Syria

[Junior]

I guess he is counting on his supporters to continue being stupid. Probably a good plan- it did get him re-elected.

 

So everyone who voted for Obama is stupid?

[zoogs]

Yeah, Bush did a good job of assembling that coalition. Of course the ultimate stain on the U.S. has been far more damaging. But I'll accept some crow for laughing at that so-called coalition. It's where rhetoric comes back down to meet reality. People will say anything to criticize the other party, but in the end must deal pragmatically with what's on the table.

 

If it weren't for the terribly embarrassing intelligence failure though (Oh, sorry, I guess we shouldn't have invaded your country and toppled your government. Woooooooooooooooooooops.), I think we would be in a much stronger position to make a case today.

 

If there's anything to really take the administration to task for though, I think it should be twiddling thumbs two years ago, when Obama said that Assad must go...the empty words and lack of action that's resulted in this. And it is an awfully confusing mess - with the radicalization of the opposition, there's no viable 'good guys' right now. So we want to strike Assad, but not get involved, or take sides? It's a delicate and perplexing case to make. They're probably handling it as skillfully as they can, to be honest, but then they shoulder some of the responsibility for making the job so hard in the first place.

[JJ Husker]

Zoogies- If I learned anything from Bush's time in office it is this. The US should not take military action in that part of the world unless the overwhelming majority of the international community officially asks us to. There is no direct threat to US lives which is what I think is required to act without international support. If we're the only country that finds Assads actions reprehensible enough to act, it's a sad world. Well it is indeed a sad world but, as the saying goes, when it's you versus the world, bet on the world. As heartless as it may seem, we're going to have to wait for the rest of the world to get as outraged as us. Until then I'm willing to ignore it. We can't afford to be the only moral people on this planet. Some others are going to have to step up and place their lives and fortunes on the line also.

[walksalone]

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.

 

They have been for a very, very long time (Sierra Leone being a prime example), but right now this just amplifies how ineffective they are, and why we no longer need to be a part of that organization...

[JJ Husker]

I guess he is counting on his supporters to continue being stupid. Probably a good plan- it did get him re-elected.

 

So everyone who voted for Obama is stupid?

 

That? That is what you want to discuss? Really?

 

Well I'll give you my answer imo- yes. Stupid is not the correct word for many though. In lots of cases I think the more appropriate word would be naive and yet for others "unrealistically hopeful" for something better. So imo it was stupid but that does not mean stupidity itself was the sole motivating factor. Sorry but that's my honest opinion.

[zoogs]

I don't think that's how it works, JJ. Who's going to go against Russia and ask us? It's incumbent upon the U.S. to make this case. The condemnations of Assad back in 2011 were widespread and international. Two years and the worst in what I think is a series of chemical attacks later, what does the international community do? I think pussyfoot would be the correct phrase. And it's not out of weakness or lack of a moral backbone, it's simply what you can say or do when you don't have the wherewithal.

 

I think the disgust at the goings on over there is almost universal, or at least very widespread. The appetite for doing something is considerably less. Every country's looking out for their own hides and don't want to stick their necks out against the Russia/Syria side advocating something that doesn't happen. Mere condemnations and "Hey Assad, you should step down, man" are what took us from 2011 to 2013.

 

And again, we can't ignore it. Not because we're the moral police, but because of where it's occurring and how central the entire region is to U.S. interests.

[walksalone]

I don't think that's how it works, walks. Who's going to go against Russia and ask us? It's incumbent upon the U.S. to make this case. The condemnations of Assad back in 2011 were widespread and international. Two years and the worst in what I think is a series of chemical attacks later, what does the international community do? I think pussyfoot would be the correct phrase. And it's not out of weakness or lack of a moral backbone, it's simply what you can say or do when you don't have the wherewithal.

 

I think the disgust at the goings on over there is almost universal, or at least very widespread. The appetite for doing something is considerably less. Every country's looking out for their own hides and don't want to stick their necks out against the Russia/Syria side advocating something that doesn't happen. Mere condemnations and "Hey Assad, you should step down, man" are what took us from 2011 to 2013.

 

And again, we can't ignore it. Not because we're the moral police, but because of where it's occurring and how central the entire region is to U.S. interests.

