Page 51 of 52 FirstFirst ... 4149505152 LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 515

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

  1. #501
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    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]
    This decision should have been made in secret before Obama drew his red line. We should have policy in place for instances like this. We play "war games" about everything in this country. We don't have a plan in place on what to do if another country with the power to de-stabilize the Middle East uses chemical warfare?? Yes.We.Do.

    "War weary" my lily white ass.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  2. #502
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Yep.

    When the dust settles, the strongest leader will stabilize the country.
    Like Saddam did? Stabilization by murder and torture?

  3. #503
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    We don't have a plan in place on what to do if another country with the power to de-stabilize the Middle East uses chemical warfare?? Yes.We.Do.

    "War weary" my lily white ass.
    Playing War-games and implementing the real thing are two different things, I'm sure you know that though. We trained all the time for scenarios, but that doesn't mean implementing those scenarios are easy or don't weigh on the conscious.

  4. #504
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Playing War-games and implementing the real thing are two different things, I'm sure you know that though. We trained all the time for scenarios, but that doesn't mean implementing those scenarios are easy or don't weigh on the conscious.
    If our government doesn't have a checklist of options available for any scenerio in the Middle East, I'll eat my hat. Using the bully pulpit to get what you want because you don't want to jeopardize political chances (which is what this is about) is absurd.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  5. #505
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    If our government doesn't have a checklist of options available for any scenerio in the Middle East, I'll eat my hat. Using the bully pulpit to get what you want because you don't want to jeopardize political chances (which is what this is about) is absurd.
    The fact that they do have a checklist of options is what bothers me.
    Its just proof they are always on the hunt to involve us where we are not wanted.

  6. #506
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    7,874
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post

    "War weary" my lily white ass.
    Heh-heh.
    "Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
    -FDR

  7. #507
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    If our government doesn't have a checklist of options available for any scenerio in the Middle East, I'll eat my hat. Using the bully pulpit to get what you want because you don't want to jeopardize political chances (which is what this is about) is absurd.
    You better get eating then, because there are many situations that are either not accounted for or are slightly different that would require different authorizations from Congress that he may not be able to get.

  8. #508
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    This decision should have been made in secret before Obama drew his red line. We should have policy in place for instances like this. We play "war games" about everything in this country. We don't have a plan in place on what to do if another country with the power to de-stabilize the Middle East uses chemical warfare?? Yes.We.Do.

    "War weary" my lily white ass.
    Plans are drawn up in advance at the pentagon. For many, many different countries. For many, many different possibilities. The plans are all based on logic and risk analysis designed for a successful outcome. Firing a "shot across the bow" or any other such foolishness wasn't considered by any war planner. That idiocy came from elsewhere.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  9. #509
    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

    Obama should be impeached. He is single-handedly placing America in danger. One scenario that I have not heard mentioned is that, with his constant saber-rattling, drawn out over a lengthy period, this type of empty threat could cause a preemptive strike by "some radical group" on America or American interests, perhaps maybe on 9/11/2013 or shortly after. It would not surprise me, after all, what could Obama do??????

  10. #510
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    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.
    There is another possibility. Norman Podhoretz: Obama's Successful Foreign Failure - WSJ.com

Page 51 of 52 FirstFirst ... 4149505152 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
  •