Page 21 of 52 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 515

Thread: 'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

  1. #201
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: 'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    Russia already seems to be distancing itself from Syria, they've encouraged their citizens living there to leave and have not threatened retaliation against western aggression. Iran might do something, or Hezbollah or Syria against Israel. That's the nightmare scenario. Hopefully they just take a missile strike as a slap on the wrist, promise not to use CW again, and continue with the war without it spreading into the region.
    Is your last sentence sarcastic?

  2. #202
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: 'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    Is your last sentence sarcastic?

    Glib, maybe, but no, not sarcastic. It seems apparent that the Syrian regime f****d up an killed more people in the attack then they wanted to, and have been wetting their pants since Kerry made his statements about holding them accountable. They have a lot to lose if the US strikes. Iran and Syria might be trying to deter a strike by threatening Israel, but if the US does act, and they bomb Israel, what would there be to gain? Israel could f*** them up, and we'd probably be committed to doing the same. What would Syria or Iran have to gain?

    On the other hand, the Syrian regime could take the hit and choose to not antagonize the U.S. further. They know that they can go back to indiscriminately slaughtering civilians as long as they don't use CW. I just think they're rational enough to realize that.

  3. #203
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: 'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    Glib, maybe, but no, not sarcastic. It seems apparent that the Syrian regime f****d up an killed more people in the attack then they wanted to, and have been wetting their pants since Kerry made his statements about holding them accountable. They have a lot to lose if the US strikes. Iran and Syria might be trying to deter a strike by threatening Israel, but if the US does act, and they bomb Israel, what would there be to gain? Israel could f*** them up, and we'd probably be committed to doing the same. What would Syria or Iran have to gain?

    On the other hand, the Syrian regime could take the hit and choose to not antagonize the U.S. further. They know that they can go back to indiscriminately slaughtering civilians as long as they don't use CW. I just think they're rational enough to realize that.
    Thank you for the clarification. The problem is that is the BEST case scenario...and it isn't even all that good, more like adequate. I personally believe that Iran is chomping at the bit to get us into another proxy war. Many of the "insurgents" in Iraq were Iranian agents/R.G. I also believe that Iran senses our reluctance to do more if this escalates. They WILL call our bluff. You see, the most they have to lose is we get more involved in Syria than we planned. The most they have to gain is either another proxy war this time in Syria, or (if we don't take the bait) no American response to escalation. Sure Israel will respond in kind, but they won't expose themselves beyond superficial retaliation. They can't afford to over expose themselves.

  4. #204
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,558
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response - CNN.com

    Thoughts? Questions? Invitations to dinner?[/FONT][/COLOR]
    I just realized something about the title of the OP's citation article. Doesn't "war-weary" national leader presses for an "act of war" seem like an oxymoron?
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 09-02-13 at 04:16 AM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  5. #205
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: 'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    Thank you for the clarification. The problem is that is the BEST case scenario...and it isn't even all that good, more like adequate. I personally believe that Iran is chomping at the bit to get us into another proxy war. Many of the "insurgents" in Iraq were Iranian agents/R.G. I also believe that Iran senses our reluctance to do more if this escalates. They WILL call our bluff. You see, the most they have to lose is we get more involved in Syria than we planned. The most they have to gain is either another proxy war this time in Syria, or (if we don't take the bait) no American response to escalation. Sure Israel will respond in kind, but they won't expose themselves beyond superficial retaliation. They can't afford to over expose themselves.
    I'd say it's not the best case scenario, that would be the Syrian regime crumbling from the attacks, which I doubt, but I get your point. Syria ceasing from using chemical weapons is just a good scenario.

    The reason I think Iran retaliating against Israel is unlikely is because of how close we are to going to war with them anyway. Netanyahu's already drawn his red line, but he'd be up for fighting them before then if he's given the chance. I guess I'm just being optimistic in supposing that the parties involved are aware that WWIII could erupt over this if they overreact, and have enough rational self-interest to avoid that.

  6. #206
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,463

    Re: 'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    I think Congress will not authorize it. Obama doesn't have a strategy and the bad that can happen far outweighs the good. Most Americans have no cause to be war weary...maybe weary of talking about it or tired of seeing it on the news. Obama at least has cause to be weary of war, or at least weary of dealing with it.

    Limited air strike is the worst thing we could do. It highlights our lack of conviction. The president basically said as much by admitting his war weariness. If we strike, our adversaries in the region will correctly diagnose it as a weak response to save face. They, in turn, will escalate. What do we do then? Lose more credibility?
    Credibility? We still have the largest miltiary budget ih the entire world.

    I don't know that conviction is the right word. Pragmatic, perhaps. A measured response. One strategy might be to take out Assad's telecommunications, his air fields, his missle launch sites, his palaces, a few newspaper and television stations, etc. However, it might not be a good idea to strike the chemical plants because if the plant isn't totally obliverated then some of the chemical gases could escape and kill thousands more than Assad did. That wouldn't look good, either.

