|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Syria|
Posted - 8/25/2013 3:24:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
Now what do we do?
Honest to God, I don't know. Anyone with a soul had to be disgusted by those pictures of 'what appears to be' a chemical attack by Assads forces. (Though they've been trying to avoid it) A WH "official, in a carefully worded written statement, said that “based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians.”
On the Sunday morning shows (of course) there was plenty of criticsm of Obama to go around (He's a wimp coward--let's bomb 'em now--so we can accuse him of being a war criminal Dictator later) But I did watch Fox this morning, and the Repubs they had on generally expressed the view they would support what Obama would/could do
I just see this a lose/lose...but there's the tragic/inevitable 'something has to be done'.
Posted - 8/25/2013 4:17:45 PM | show profile | flag this post
If Obama hadn't been such a wimp
back when the Iranian insurrection nearly occurred and had provided support to the dissidents, this might have been avoided altogether. Assad is and for years has been a puppet of Iran and the recipient of weapons and support.
Failing that, Obama could have backed the Syrian rebels a long time ago...BEFORE they got tied into al Qaeda...and Assad might have been overthrown without all the carnage and the millions of refugees, which is the situation now.
He had a direct hand in Libya and lent moral support to the Egyptian dissidents...why is he soft-pedaling in Syria?
Posted - 8/25/2013 4:54:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'm not surprised.
A very complicated foreign affairs issue boils down to 'If Obama hadn't been such a wimp" Oh you're right. He should have bombed somebody.
"back when the Iranian insurrection nearly occurred" That was "nonviolent insurrection in Iran against the efforts by the ruling clerics to return the ultra-conservative and increasingly autocratic incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinjead" So... you're saying if Obama backed Ahmadinjead...you would be here praising the WH for that gutsy move. Righhhhhht...Does anyone buy that??
"Failing that, Obama could have backed the Syrian rebels a long time ago..." THAT'S the question. How? With what? If you sent wepons to "The Rebels", you don't know where they're going to end up. Boots on the ground and a NoFlyZone have been ruled out. A cruise missile attack still seems to be a viable option...but without international support, that's a one sided attack. And we know how well those are received.
It would be a welcome change if wingnuts appreciated that this is much more complicated situation than 'Whatever Obama does--I'm against it!!'
Posted - 8/25/2013 8:04:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
You can't get ANYthing right
It's a real waste of my time to even try to discuss anything with you.
The saddest part is I don't think your all that stupid...I think you do it on purpose.
Posted - 8/25/2013 11:39:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
about that red line..........
how many times has it been erased and re-drawn?
Posted - 8/26/2013 9:49:46 AM | show profile | flag this post
The red line is dependent on proof that the Syrian government did, in fact, use chemical weapons.
Nearly nine years of war and more than 4,000 American lives should be proof enough to anyone that the U.S. has proof before taking military action.
Or maybe you slept through Iraq.
The issue with Syria is a tough one. The American people are not willing to get into another war -- when Afghanistan is still underway.
Cruise missile strikes on Syrian military bases, chemical weapons storage sites and aid to select elements within the rebellion may be the most we do.
Posted - 8/26/2013 11:47:52 AM | show profile | flag this post
That's a whole lot more than Obama's doing now
and it could tip the balance away from Assad. The danger, of course, is inadvertently supporting al Qaeda and/or other terrorist organizations, which would be a political nightmare for Obama both at home and abroad.
I think his foot-dragging on Libya soured relations with many Middle Eastern countries.
Posted - 8/26/2013 1:40:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
but it worked out the process by which NATO may likely respond in Syria.
Remember, in Libya, Obama wanted other NATO allies to take the lead -- with the US providing more of a supporting role. That took some doing with an alliance that 1) had a greater interest in Libya than the US did and 2) were used to letting the US do the heavy lifting.
The Libyan model forced France and Britain -- and to a lesser extent Italy -- step up and put more of their assets on the line.
And it's worked well since then -- for instance, in the French response in Mali.
And it'll be critical in the future as the US lets European allies take more of a role as the US shifts focus (or "rebalances" and the generals and admirals like to say) toward China and the Pacific.
Posted - 8/26/2013 2:11:21 PM | show profile | flag this post
Given the fecklessness of the recent UN hierarchy
they cannot be counted on for any meaningful leadership...and, in fact, have a record in recent decades of tilting toward rogue states.
We should abandon this wholly ineffective organization and form a stronger NATO with a broader scope...or something similar.
Posted - 8/26/2013 3:11:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
PROOF!!!! Did Bush Need Proof?!!!!
cruiser and con/puzo would rush headlong into war all over again.
Keeping in mind they would NEVER volunteer.
But safely wrapped in their flags they will claim patriotism from their dens as they demand Obama go after the WMD in Syria before they pull off another 9/11.
Why wait for proof and international consensus on military action that could potentially create huge political and military consequences?
If cruiser and con/puzo ever left their homes, they'd go!
But they never have, of course.
Posted - 8/26/2013 8:52:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
Sure sounds like we have the proof we needed, and now we're working on getting Congressional support--not to mention getting Arab neighbors on board--not to mention the Russians and the rest of NATO.
The 'What?' still sounds like cruise missiles. We've got four Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the Med (up to 90 missiles each), and two subs. (They're modified boats as they say, up to about 150 missiles each) You do the math. Best part of course is no pilots in harms way. The same can't be said for the civilians on the ground unfortunately.
