Obama was mocked for "engaging" Putin. As far as the strike goes, I think it will depend on the vote tally. If it is closer to even , they will probably do it. If it is largely a no vote, I think they will play the diplomatic card and see where this other option goes. I would be very surprised if Obama orders a strike after/if Congress votes "no." I'd certainly disapprove of it if it happens . . . but I really can't see it happening. I hope you are right but his peacocking on this issue doesn't give me the same confidence as you. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 This certainly looks like a potential game-changer for the Syria crisis. But whether for the better or the worse depends on whether Russia really wants Assad to give up his weapons or is just bluffing. Either way, the announcement is a telling moment in the international stand-off over possible U.S. strikes on Syria – and a sign that the threat of strikes might actually be working better than we think. There are two ways to look at Russia’s proposal. Either it’s an earnest proposal that has a good chance of actually happening or it’s a shrewd delaying tactic. The former would be much better news for Syria than the latter. But, in either case, it suggests that Russia sincerely believes the U.S. may go through with the strikes – and that it wants badly to prevent this. Even if Russia’s proposal is just a bluff, it shows that President Obama’s threat has backed Moscow into a bit of a corner, and has forced Russian officials to at least pretend to negotiate seriously for the first time in a long time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/09/russia-urges-syria-to-give-up-chemical-weapons-game-changer-or-a-shrewd-bluff/ 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Oh, I think this is a great development. If it comes about, it will have been because of the strong push towards military intervention. I think we need to back out of our isolationist kick and recognize that indeed, responsibility does come with power. There can be no credible push towards action without the U.S. Even France, whose fiery rhetoric on this topic preceded us, won't and can't act without the US. Russia's comical denials - for which they should continue to be shamed - are not backed by teeth. Other countries can only duck behind private assurances and carefully worded, cover-our-butt signed statements or deferrals to 'international authority.' Such deferrals are luxuries the U.S. cannot hide behind. Going back a few pages, I started way on the opposite side of this issue, but I've come all the way around. The U.S. IS international response. If we duck clean of a situation there won't be anything or anyone else. Not even diplomacy. Only yielding inaction, which amounts to tacit permission. Also, Assad is a man that can no longer be taken seriously. Denials of possessing chemical weapons? Claiming not to know whether a chemical attack ever took place on August 21? The opposition knows what arguments are likely to be compelling to a truly war-weary populace here, but thank goodness the administration has stopped saying 'Not our problem' and charged forward on the Syria issue. Hopefully with these latest developments a strike really will be averted, and the U.N. can enforce the chemical weapon disposal instead of hollow calls for a peaceful resolution. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 It's a good thing it is being taken seriously. I just wished the administration thought so, too. Do you know that they don't? Heck of a coincidence that this is a possibility mere days after Obama was mocked for "engaging" Putin. As far as the strike goes, I think it will depend on the vote tally. If it is closer to even , they will probably do it. If it is largely a no vote, I think they will play the diplomatic card and see where this other option goes. I would be very surprised if Obama orders a strike after/if Congress votes "no." I'd certainly disapprove of it if it happens . . . but I really can't see it happening. I hope you are right but his peacocking on this issue doesn't give me the same confidence as you. Well . . . looks like this isn't such an accident after all. Sort of what I suspected. Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 This would be good news. Syria today "welcomed" an offer by Russia to put its chemical weapons arsenal under international control so that they could eventually be destroyed. Syria's statement came very quickly after the proposal was made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in what he said was an attempt to avoid a U.S.-led strike on Syria. ... "The Syrian Arab Republic welcomed the Russian initiative, based on the concerns of the Russian leadership for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country," [syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem] told reporters, according to Russia's Interfax news agency. http://www.slate.com...a_workable.html It would be good news, if the Russians weren't involved... Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 It's a good thing it is being taken seriously. I just wished the administration thought so, too. Do you know that they don't? Heck of a coincidence that this is a possibility mere days after Obama was mocked for "engaging" Putin. As far as the strike goes, I think it will depend on the vote tally. If it is closer to even , they will probably do it. If it is largely a no vote, I think they will play the diplomatic card and see where this other option goes. I would be very surprised if Obama orders a strike after/if Congress votes "no." I'd certainly disapprove of it if it happens . . . but I really can't see it happening. I hope you are right but his peacocking on this issue doesn't give me the same confidence as you. Well . . . looks like this isn't such an accident after all. Sort of what I suspected. https://twitter.com/...194654086610944 Sounds to me that they are trying to close the gate after the cows got out. Trying to save face. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 10, 2013 Author Share Posted September 10, 2013 I find myself not trusting anyone in this. I agree with McCain on one thing. If Assad is serious then let us in immediately. Still don't trust that he shows us everything. He could hold some back. Secretly kill a thousand more and claim it's the other side. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Sounds to me that they are trying to close the gate after the cows got out. Trying to save face. I'm stunned that you'd take that position on the Obama administration. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Sounds to me that they are trying to close the gate after the cows got out. Trying to save face. I'm stunned that you'd take that position on the Obama administration. Why? Link to comment
rawhide Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 But does it leave the barn door open to kill 100k more? Albeit, without WMD capabilities. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Why? If this works it's going to be hard to spin it as anything other than a wonderful outcome re: Assad's WMDs. I understand that some are going to try. (Edit: FWIW, I'm not at all convinced that it will work. I sure hope that it does.) 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 But does it leave the barn door open to kill 100k more? Albeit, without WMD capabilities. We can't stop the civil war. That hasn't been the goal (other than among a few hawks who are from a party other than Obama's). The real victory would be that the WMDs are off the market. 1 Link to comment
rawhide Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 OK then: http://www.cnn.com/2...s-syrian-rebels Which party is that carl? The wednesday night WH party? But Jay Carney doesn't speak for the WH, wait, he does. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 OK then: http://www.cnn.com/2...s-syrian-rebels Which party is that carl? The wednesday night WH party? But Jay Carney doesn't speak for the WH, wait, he does. That's true regarding the arming of the rebels. My comment was about direct US strikes (like this limited missile strike/airstrike) relating to the use of chemical weapons. I don't recall Jay Carney visiting the rebels in Syria. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/john-mccain-syria-91910.html Link to comment
Recommended Posts