    We have only two options: 1) go in with overwhelming force to secure chem weapons (or achieve some other quantifiable objective), or 2) stay out completely

    I vote 2, because we're not sure who are the good guys vice the bad guys in this. Likely both sides are both.
    Lets face it, both sides are bad. To take Assad out (regime change) is almost guarrentee that fundamental extremists will fill the void. I don't think the Russians want the latter to happen. Anyway, I think there is another option and that is to separate Syria into two countries. In a nut shell...

    Assad has everything to lose and the rebels have nothing to lose.

    Imo, separating Syria into two countries might be Assad's best option simply because its better than nothing which is what he will have if he keeps fighting. Diviidning Syria will at least leave Assad with a country to control albeit much smaller and the rebels who had nothing will also have something. Imo, that option opens the door to diplomatic intervention and solution.

  7. #207
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: 'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    I'd say it's not the best case scenario, that would be the Syrian regime crumbling from the attacks, which I doubt, but I get your point. Syria ceasing from using chemical weapons is just a good scenario.

    The reason I think Iran retaliating against Israel is unlikely is because of how close we are to going to war with them anyway. Netanyahu's already drawn his red line, but he'd be up for fighting them before then if he's given the chance. I guess I'm just being optimistic in supposing that the parties involved are aware that WWIII could erupt over this if they overreact, and have enough rational self-interest to avoid that.
    Not so sure that Assad's government crumbling is even in our best interest. We are told by our media day in and day out that Assad is a thug and commits atrocities, which is probably true. However, Russian tv shows the atrocities of the rebels. Truth is, atrocities are committed by both sides and both sides are courting support and have an interest in hiding their respective atrocities.

    I don't quite think that WWIII is on the horizon, but I do think that Iran could attack Israel indirectly through Hezbollah or Syria if they calculate that we are unwilling to step in. And we've pretty much told them that.

    Either way, we have to ask ourselves if we are willing to accept the possibility if it's realistic...and that's a decision the president must make.

    and thank you for the like - I know that I'm new on here, but extremely happy that I can have conversation with people that care about these issues.
    Last edited by SBu; 09-02-13 at 05:29 AM. Reason: courtesy

  8. #208
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-03-13 @ 04:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    376

    Re: 'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    I just realized something about the title of the OP's citation article. Doesn't "war-weary" national leader presses for an "act of war" seem like an oxymoron?
    I figure Obama's take is we have to stop this guy before he becomes the next Hitler, but at the same time he is thinking he is really tired of putting troops in harm's way. We live in a very dangerous time; and I don't envy anyone having to be POTUS these days. Obama has what - 2 years and change left? Imagine what the next POTUS has to deal with: Iran and North Korea. Who would even want that job?!?!?!

  9. #209
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: 'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Credibility? We still have the largest miltiary budget ih the entire world.

    I don't know that conviction is the right word. Pragmatic, perhaps. A measured response. One strategy might be to take out Assad's telecommunications, his air fields, his missle launch sites, his palaces, a few newspaper and television stations, etc. However, it might not be a good idea to strike the chemical plants because if the plant isn't totally obliverated then some of the chemical gases could escape and kill thousands more than Assad did. That wouldn't look good, either.

    Lets face it, both sides are bad. To take Assad out (regime change) is almost guarrentee that fundamental extremists will fill the void. I don't think the Russians want the latter to happen. Anyway, I think there is another option and that is to separate Syria into two countries. In a nut shell...

    Assad has everything to lose and the rebels have nothing to lose.

    Imo, separating Syria into two countries might be Assad's best option simply because its better than nothing which is what he will have if he keeps fighting. Diviidning Syria will at least leave Assad with a country to control albeit much smaller and the rebels who had nothing will also have something. Imo, that option opens the door to diplomatic intervention and solution.
    By lack of conviction, I mean that it highlights our lack of resolve to accomplish an objective. Obama has said "no boots on the ground" no "no fly zone" etc. He has basically said we are not willing to get serious. Now you may agree or disagree, but the result is unchanged...enemies will sense weakness.

    Your suggestions about target are almost certainly among the top. However, how does that resolve the reasons for getting involved in the first place? More importantly, what is the next step IF escalation occurs?

    I think getting both sides to agree to a "two-state solution" is unrealistic. Please google a map of rebel held syrian areas on a map, then respond to how likely a two state solution is.

    Lastly, despite our passionate disagreement, thank you.

  10. #210
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: 'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

    Quote Originally Posted by Snappo View Post
    I figure Obama's take is we have to stop this guy before he becomes the next Hitler, but at the same time he is thinking he is really tired of putting troops in harm's way. We live in a very dangerous time; and I don't envy anyone having to be POTUS these days. Obama has what - 2 years and change left? Imagine what the next POTUS has to deal with: Iran and North Korea. Who would even want that job?!?!?!
    What does this have to do with the topic? We should feel sorry for the President who sought out the job?

Page 21 of 52 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •