News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

Puppet War in Syria

Started by Gaspar, June 14, 2013, 01:48:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

AquaMan

You guys are really messed up. You set constructs that you assure yourselves are accurate and factual even though you have no particular inside information and no good sources for your assertions. Then when reality doesn't match up with your constructs you go weird with cartoon pics, spin and half truths.

Past is prologue. It isn't totally predictive.

Speaker Boehner, McCain and other leading republicans and conservatives seem to think Obama has a plan. They also feel that some response is necessary that doesn't include full out war. I suspect they are better briefed than locals on TN or congressmen from OK. Yet, Gas doesn't recognize that and H, you sound downright paranoid,cynical and ready for a tin hat fitting.

Solutions aren't very forthcoming but I assume you both support just jamming our heads deeper into the sand till bad people just go away. Unfortunately there is not enough sand and they aren't going away.

We teach them nothing by destroying their gas stockpiles or making them pay a price for using them. There is no teaching without students. But they must recognize that touching a hot stove burns.
onward...through the fog

AquaMan

For those who take Gas's...gas...as truly representative of unvarnished factual reporting, both of you, I present excerpts from a very slanted Yahoo article, with a headline barely related to its text:

President Barack Obama insisted on Wednesday that Congress and the world will lose credibility if Bashar Assad's alleged chemical weapons massacre goes unpunished.
"My credibility's not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line, and America and Congress' credibility is on the line," Obama said during a visit to Stockholm, Sweden.

"I do have to ask people, well, if, in fact, you're outraged by the slaughter of innocent people, what are you doing about it?" Obama asked. "The moral thing to do is not to stand by and do nothing."

"I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line," he insisted. "The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war."
And
"Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated, in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act, that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for," he added.

The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Syria never signed, does not call for unilateral military force in response to violations by countries not party to the treaty. The Syria Accountability Act imposes tough economic sanctions on Syria, but it does not envision unilateral military force.

Obama insisted on Wednesday, "that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."
His arguments recalled then-President George W. Bush's warnings in the runup to the invasion of Iraq that world credibility was on the line because of a series of U.N. Security Council resolutions warning Saddam Hussein about possessing weapons of mass destruction, and Bush's insistence that Congress' credibility was at stake because it passed the Iraq Liberation Act that made "regime change" official U.S. policy.

"I'm very mindful of the fact that around the world and here in Europe in particular, there are still memories of Iraq," Obama said.
"Keep in mind, I'm somebody who opposed the war in Iraq and am not interested in repeating mistakes of us basing decisions on faulty intelligence," he added. "We believe very strongly, with high confidence, that in fact chemical weapons were used and that Mr. Assad was the source."
Obama's comments came as the deeply divided Congress wrestled with whether to approve legislation granting him authorization to use force against Syria.

Asked what he would do if lawmakers rejected the measure, Obama bluntly told lawmakers that he does not need their permission to strike Syria. And he challenged Congress to do more than "sit on the sidelines (and) snipe."
"As commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America's national security. I do not believe that I was required to take this to Congress," Obama said.
"But I did not take this to Congress just because it's an empty exercise; I think it's important to have Congress's support on it," Obama said at a press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.
The president expressed confidence that Congress will ultimately give him its green light for military action against the Syrian president's forces, whom Washington accuses of massacring civilians with chemical weapons on Aug. 21.
"I believe Congress will approve it," he said.

"We can send a very clear strong message in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. We can change Assad's calculus about using them again. We can degrade his capabilities so that he does not use them again," Obama said.
"What I'm talking about is an action that is limited in time and in scope, targeted at the specific task of degrading his capabilities and deterring the use of those weapons again," the president said.



"It's important for us to get out of the habit of just saying, 'well, we'll let the president kind of stretch the boundaries of his authority as far as he can. Congress will sit on the sidelines, snipe. If it works, the sniping will be a little less. If it doesn't, a little more.' But either way, the American people and their representatives are not fully invested in what are tough choices," Obama said.
onward...through the fog

DTowner

It's fair to say most politicians of both parties and all ideological stripes will flip flop positions for partisan calculation or political opportunity.  Nonetheless, it's also fair to take the President at his word.  Obama in 2002:

"Now let me be clear--I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

http://web.archive.org/web/20090108155556/http:/en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Obama in 2007:

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now--where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife--which we haven't done," Mr. Obama told the AP. "We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea."

It is not unreasonable for Americans and our representatives in Congress to ask that President Obama square his past position with his current one before blessing this latest adventure in the Mid-East.

Gaspar

Quote from: DTowner on September 04, 2013, 03:22:47 PM
It's fair to say most politicians of both parties and all ideological stripes will flip flop positions for partisan calculation or political opportunity.  Nonetheless, it's also fair to take the President at his word.  Obama in 2002:

"Now let me be clear--I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

http://web.archive.org/web/20090108155556/http:/en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Obama in 2007:

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now--where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife--which we haven't done," Mr. Obama told the AP. "We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea."

It is not unreasonable for Americans and our representatives in Congress to ask that President Obama square his past position with his current one before blessing this latest adventure in the Mid-East.


Correct, and I think that is exactly what is happening. 

While there will always be sycophantic cult of Obama who will strive to parse their own, and the president's historical stance on an undeniably identical situation, I am pleasantly surprised to see groups, of paradoxically dissimilar political opinion, coming together over what has proven to be a poor course of action, both historically, and globally.

As President Obama would say, this is a "teachable moment", and we are all students.