And let's be (politically) realistic. No matter what the WH does (or doesn't do) it will be either war mongering evil, or pansy ass weak as far as the wingnuts are concerned.
Posted - 8/27/2013 12:42:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
And now that we've waited up to a year
after the first suspected gas attack, we're going to lob a bunch of $1.5 million cruise missiles into Syria. And I'd bet they'll do massive damage to abandoned military installations. Shades of Bill Clinton.
A year is PLENTY of time for Assad to send the gas canisters BACK to Iraq (whence they came in huge convoys tracked by our spy satellites) where al Qaeda will likely get their hands on them.
Posted - 8/27/2013 1:27:14 PM | show profile | flag this post
What would you suggest instead?
Cruise missiles are highly effective -- especially in a shooting war where there are plenty of targets.
Clinton found them highly effective in Desert Strike and Desert Fox, the two operations now credited with destroying Iraq's chemical weapons capabilities in the late 1990s.
Drones are more effective against terrorists -- because the drone can hang around for hours until the target moves into position for a guaranteed kill.
But with Syria, we're talking about fixed storage facilities, air fields and command and control centers. We're also talking about a sophisticated air defense system that would have fighters on top of slow moving drones the second they crossed into Syrian air space.
Posted - 8/27/2013 4:41:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
Since we started it, we may as well finish it. Per articles publish in January 2013.
US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt': Report
London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.
A new report, that contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme 'approved by Washington'.
As per the scheme 'Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons,' the Daily Mail reports. … the U.S. State Department has declined to comment on the matter.
The original article, published by the Daily Mail, has been pulled. Here is a web archive:
Why was the original pulled??? Nothing to see, folks, move along, move along.
Posted - 8/27/2013 5:31:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** Why was the original pulled??? ***
The usual reason for pulling articles is that they're erroneous.
Posted - 8/27/2013 9:20:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
Just friggin unbelievable. That latest false flag bullsh*t is a mere two steps lower that "Cheney planned 9/11". You venturing out of the house yet??
Posted - 8/28/2013 2:58:09 AM | show profile | flag this post
"What would you suggest instead?"
What I would suggest is:
We don't have any national or strategic interest in what's going on in Syria, therefore we should do nothing.
Certainly, we can deplore Assad's cowardly gassing of his own people but to lob expensive cruise missiles into Syria...especially if they accomplish little to nothing like Clinton's...is WORSE than doing nothing. It makes the US look weak and ineffectual. And...truth be told...with Obama at the helm, that's a fact.
Posted - 8/28/2013 6:14:14 AM | show profile | flag this post
Who didn't see that coming?
See, when it comes to Syria, "Certainly we can deplore Assad's cowardly gassing of his own people" but "we should do nothing".
With no "national or strategic interest in what's going on" there, we should stay out of it. Even though no one is talking about thousands of American troops on the ground--Those missiles are EXPENSIVE donchaknow.
Oh cruise, what happened to "Even Iraq, which we rescued from a brutal dictator" (8/10). That was far different than what we're talking about now. Iraq cost the US over 36,000 Americam killed or wounded and a mere $2 trillion. But but but that was a "rescue" and anything--anything--Obama does or doesn't do is just horrible for you...'that's a fact'.
And...truth be told...since Obama's president, wha
Posted - 8/28/2013 9:44:02 AM | show profile | flag this post
On this point...
"We don't have any national or strategic interest in what's going on in Syria, therefore we should do nothing," I'd have to disagree.
The U.S. does have a strategic interest in addressing the use of chemical weapons on civilians.
It is a line the world has to draw to prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons.
This is not a unilateral action by the U.S. it's an example of how nations can come together to draw a line that no other country will be willing to cross if they know the weight of the world is waiting to come down on them.
But, it must be tempered with strong, confirmed evidence before we take part in an international operation.
No more Iraqs.
Posted - 8/28/2013 9:56:33 AM | show profile | flag this post
How two-faced is that?
Posted - 8/28/2013 10:33:11 AM | show profile | flag this post
The War Powers Act (50 USC 1541) does NOT provide for
US military actions against any foreign entity UNLESS:
(1) There is a declaration of war, which is the specific Constitutional responsibility of congress, NOT the unilateral prerogative of the president,
(2) There is specific statutory authorization, meaning congress must authorize any act of war, or the US must be acting in accordance with a recognized policy under an international treaty that is binding on the US (e.g., a UN resolution), or
(3) A national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
NONE of these are in play in the current situation in Syria.
The War Powers Act does NOT provide for "punishment" of a rogue head of state, nor does it provide for intimidation from by the US.
Obama acted illegally in Libya and he's about to act illegally in Syria. The act of "notifying" congress doesn't get the president off the hook...it does not provide "specific statutory authorization."
Posted - 8/28/2013 1:05:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
For a genius, you really don't get it, do you?
Posted - 8/28/2013 1:06:19 PM | show profile | flag this post
But you sure can holler!
Posted - 8/28/2013 1:13:59 PM | show profile | flag this post
"you really don't get it, do you?"
Unless you can convince me you're a Constitutional lawyer...and there's not a chance in hell that you are...I "get it" just fine.
Posted - 8/28/2013 2:53:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
we went through all this war powers act with cruiztwit..
he lost hands down then.. he'll lose hands down now..