Syria

[Mavric]

What has the US gained in this "victory"?

It's only a victory if it works. If it works, I'm sure that you understand the benefits.

No, I guess I don't. Enlighten me.

[carlfense]

What has the US gained in this "victory"?

It's only a victory if it works. If it works, I'm sure that you understand the benefits.

No, I guess I don't. Enlighten me.

Here it is again:

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/63328-syria/page__view__findpost__p__1214914

[Mavric]

What has the US gained in this "victory"?

It's only a victory if it works. If it works, I'm sure that you understand the benefits.

No, I guess I don't. Enlighten me.

Here it is again:

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1214914

But will be able to go on killing his own people via any other means without the threat of US intervention. Is that what passes for an enormous foreign policy victory to Obama?

[carlfense]

But will be able to go on killing his own people via any other means without the threat of US intervention.

Let's hypothesize for a moment that this works perfectly. (Keeping in mind that we did this without risking a single US life or firing a shot.) Do you think that it's a good thing or a bad thing that Assad and al-Qeuda don't have access to these chemical weapons? Why?

 

Is that what passes for an enormous foreign policy victory to Obama?

I understand that the last word of this question makes it difficult for some to think rationally so it might facilitate things to replace it with "the United States" or "the world."

[zoogs]

There's really nothing we can do about Syria if they want to continue killing each other. Remember that every side in this fight is being propped up by some foreign group or another. This is a blow against the Assad regime and more or less the U.S. getting what it wants in enforcing an important international norm (yeah, yeah, we've ignored it in the past and skirted around norms ourselves...............................................let's not mention that ). So, yes, there's a lot of value in this victory.

 

Additionally, the effort has now been made international thanks to and only thanks to the threat of U.S. military action, and furthermore the onus is on Russia and Syria itself, who are both going to look really, really bad if they don't pursue this wholeheartedly and with good intentions.

 

Lastly, at one time this looked as if it could have resulted in an embarrassing U.S. retreat out of foreign affairs thanks to wishy-washy support both at home and from its allies. No longer. Such a retreat would result in a void filled by Russia and China, and we don't want that.

[carlfense]

There's really nothing we can do about Syria if they want to continue killing each other. Remember that every side in this fight is being propped up by some foreign group or another. This is a blow against the Assad regime and more or less the U.S. getting what it wants in enforcing an important international norm (yeah, yeah, we've ignored it in the past and skirted around norms ourselves...............................................let's not mention that ). So, yes, there's a lot of value in this victory.

 

Additionally, the effort has now been made international thanks to and only thanks to the threat of U.S. military action, and furthermore the onus is on Russia and Syria itself, who are both going to look really, really bad if they don't pursue this wholeheartedly and with good intentions.

 

Lastly, at one time this looked as if it could have resulted in an embarrassing U.S. retreat out of foreign affairs thanks to wishy-washy support both at home and from its allies. No longer. Such a retreat would result in a void filled by Russia and China, and we don't want that.

+1

[Mavric]

But will be able to go on killing his own people via any other means without the threat of US intervention.

Let's hypothesize for a moment that this works perfectly. (Keeping in mind that we did this without risking a single US life or firing a shot.) Do you think that it's a good thing or a bad thing that Assad and al-Qeuda don't have access to these chemical weapons? Why?

 

I've already answered that question, multiple times.

 

There is quite a difference between a "good thing" and a "huge foreign policy victory."

[Mavric]

Is that what passes for an enormous foreign policy victory to Obama?

I understand that the last word of this question makes it difficult for some to think rationally so it might facilitate things to replace it with "the United States" or "the world."

Is that what passes for an enormous foreign policy victory to you?

[carlfense]

There is quite a difference between a "good thing" and a "huge foreign policy victory."

So your quibble is with the description of the size of the victory?

[carlfense]

Is that what passes for an enormous foreign policy victory to you?

Given the cost, absolutely. Can you come up with an equally significant foreign policy victory from the last decade that was achieved at a similar cost?

[Mavric]

There is quite a difference between a "good thing" and a "huge foreign policy victory."

So your quibble is with the description of the size of the victory?

It depends on what you count as a victory. I didn't get hit by a bus on the way to work this morning, was that a victory?

[Mavric]

Is that what passes for an enormous foreign policy victory to you?

Given the cost, absolutely. Can you come up with an equally significant foreign policy victory from the last decade that was achieved at a similar cost?

What would the cost have been?

[carlfense]

Is that what passes for an enormous foreign policy victory to you?

Given the cost, absolutely. Can you come up with an equally significant foreign policy victory from the last decade that was achieved at a similar cost?

What would the cost have been?

Virtually nothing.

[Mavric]

Is that what passes for an enormous foreign policy victory to you?

Given the cost, absolutely. Can you come up with an equally significant foreign policy victory from the last decade that was achieved at a similar cost?

What would the cost have been?

Virtually nothing.

So we saved virtually nothing? That seems to undercut your argument.

[carlfense]

There is quite a difference between a "good thing" and a "huge foreign policy victory."

So your quibble is with the description of the size of the victory?

It depends on what you count as a victory. I didn't get hit by a bus on the way to work this morning, was that a victory?

I'm glad that we (apparently) agree that this is a victory. I'll have to respectfully disagree that it's similar to your survival this morning.