The war for freedom will never really be won because the price of our freedom is constant vigilance over ourselves and over our Government. – Eleanor Roosevelt

The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should therefore be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated. If the doctrine be admitted, rulers have only to declare war and they are screened at once from scrutiny. – William Ellery Channing (1780-1842)




When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.

Gaspar

Senate passed the resolution.  They rushed it through committee so that the House won't have time to craft an alternative resolution.

Looks like we will have to bomb Syria to see what's in it.
When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.

AquaMan

Quote from: DTowner on September 04, 2013, 03:22:47 PM
It's fair to say most politicians of both parties and all ideological stripes will flip flop positions for partisan calculation or political opportunity.  Nonetheless, it's also fair to take the President at his word.  Obama in 2002:

"Now let me be clear--I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

http://web.archive.org/web/20090108155556/http:/en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Obama in 2007:

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now--where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife--which we haven't done," Mr. Obama told the AP. "We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea."

It is not unreasonable for Americans and our representatives in Congress to ask that President Obama square his past position with his current one before blessing this latest adventure in the Mid-East.


You want to go back and square your positions with your statements 6 to 10 years ago? Before you became so worldly and knowledgeable about your profession? He was a candidate and that was a decade ago. Americans and Representatives who spend their time asking such questions are naive and wasting time. Politics, yeah, whatever. Decisions are being made based on today's situations and they are still a decade behind. Besides, those were questions about troops being committed. This is much narrower.
onward...through the fog

AquaMan

#111
Gaspar:

Quoting Budhha rather loosely,  "The teaching begins when the student arrives".

You're stuck in traffic.

onward...through the fog

Gaspar

Perhaps. . .

Share your feelings, opinions, and logic on the strike on Syria. Do you feel there is reason for US action?. . . I mean beyond the typical blind drone strike?
When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.

AquaMan

Quote from: Gaspar on September 04, 2013, 08:55:19 PM
Perhaps. . .

Share your feelings, opinions, and logic on the strike on Syria. Do you feel there is reason for US action?. . . I mean beyond the typical blind drone strike?

Um...do you read anyone else's posts? I made my opinion known farther up. One of the few times Guido and I agree on something (in principle if not in execution).
onward...through the fog

guido911

As much as I feel Obama has completely f'd up his messaging on this intervention, I have to believe he has the interests of the U.S. in mind. I do not believe he wants to attack Syria because of any loss of credibility over this "red line". I truly believe he believes this is a WMD proliferation issue, and I believe he believes failure to respond to a WMD attack would embolden Iran. Obama has never led me to believe he is a warmonger, but the photos of those dead children, gassed by their leader, is what is motivating him. Maybe he was reminded of all those murdered Kurdish children who were also gassed.

A nation willing to unleash an uncontrollable, indiscriminate, mass casualty-causing weapon on their own people would have ZERO qualms unleashing the same on other countries or perhaps give them to other people to use on other countries. I continue to support Obama on this, and when it hits the fan, I would hope that this country (and the world) would rally around him. 
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.

guido911

#115
Quote from: DTowner on September 04, 2013, 03:22:47 PM


It is not unreasonable for Americans and our representatives in Congress to ask that President Obama square his past position with his current one before blessing this latest adventure in the Mid-East.


No, it isn't unreasonable. I just think at this point it is irrelevant. Obama has decided that Syria poses a threat to this country, and I believe him. What he said in 2002-2003 or in 2007 does not make his belief about Syria (or the threat Assad poses) any more or less likely.



edited. And if called upon, I would suit up and fight under his command--just like I would have under W.
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.

rebound

Quote from: guido911 on September 04, 2013, 09:26:04 PM
Obama has decided that Syria poses a threat to this country

Now hold on.  I haven't commented on this thread because, well, I just don't think it  makes a difference and both sides have been pretty well represented by the various factions.  But Obama has not suggested that Syria poses a threat to this country.  His position is (if you believe what he says, and even though I am against engagement I do think he is sincere) that we engage on principle because of Syria's use of chemical weapons, with some tangential references to regional threats, how it would look to Iran, etc.  But Syria as an actual direct threat to the US?  Not even close.

I'm almost certain we will end up engaging, but I am not convinced that it is warranted, that it will have any real effect, or that the outcome will be in our favor in the long run.
 

guido911

Someone get Hoss a pacifier.

rebound

Read it again. He doesn't say that Syria is a direct threat.  He says the stockpile could be a threat, indirectly, if Syria loses control and the weapons get into the hands of terrorist organizations:

"When you start talking about chemical weapons, in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time their control of chemical weapons may erode, where they're allied to known terrorist organisations, that in the past have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility in which chemical weapons, that can have devastating effects, could be directed at us and we want to make sure that that does not happen," 

Which of course IS a possibility, especially if we help hasten the fall with our own military.  Unless of course we think we can safely assure that all of the current stockpile will end up in the hands of "friendlies" when/if Assad falls?  Not likely.

 

guido911

Quote from: rebound on September 04, 2013, 10:56:32 PM
Read it again. He doesn't say that Syria is a direct threat.  He says the stockpile could be a threat, indirectly, if Syria loses control and the weapons get into the hands of terrorist organizations:

"When you start talking about chemical weapons, in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time their control of chemical weapons may erode, where they're allied to known terrorist organisations, that in the past have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility in which chemical weapons, that can have devastating effects, could be directed at us and we want to make sure that that does not happen," 

Which of course IS a possibility, especially if we help hasten the fall with our own military.  Unless of course we think we can safely assure that all of the current stockpile will end up in the hands of "friendlies" when/if Assad falls?  Not likely.


This is what you wrote: "But Obama has not suggested that Syria poses a threat to this country." I provided you a link, now this...
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.