Syria

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Message
Author
creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10341
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: Syria

#51 Post by creep » Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:26 pm

LJF wrote:Under Obama the US made air strikes against Libya and he didn't get approval from congress. A real leader makes tough decisions, that is their job. If he truly believes what he says about our national security make the call. He gave the red line talk, that was he word. If congress votes it down what does he do?

He is showing he made the wrong call about the red line and now he wants to push it off to others.
so you said that we shouldn't have air strikes. the president basically decided not to. now you criticize his decision. :crazy:

whether you like the guy or not the correct decision was made and he did it in a way to not make him look as weak.

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: Syria

#52 Post by LJF » Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:55 pm

creep wrote:
LJF wrote:Under Obama the US made air strikes against Libya and he didn't get approval from congress. A real leader makes tough decisions, that is their job. If he truly believes what he says about our national security make the call. He gave the red line talk, that was he word. If congress votes it down what does he do?

He is showing he made the wrong call about the red line and now he wants to push it off to others.
so you said that we shouldn't have air strikes. the president basically decided not to. now you criticize his decision. :crazy:

whether you like the guy or not the correct decision was made and he did it in a way to not make him look as weak.

No he didn't he said he wants to act, but will try to get approval, but difference. Yes I hope we don't do anything. I think from his red line stance talk he has no option but to do something and by not acting like a true leader, but instead pushing it off to others he still looks weak. Also he is now playing politics with an issue he said he feels is of national security.

All I think this weakness could put us and the rest of the world at a higher security risk from Iran.

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Syria

#53 Post by chaos » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:27 pm

Well I'm glad he does not care that his decision may be perceived as his being weak. At this point, we do not need to further destabilize the region, and agitate not only Assad (who has missiles pointed at Israel), but also China and Russia. Remember Assad wants more than anything to stay in power, so I do not think he is going to go all nuclear unless he thinks he is going to lose it all. Our national security would have been put more at risk if the US went ahead with the strikes, especially since no allies were willing to stand with us. This does not mean we do nothing; it means we do something else.

The fact that he took pause and chose not to move ahead because he already drew a line in the sand shows true leadership. I do not think he would be perceived as a stronger leader if he forged ahead with a poor plan. He realized that he made the wrong decision for which he had little support. Perhaps he actually took into account what his advisors had to say with regard to the the consequences of a strike - consequences that I think far outweigh what Iran thinks of his decision. If Iran acts up, then BO and the international community can deal with it then and come up with a real plan tailored to the specific circumstances.

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7341
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: Syria

#54 Post by Larry B. » Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:18 pm

LJF wrote:Under Obama the US made air strikes against Libya and he didn't get approval from congress. A real leader makes tough decisions, that is their job. If he truly believes what he says about our national security make the call.
Do you really believe that people being killed in Syria affects your national security? Please, explain to me how exactly. How does that government is a risk for your national security.

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: Syria

#55 Post by LJF » Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:33 am

Larry B. wrote:
LJF wrote:Under Obama the US made air strikes against Libya and he didn't get approval from congress. A real leader makes tough decisions, that is their job. If he truly believes what he says about our national security make the call.
Do you really believe that people being killed in Syria affects your national security? Please, explain to me how exactly. How does that government is a risk for your national security.

Ask Obama, he is the one that said it.

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7341
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: Syria

#56 Post by Larry B. » Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:31 am

LJF wrote:
Larry B. wrote:
LJF wrote:Under Obama the US made air strikes against Libya and he didn't get approval from congress. A real leader makes tough decisions, that is their job. If he truly believes what he says about our national security make the call.
Do you really believe that people being killed in Syria affects your national security? Please, explain to me how exactly. How does that government is a risk for your national security.

Ask Obama, he is the one that said it.
My question was pretty clear: do you believe it?

