• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

'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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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??????
 
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
 
could cause a preemptive strike by "some radical group" on America
yanno

on the Eve of The Mother of All Battles when we started blowing the poop out of the 'fourth largest army on the planet'
I wondered why there weren't suicide bombers going boom in all the shopping malls across the nation.
The pressure cooker kids showed how excruciatingly simple it is, imagine if a sovereign Nation with millions to spend wanted
to launch an attack on every public place in America! hah how'd you like to get a cavity search by the greeter at Wal-Mart?
m7gzdu.jpg
 
yanno

on the Eve of The Mother of All Battles when we started blowing the poop out of the 'fourth largest army on the planet'
I wondered why there weren't suicide bombers going boom in all the shopping malls across the nation.
The pressure cooker kids showed how excruciatingly simple it is, imagine if a sovereign Nation with millions to spend wanted
to launch an attack on every public place in America! hah how'd you like to get a cavity search by the greeter at Wal-Mart?
m7gzdu.jpg

I've wondered that myself. With the ports of Norfolk, New Orleans and San Diego basically wide open, hmmmmmmmmm!
 
I've wondered that myself. With the ports of Norfolk, New Orleans and San Diego basically wide open, hmmmmmmmmm!
well there is that ;) although it wouldn't be anywhere's near close to the best means for detonating it (airburst at an optimum altitude) the eye-raians stick a crude gun type uranium device of 11 kilotons in a shipping container and detonate it at the dock?
 
well there is that ;) although it wouldn't be anywhere's near close to the best means for detonating it (airburst at an optimum altitude) the eye-raians stick a crude gun type uranium device of 11 kilotons in a shipping container and detonate it at the dock?

Maybe not at the dock, but they could have that container earmarked for delivery to a destination in downtown DC, with a GPS tracker inside so they know when it reaches its destination, then boom! Still not the best method, but effective...
 
narrr them thar gamma ray detectors would go berserk and the device would be detected right away
that pesky weapons grade material emits a very distinctive radioactive signature which is a biotch to mask
it would take lotsa shielding to pull it off?

*waves at the cute lady NSA analyst, really this is just readily available knowledge and I wuv America really I do*

knock knock knock flashbang detonation automatic weapons fire last AOG post RIP
 
Back
Top Bottom