Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

JPB wrote:

If it was a bluff. All of this may have been cooked up at the G-20 meeting last week. I quite honestly don't care if he was caught being flippant or was intentionally throwing out a bone so long as it works.

strange though, Obama is supposed to be working full bore to get Congress to approve force, and he just made that job even more impossible because who in their right mind is going to agree to go to war if diplomacy might work?

I don't know. They may vote more easily to approve the use of force UNLESS Assad agrees to give up his entire inventory (and perhaps the infrastructure to make more). It'll piss off the hawks who want to intervene in the civil war, but will bring the left and moderates in the House closer to voting yes.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Moment-in-Time wrote:

Who outside of the administration really understand what the administration's strategy is. We do get a *glimpse* of a personal profile on Bashar Assad. Israeli military bombed a weapons depot in the Syrian town of Latakia two years ago. Assad did absolutely nothing. Such is the way of cowards.

His existence wasn't threatened then.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

I don't know. They may vote more easily to approve the use of force UNLESS Assad agrees to give up his entire inventory (and perhaps the infrastructure to make more). It'll piss off the hawks who want to intervene in the civil war, but will bring the left and moderates in the House closer to voting yes.

the default is to do nothing, and there is no reason for congressmen to put themselves on the hook now if deplomacy is in the works. defying the majority is never a good idea when one is asking for votes.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Radovan Karodzic, Slobodan Milosevic and Ratko Mladic all looked like they got away with it, but they all ended up in the Hague. That's where Assad will end up if he doesn't get killed first.

For the equivalent of peanuts compared to the stuff the US and the UK have pulled. Why aren't they in the Hague?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Moment-in-Time wrote:
Who outside of the administration really understand what the administration's strategy is. We do get a *glimpse* of a personal profile on Bashar Assad. Israeli military bombed a weapons depot in the Syrian town of Latakia two years ago. Assad did absolutely nothing. Such is the way of cowards.

izzythepush wrote:

Quote:
His existence wasn't threatened then.

URL: http://able2know.org/topic/221145-34#post-5435093

You might have a point, Izzy. With a conceivable strike by the US, Assad's military will be weakened which might surely lead to the tyrannizer's ouster or his possibly being assassinated. Obama's overt determination to strike with or without UN and or Congressional approval has clearly placed intense strain on the Syrian autocrat and I think it's fear that's making him agree publicly (via a regime spokesman) with the Russian plan.

3 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

You're watching a filibuster. A proper one.

0 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

Moment-in-Time wrote:

Quote:

Moment-in-Time wrote:
Who outside of the administration really understand what the administration's strategy is. We do get a *glimpse* of a personal profile on Bashar Assad. Israeli military bombed a weapons depot in the Syrian town of Latakia two years ago. Assad did absoluteluly nothing. Such is the way of cowards.

izzythepush wrote:

Quote:
His existence wasn't threatened then.

URL: http://able2know.org/topic/221145-34#post-5435093

You might have a point, Izzy. With a conceivable strike by the US, Assad's military will be weakened which might surely lead to the tyrannizer's ouster or his possibly being assassinated. Obama's overt determination to strike with or without UN and or Congressional approval has clearly placed intense strain on the Syrian autocrat and I think it's fear that's making him agree publicly (via a regime spokesman) with the Russian plan.

you are ******* ignorant, the chemical stuff was for use against Israel and is of no use to assad in the civil. war, he was always going to give it up in a heartbeat. the problem is figuring out how to make it happen in a land divided by civil war. after he wins this war he can go back to caring about Israel, and rebuilding will be cheap and easy.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

And, now, apparently in earnest. Unless you read the spin from the State Dept.

Quote:
The US secretary of state has said that President Bashar al-Assad has one week to hand over his entire stock of chemical weapons to avoid a military attack.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-john-kerry

Swell. I've been out of town for a day and a half, and come back to hear we've got another deadline for somebody to comply with. Warm fuzzies are always nice to come home to.

1 Reply

@roger,

Don't you just love the fact that the US keeps drawing red lines? I just wonder where the red line for the US is.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Good point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget

2 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

I don't think Assad's refusal to engage with the IDF is down to cowardice but resources. Both the Syrian army and Hezbollah are fighting the rebels, the IDF's strikes were single and proportionate. Assad probably didn't think of it as too much of a threat, and felt his troops were of more use elsewhere.

If his back's to the wall there's no telling what he might do. Having said that if the chemical weapons can be destroyed without a strike that has to be the best outcome. Russia and Iran don't want ricin to fall into the hands of Al Qaida so it might be a genuine move.

Btw, pay no attention to Hawkeye, he's an idiot.

1 Reply

Syria's Foreign Minister said his country has accepted a Russian proposal to relinquish control of its chemical arms stores.

I really do not want to post this, I went back and forth, finally decided to.

Obama's Case for Syria Didn't Reflect Intel Consensus

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

There are philosophical problems associated with fighting wars according to rules. This is probably not the best place to discuss such a matter. There might be Philosophy Majors hereabouts.

1 Reply

Obama, Putin Talked About Securing Syria Chemical Weapons

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin (POO'-tihn) about a potential plan for Syria to turn over its chemical weapons to international control.

Syria has welcomed an idea floated Monday for it to hand over chemical weapons for destruction to avoid a U.S. military strike. The public proposal from Russia followed what seemed to be an offhand remark by Secretary of State John Kerry. The U.N. secretary-general also backs the idea.

Obama tells PBS' "NewsHour" that he and Putin did speak about it last week while Obama was in St. Petersburg, Russia, for an economic summit. Obama and Putin had an impromptu chat Friday for about 20 minutes.

Obama says it was a continuation of previous conversations he's had with Putin about securing Syria's chemical weapons.

0 Replies

I'm wondering what shape Obama's speech is going to have after these developments?

Quote:

US must uphold credible threat of military action against Syria for diplomatic option to have chance of succeeding, Defense Secretary Hagel says -

source

0 Replies

@peter jeffrey cobb,

What that chart on defense spending proves is that the US spends six times more than the other highest spender, China. It also means that our government prefers spending on wars rather than on our own citizens welfare - with our tax dollars.

This is what happens when those individuals become the "most powerful person on this planet." They must swagger their power with more wars and killings to prove how powerful they are! They look for where they can start wars, because most have never served in the military or in wars, and don't understand the price paid in fortune or lost of life and injuries. In most cases, they don't even have family members, especially children or siblings, serving in the military.

They fail to understand the "cost." They make their decisions from a desk.

0 Replies

Well, Obama swagger has a slow jazz to it, he it open to UN talks.

Obama Agrees To U.N. Discussion Of Putting Syria Chemical Weapons Under International Control

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- A White House official says President Barack Obama has agreed to discussions at the United Nations Security Council on a proposal from Russia to secure Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles.

The official says Obama discussed the proposal Tuesday with French President Francois Hollande (frahn-SWAH' oh-LAWND') and British Prime Minister David Cameron. France's foreign minister says France will float a resolution in the U.N. Security Council aimed at forcing Syria to make public its chemical weapons program, place it under international control and dismantle it.

Obama has said the proposal marks a potential breakthrough that could halt plans for a U.S. military strike, though he said the details remain unclear.

0 Replies

Russia is insisting on a nonbinding agreement, with no clause for force in the event Assad reneges.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

There are philosophical problems associated with fighting wars according to rules. This is probably not the best place to discuss such a matter.

Maybe we can create a new thread.

What would these philosophical problems be?

0 Replies

@JPB,

That doesn't matter; Obama is going to strike at Syria if there is no agreement to remove chemical weapons.

0 Replies

Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know