 

I'm going to disagree. The U.N. is a world organization, and weren't they created to deal with international situations such as this? So, for example, there can be "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans or Africa, and the U.N. will be right over, but in this instance they only send "observers" to see if chemical weapons were used? What the f*ck is that?

 

Our "interests" in the region? What that Israel or Jordan? You know Israel's just hoping something happens to give them a reason to start f*cking somebody up.

 

As for Russia, they are pulling Syria's strings right now, because Putin is a sneaky underhanded cossack pole smoking douchebag...

[zoogs]

I think a lot of us tire of having interests in the region, but well, they exist. I don't think we can simply 'decide' to drop all of that. If we could, sure. Let it sort itself out. *Actually, maybe not 'sure'. I'm not sure I'd want to see the U.S. simply cede influence in an important, potentially powerful, and volatile region of the world to Russia and China. In any case, this isn't something that can be merely argued away.

 

Yeah, wasn't the U.N. created for stuff like this? But nonetheless the Security Council can be stymied. By Russia and China. Typical.

 

Sorry by the way, I was responding to a JJ post in the first paragraph and got the names mixed up.

 

My takeaway from the Bush years was that the U.S. should take a less leading and active role in foreign affairs so that we're not hated. But we're hated anyways, and declining any sort of involvement improves neither our moral standing nor our actual standing with anybody. It only serves to lessen the respect for U.S. power, something that is not good. I hope we don't have to take any military action here, but I hope in the end we've damn well asserted ourselves and served notice to anyone thinking of flouting or ignoring U.S. pressure.

[JJ Husker]

Zoogs- Absolutely we should be making the case to the world. But just as absolutely, we cannot be the only ones putting our lives and money where our mouths are. I think it does (or needs to) work exactly that way. It is a pitiful excuse to bemoan the atrocities but then claim you can't do something about it for other reasons. Real affronts to morality don't get convenience exemptions. Saying other countries are as outraged as us but can't act is a cop out. It is black or white issue. If you're against it, you do something. If you're not, you don't. Anything else is just bullsh#t.

[walksalone]

Why aren't our leaders making this impassioned of a plea to the U.N.? What exactly our are interests over there? Israel, Jordan? And if the U.N. can be stymied by two countries, then another reason, we don't need to be a part of it.

 

The two incidents I refrerenced was during the Clinton administration, in which our military was used to give handjobs to 3rd world countries to improve our standing in the court of public opinion.

 

Like I've stated before, the U.N. is designed for things like this. You only send in our military if you need everything obliterated and not to conduct "peacekeeping" operations...

[JJ Husker]

Agree walks. Military action is for death and destruction not diplomacy.

[zoogs]

Well, JJ, I think we agree. I was only arguing that without the U.S. leading the charge, military action won't happen. If we're in it, we can assemble a coalition. If the U.S. is going to sit on their hands on something like Syria, then the result is a total absence of a willing counter to "whatever Russia wants to happen." And that's based, fairly, on military wherewithal. Put concisely, other countries look to the U.S. to do the right thing here and they *need* to do so.

 

To use a sports analogy, Tom Brady can't say, "If you guys aren't going to work hard, I won't either." I'll share in the disdain for lack of international cooperation on this matter but not in the advocacy for more American ambivalence.

 

[krill]

Like I've stated before, the U.N. is designed for things like this. You only send in our military if you need everything obliterated and not to conduct "peacekeeping" operations...

 

No, it's not, an active war zone is not a peacekeeping operation. Who would the Syrian government even sign a cease-fire or peace agreement with? There are dozens of factions in tangled web of ethnic tensions and the usual jihad types that have no plans beyond mayhem. The African rent-an-armies that the UN has increasingly relied on for peacekeeping have been counterproductive in even low-intensity operations...how is that going to help at all in this mess?

 

Believe what you want about the efficacy of the UN when we don't get our way, but it goes both ways. Just as Russia has had a long history of weapon sales to Syria and shielding them from the weak finger of the US, we've done the same for Israel every time they need some new toys, or decide to bulldoze and evict some Palestinians.

[StPaulHusker]

I would like to add that I thought the timing of his speech was inappropriate. The day before a terrible day for the US. After the change in options, he should have waited a week.

[carlfense]

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.

Yes . . . that's how the the 2003 Iraw War was peddled to us . . . because Saddam gassed his people in the 1980s.

 

Some are either desperate to re-write history or genuinely susceptible to misinformation.