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: Syria

#57 Post by LJF » Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:03 am

Larry B. wrote:
LJF wrote:
Larry B. wrote:
LJF wrote:Under Obama the US made air strikes against Libya and he didn't get approval from congress. A real leader makes tough decisions, that is their job. If he truly believes what he says about our national security make the call.
Do you really believe that people being killed in Syria affects your national security? Please, explain to me how exactly. How does that government is a risk for your national security.

Ask Obama, he is the one that said it.
My question was pretty clear: do you believe it?

Not how I read it, to me you were asking me to defend the statement you quoted, which was Obama saying it. Whatever, I'd say probably not and that our national security would be more at risk with limited air strikes. Obama and his administration have stated many times regime change isn't the plan, not sure that really helps either, but limited strikes I don't see how that helps. We've put them on notice so I'd assume they would move around any stockpiles, but I'm certainly no military expert not even close.

I've said from the beginning we shouldn't do anything and I still believe that. I also believe that no matter what we do the US looks bad on man levels. If we go in and it's alone people say why is the US acting like the world police not their place to do that. They are just trying to spread their interests in Middle East. If we don't people will say why isn't the US doing more as the world police to correct a country that is using chemical weapons. There is also Obama's red line stance, which he somewhat covered his ass on yesterday.

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Syria

#58 Post by Bandit72 » Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:28 am

Looks like the Russians (who abhor chemical weapons) have told the Syrians to calm the fuck down. Which is fair enough, but can anyone tell me the difference between a using chemical weapons or using 50 cruise missiles?

User avatar
kv
Posts: 8743
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: Syria

#59 Post by kv » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:57 am

Bandit72 wrote:Looks like the Russians (who abhor chemical weapons) have told the Syrians to calm the fuck down. Which is fair enough, but can anyone tell me the difference between a using chemical weapons or using 50 cruise missiles?
the geneva protocol

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Syria

#60 Post by Bandit72 » Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:08 am

I was referring to 'deaths'

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Syria

#61 Post by Hype » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:01 am

Bandit72 wrote:I was referring to 'deaths'
That's a stupid way of measuring...

Can anyone tell the difference between the storming of Normandy and the gas chambers? :confused:

creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10341
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: Syria

#62 Post by creep » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:21 am

so does obama come out ok on this? by waiting it looks like a military action was avoided and the way it was looking it probably would have happened. seems to have worked out ok.

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Syria

#63 Post by Pandemonium » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:21 am

creep wrote:so does obama come out ok on this? by waiting it looks like a military action was avoided and the way it was looking it probably would have happened. seems to have worked out ok.
No. The way (at least so far) this has played out, at least to the world community it's made Obama look indecisive and wishy-washy when it comes to making "tough statements," having his constituents and international allies' support and following through on his bold statements. The cracks really started to appear when the UK wouldn't back the US and Obama began fucking around with Congress' approval. Add to that, there's clearly no long term plan and the administration has done an incredibly poor job selling this scheme to politicians and the public. And of course, there's no real "good guys" in the warring factions in Syria - we sure as hell don't want Al Qaeda making further inroads in the region and obviously Assad's simply an oppressive dictator aligned with China, Russia and Iran.

What has happened, is that with the possible deal brokered by Russia, is that Putin looks like a more forward thinking, innovative politician who has almost single-handedly kept the "war mongering USA" from attacking Syria and solved the issue of further use of chemical weapons by Assad. Obviously, it wouldn't have come to this point if Obama simply ignored the issue and didn't make the threat of bombing Syrian military targets in the first place but there's a certain level of political brinksmanship going on here that many other countries, notably Israel, Iran, North Korea and of course China are closely watching and probably rethinking how effective or not the US influence is on their affairs in the near future.

Now if Assad turns around and gasses another town in a couple months making Russia/Putin look like a patsy, all bets are off.

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: Syria

#64 Post by LJF » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:18 pm

he had to ask congress for approval because he didn't want his own VP looking to impeach him.

Here are Biden's own words about W and looking to have him impeached if he attacked Iran without Congress' approval, so I guess he would have had to start hearings on impeaching the president. Now that would have been interesting.

