Page 50 of 52 FirstFirst ... 404849505152 LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 515

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

  1. #491
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Southern USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    52

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TiredOfLife View Post
    Your recall needs work but that's to be expected.
    Obama was put into office for purely historical reasons. History will verify that!

  2. #492
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-16-13 @ 05:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,817

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mizmo View Post
    Obama was put into office for purely historical reasons. History will verify that!
    He was put into office because the people elected him.

  3. #493
    double secret probation AngryOldGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Phx,Az
    Last Seen
    03-31-14 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,917

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

    I didn't vote for him
    New Hope for the Wretched era

  4. #494
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-16-13 @ 05:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,817

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AngryOldGuy View Post
    I didn't vote for him
    Then you can enjoy your minority status, twice I suspect?

  5. #495
    double secret probation AngryOldGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Phx,Az
    Last Seen
    03-31-14 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,917

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

    hah yeah I'd not vote for him a 3rd time if given the chance
    Minority? I'm part of the 77.9% that is white?
    New Hope for the Wretched era

  6. #496
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    You must have missed the thread where congress gives the president, no begs the president to take it on himself.
    Obama will never do that.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  7. #497
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Obama will never do that.

    But I thought that's what you have been accusing him of all along?

  8. #498
    double secret probation AngryOldGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Phx,Az
    Last Seen
    03-31-14 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,917

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

    Oh no kiddies it is far far FAR worse than we could have ever imagined
    New Hope for the Wretched era

  9. #499
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Obama will never do that.
    You are the perfect Republican poster child Navy. "Obama has done too little.......Obama s doing too much".....LOL.....would we expect more from the Wacko party of NO?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  10. #500
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

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

    In his Washington Post op-ed (Stephen Hadley: To stop Iran, stop Assad - The Washington Post), Stephen J. Hadley, former national security adviser to President Bush wrote:

    Bashar al-Assad has repeatedly and flagrantly crossed a U.S. “red line” by using chemical weapons against his own people. If the United States does not take military action, how credible will be the U.S. threat to use military force if the Iranian regime continues to pursue nuclear weapons? If that threat is not credible, then only months from now our nation could face the prospect of accepting a *nuclear-armed Iran or having to resort to military force to prevent it.

    That's only partially right. When it comes to deterrence, deterrence depends on a nation's possessing sufficient capacity to use force (by itself or with allies), willing to use force in the situation it is trying to deter, and its enemy's knowing that it is both willing and able to use force. If any of those elements is not present, then deterrence fails.

    The first component is beyond dispute. The U.S. is the world's foremost military power among a handful of great powers. Iran lacks the individual capacity and allies to counter the U.S. The second component is also fairly certain. The U.S. has long maintained a strategic doctrine that it would act militarily, if necessary, if another nation or group of countries attempted to impede the passage of oil through the Persian Gulf or attacked Israel. That leaves the third element, Iran's perceptions, for debate.

    Hadley's argument is that if the U.S. fails to respond militarily against Syria despite the President's personally having made the use of chemical weapons a "red line" would shatter U.S. credibility. Actions speak louder than words, so it might seem that Hadley is correct.

    However, there's more to the story. Credibility is defined not only by a consistency between words and actions. When it comes to grave matters such as military force, more is involved. The preeminent reason nations use force, aside from self-defense, is to safeguard critical interests that, if undermined, would pose a significant threat to their own security. The same holds true with respect to strategic allies. Indeed, the disconnect between the President's red line and actual U.S. interests in Syria (small) undermined deterrence in that sectarian conflict.

    That would not be the case with respect to Iran. There is no doubt that free passage through the Persian Gulf, security of friendly Gulf States, and security of strategic allies (Israel, Jordan, and Egypt) are critical U.S. interests. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten to overturn the region's balance of power in a fashion that would pose a significant threat to all of those vital interests (directly or indirectly e.g., through Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah).

    That would leave the U.S. with two major courses of action if diplomacy and sanctions fail:

    1. The development of a deterrence regime in which, for example, any nuclear device used or attempted to be used against a strategic U.S. ally or in a bid to curtail use of the Persian Gulf would be met with an assured nuclear response by the U.S. that would all but eliminate Iran (M.A.D. remade). Iran is a rational actor despite its revolutionary rhetoric. Knowing that it would be held responsible even if a terrorist group used a nuclear device against let's say Israel would preclude Iran from proliferating such technology or devices. In other words, deterrence could work. Whether the U.S. would have the stomach to construct a Cold War-style deterrence regime is questionable.

    2. Military strikes should Iranian possession or development of nuclear weapons become imminent.

    In short, there is little reason for Iran to believe that nuclear weapons would give it the capacity to exercise regional preeminence. It would know that the U.S. would not permit it free rein, even if it possessed such weapons. It would also know that there is more than a reasonable prospect that the U.S. could act militarily to prevent it from achieving a nuclear breakout. In short, Hadley's view is but one scenario. His attempt to link Iran's calculations to whether the U.S. carries out military strikes against Syria is probably weak given the qualitative difference in U.S. interests at stake.

Page 50 of 52 FirstFirst ... 404849505152 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
  •