Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Sep 1, 2013.
I haven't seen this much consensus from anyone ever.
I've seen variants of these questions posed in other threads, but I don't think I've seen serious answers so I'll ask again:
1. Domestic politics aside, what objectives do we expect to accomplish with a limited, preannounced, one-time strike?
2. If the strike does not lead to the hoped-for result, where do we go from there?
1) To "teach them a lesson." It is called arrogance.
2) Take credit for doing something in the name of human rights. The general population will forget about the specifics by the time the next round of elections come around so there won't be any political implications.
Too bad that the Radical Islamists won't forget.
It is a noble idea to stand up for those who are downtrodden and are fighting for their freedom from a cruel and oppressive dictator. It is all the more motivating when one witnesses these same freedom fighters being attacked with poison gas. The thing that brings me to a halt is the lack of leadership from the White House. We cannot predict the secondary and tertiary consequences of an attack on Syria, especially when conducted by the Keystone Cops of the Obama Administration.
Obama did nothing to help the freedom fighters in Iran. He sided with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Now he wants us to believe that he knows who the good guys are in the Syrian resistance.
Vladimir Putin is supplying weapons and conducting strategy for Assad and the Syrian government. His opponent is Barry Obama. Barry is now in the deep end of the pool. Pardon those of us who don't want to get on his back.
So now, all of Assad's weapons are hidden among civilians. So we don't want Assad killing women and children, but we don't mind American cruise missiles killing Syrian women and children as collateral damage?
Count me out of this fight, bro.
That's kinda how it looks to me, but I'm hoping there is more to the plan.
I share your concerns.
You're the one who mocked Arab League hesistancy on the issue as some sort of Muslim thing. That clearly wasn't our excuse for similarly cynical and situational morality during the Iraq-Iran war.
1. I don't know that the strikes are thought to be "one-time", but the proposed resolution before the senate limits action to 90 days (PS, the senate hearings are being repeated on cspan1 right now). The objective is punishment sufficient to cause Assad to be either unable or unwilling to use chemical weapons again, as well as degrade his military position.
2. There is risk in any military operation and while planning for the possibility of failure is hopefully considered, stating all the fallback positions would not be wise. With a 90 day time limit any follow up would require reconsideration and a new resolution, unless the president decided to go it alone and face mounting opposition.
Be sure to consider the results of doing nothing for both the people in the region as well as our national interest when considering the proper course.
1 We couldn't have any positive effect on the Iranian green revolution as even the opposition considered our overt support the kiss of death. We surely were not going to invade and so you are dreaming if you think any American president would have done anything differently except maybe rant and rave.
2 Similarly we did not control events in Egypt, nor could we. We stayed behind Mubarak about as long as possible without becoming rear guard losers and we certainly did not back the Muslim brotherhood in the elections. Once elected why wouldn't we try to interact and maintain as much influence as possible. In both these countries you are suffering from delusions of american grandeur which does not exist and never did.
3 you ignore the bold steps Obama signed off on in both Pakistan and Libya which were highly successful. I guess I would to if I were trying to make your lake argument.
In sum, I supported Bush going into Afghanistan even though I realized he was a cowboy dimwit. You should consider what's best for the country and the world and leave your partisan prejudices behind.
1.Obama had every opportunity to provide covert support to the Iranian opposition. That opposition wants to restore a secular democratic government to Iran. They begged us publicly to help them. Obama sat by and watched them die in the streets. Now the survivors are languishing in Iranian prisons where many more will die. Why would any potential ally trust Obama when he has proved that he lacks a spine?
2.Obama embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and supported them right up to the destruction of the Egyptian constitution and replacement of elected officials with MB faithful. He abandoned a faithful ally in Mubarak who had kept the peace for thirty years. Obama is once again on the wrong side of history.
3.Obama's version of bold action is to give the Taliban and Al Qaida a date certain for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan thereby handing the country back to our sworn enemies and wasting the deaths of thousands of American soldiers. Why would any ally trust him?
Obama has had two years and 100,000 dead Syrians to do something to help the Free Syrian Army and did nothing. They have not received so much as a rifle from the US to date. Now he has told Assad when where and how we will attack him and has given Assad ample time to disburse his weapons among the civilian population. This president is a rank amateur and specializes in leading from behind. Putin must get a laugh a day from watching Obama screw up.
You may want to help Obama cover his a$$ by risking wider war in Syria. Most Americans see right through that. Obama let his mouth paint his rear into a corner and now wants Congress to bail him out. This is nothing more than CYA for Obama.
Finally, you, I mean YOU, accusing anyone of being partisan is really, REALLY rich. :laugh:
1 What exactly could Obama have done during the green revolution. Be specific please. Iranian journalist Omid Memarian, who himself was imprisoned by the Iranian government, says Obama rightly decided to not name Mousavi or Karroubi as the protests built up: “If President Obama had publicly supported the pro-democracy protesters, he would have played right into the regime’s hands. The movement would have lost its authenticity in the eyes of a wide range of supporters, irrespective of class, ethnicity, or political beliefs. Remember that in 1953 the CIA helped overthrow the most democratic government Iran had ever seen; for years, the American government also helped prop up the corrupt and feckless government of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It’s no wonder that people in Iran, and the Middle East, are highly suspicious of any U.S. political interference.
2 Mubarak was the wrong side of history. No one is calling for his return and his ouster brought millions to the streets of Cairo. Don't you watch the new or read a paper?
3 Your desire to stay in Afghanistan forever is duly noted, but Obama chased AQ and OBL into Pakistan and the Mission is Accomplished.
4. I think I am able to make logical and coherent arguments that are mindful of history without either demonizing Republicans or claiming sainthood for Obama while you and a few others on TH are incapable of typing more than a few sentences without reminding us of your obsessive and irrational hatred.
I say we simultaneously launch Nukes at Syria and Moscow. That way in Syria there is no one left, cause I don't trust the ones getting gassed any more than those doing the gassing, but I mean, Obama drew the line, you gotta back it up and well Russia is a guilty accomplice and you add in Snowden, it just seems like time for Russia to be reminded they are no longer a world power.
So we kill all Syrians and blow up Moscow and attack there nuclear arsenal and maybe we lose a city or two also, but you figure that would help with the unemployment numbers.
Seems like a viable solution, if your are gonna go, go big.
Lmao @ moderates controlling the opposition. What a crock. Not only are these rebel groups mostly, by numbers, al Qaeda linked or al Qaeda styled islamofundie groups, what few victories rebels gain over Assad are coming from those groups -- being the supplied, organized forces.
Moderates were supposed to be ascendant in Egypt, too, and we saw how that worked.
The only people who are in a position to replace Assad are as bad or even worse than Assad, period.
EDIT: I guess "ascendant" is a great euphemism for "nowhere to go but up" when it comes to moderate influence in the rebellion against Assad.
This is part of the concern. A 90 day (for starters) engagement is a lot more than a few missiles launched as a "shot across the bow", which was reportedly the initial idea. Not that I think the latter would be effective, but degrading the Syrian military sounds like mission creep already.
I'm not saying that all fall back positions need to be disclosed in detail. I do think that if the OA wants to win over the public there needs to be some discussion of where we're headed if things don't go as planned, since our history in the ME shows that things almost never go as planned. Right now a lot of people think that where we're headed is another war.
The people in the region have been killing each other since the Earth cooled, and I'm not convinced that taking action against Syria can make a meaningful difference there. As for our national interest, I'm not clear on how it's suddenly in our interest to attack Syria but I'm willing to listen.
FOX has a special on 911 airing at the moment. Today is Sept 4th. Are they trying to remind their viewers we still owe those bastards in Syria for it?
Row, three statements are very well thought out and logical.
I see a problem with the first point. The object of armed conflict is to defeat your enemy to a point where they can no longer fight you. Anything less exposes us to unnecessary risk.
I see a problem with the second point. It appears that the scope of the US Congressional action is limited to just the Syrian theatre of operations. It appears that no on is considering, at least openly, what to do if Iran and or Hezbollah enters the frey by attacking Isreal or US targets in the Middle East.
I see a problem with the third point. Why does it always have to be the US to risk their blood in these ventures. It is way past time for the countries in the Middle East to put some skin into the game. Maybe if they shed some their own blood they would have better respect for human life an freedom.
Don't need authorization by Congress for the President to take immediate action in that scenario.
Even the War Powers Resolution, which draws a line tight enough around the President as to at least raise questions about its constitutionality, recognizes that the President can take action under those sorts of circumstances without first seeking the advice or permission of the Congress.
The President has inherent executive powers, which include powers relating to the conduct of war, due to his primary responsibility for the national security of the United States. How far those powers extend is a debatable question, but no one questions that they cover taking responsive military actions immediately following an actual attack that threatens US national security.
Ben, thanks for the info but I was not questioning Obama's authority to do so if the reactions by Syria and Iran exceed the scope. I am more concerned if anyone is at least considering the impact of a brushfire war turning into major flare up. The West could lose the use of the Suez Canal, the Hormuz Straits could be closed, stablity of the Middle East and the adjacent areas could go to hell in a heart beat. Also, the possibility of a terror hit on our own soild is a possiblity that we have to consider.
Is stopping a WMD in a Syrian Civil war really worth the risks?
Also, Russia now has their own study out saying that the Syrian Rebels were the source behind the gas attack on Aug 21. I am not saying that the Russian report is legit but it does present the question of who has the most accurate feedback on that gas attack. It is not that far of reach to consider if AQ would gas civilians. There history of atrocities in Iraq last decade were well documented.
At this time we just maybe way to late to offer an effective response to what is happening in Syria. In my opinion the time to react was years ago as countries like Libya and Syria started producing Chemo/Bio WMD. It would of been easier and less dangerous to nip those programs in the bud. I guess back then it was either a low priority or we over estimated the difficulty in stopping those programs. Years later we found out just how much more dangerous and difficult it became to stop those programs.
At this point the USA has more to gain by joining Russia and China's position on the use of WMD in Syria. Military aid should be cut off to all sides, no intervention for any side, and a very strict promise (not a threat) to carry out military/economic responsesn if WMD are ever used. Again this is a Civil War that the Syrian people need to settle.
At the same time the USA, Russia and China need to take action now on Iran. Believe or not it is in China'a and Russia's best interest that Iran's nuclear weapons program (and Pakistan's too) be realed in. The stabilities of those two countries are a major concern to both Russia and China. Both countries have providences/territories with Islamic populations that are at times very troublesome to them.
Is it going to be easy to get any agreements out of the these three countries? Because of their veto powers these three countries have a trump card at the UN. Under the current set up Russia and China have used their veto power and other resources to derail many attempts by the Western Countries to real in renagade countries like North Korea and Pakistan. Most likey any agreements will be very difficult. However at least the USA will be in the middle instead of being on the sideline as we currently are.
So many people who were happy to send Americans to die in Iraq are now firmly opposed to a few missiles into Syria?
It is amazing how powerful Obama is, turning hawks into doves.
Thing is, I don't remember people all that much in favor of the sending -- they were in favor of absolute victory once we were committed because that was at that point the safest thing for our forces and our country. I am sure it would be much the same this time.
But let's roll with that, that people were all for invading Iraq... are you mad that a decade of lectures and rants about it might have, I don't know... worked? Or workers on everyone other than the people who were giving them, like Kerry and Obama?
Also, try to keep up, we aren't talking about a few missiles anymore it doesn't sound like, not with noises being made about securing Assad's chemical weapons. We are talking also about possibly provoking conflict with Russia, especially if we try to do something amazingly stupid like threaten any ships they might send to resupply Syria's military which they have done for years.