It turns out that his Democratic primary opponent and eventual running mate, then-Senator Joe Biden, had even stronger views about presidents attacking other nations without Congress's permission:

Chris Matthews: You said that if the United States had launched at attack on Iran without Congressional approval, that would've been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made?

Joe Biden: Absolutely. I want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don't say those things lightly, Chris. you've known me for a long time. I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that -- and I don't say it lightly, I don't say it lightly.

This is a striking statement.

It isn't that Biden hadn't thought very carefully about this issue before entering the executive branch, and then discovered in the vice-presidential residence that, upon reflection, the president really should have the unilateral authority to take America to war absent an actual or imminent threat.

Rather, he reflected deeply on the law for almost two decades, through numerous presidencies, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; consulted a whole group of constitutional scholars; taught constitutional law classes on the separation of powers; and went on national TV while running for president to declare unilateral executive-branch war-making a high crime!

But now that he's part of an administration openly pondering strikes on Syria without Congressional approval -- even as dozens of legislators demand to be consulted -- Biden doesn't have any public objections, and the position he and his constitutional experts once asserted is treated as a naive curiosity in the press. If intervention in Syria causes some Republican legislator to push impeachment, just remember that Joe Biden once subscribed to his or her logic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... se/279160/


It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.

Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 5394
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: Syria

#65 Post by Hokahey » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:55 pm

I'd surmise that to most reasonably minded people Obama looks fine.

He should ask for Congressional approval.

And if Russia swooped in and helped Syria with a proposal to avoid attack, all the better.

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Syria

#66 Post by Pandemonium » Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:40 pm

hokahey wrote:I'd surmise that to most reasonably minded people Obama looks fine.
Problem is, many of leaders of the countries that aren't exactly friendly with the US aren't "reasonably minded people."

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5268
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: Syria

#67 Post by Juana » Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:10 pm

Well looks like Obama is going to try to take him out

creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10341
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: Syria

#68 Post by creep » Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:15 pm

Juana wrote:Well looks like Obama is going to try to take him out
nope

vote postponed

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5268
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: Syria

#69 Post by Juana » Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:36 pm

creep wrote:
Juana wrote:Well looks like Obama is going to try to take him out
nope

vote postponed
Ahh well I hope that we get a resolution to this without having to kill more people. Surely the money ear marked for this can be used by Detroit.

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Syria

#70 Post by Bandit72 » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:06 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Bandit72 wrote:I was referring to 'deaths'
That's a stupid way of measuring...

Can anyone tell the difference between the storming of Normandy and the gas chambers? :confused:
It's not a 'measurement', it's the final result. I thought you of all people were against fighting fire with fire, no?

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Syria

#71 Post by Hype » Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:44 am

Bandit72 wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Bandit72 wrote:I was referring to 'deaths'
That's a stupid way of measuring...

Can anyone tell the difference between the storming of Normandy and the gas chambers? :confused:
It's not a 'measurement', it's the final result. I thought you of all people were against fighting fire with fire, no?
No, I've been pretty clear that I'm a pragmatist. And I don't buy your denial of "measurement"... the point is you can't just add up deaths.

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Syria

#72 Post by Bandit72 » Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:04 am

Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Bandit72 wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Bandit72 wrote:I was referring to 'deaths'
That's a stupid way of measuring...

Can anyone tell the difference between the storming of Normandy and the gas chambers? :confused:
It's not a 'measurement', it's the final result. I thought you of all people were against fighting fire with fire, no?
No, I've been pretty clear that I'm a pragmatist. And I don't buy your denial of "measurement"... the point is you can't just add up deaths.
I don't follow. My point is that death by chemical weapons is obviously the same as death by any other military force. I just find it weird that it's one rule for one weapon and one rule for another. That is all.

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: Syria

#73 Post by LJF » Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:45 am

I think in the short term Putin looks better in this situation. He looks like the better leader with stronger ties by coming up with what looks like a diplomatic solution. In the longer term Obama could look much better. This gives him more time to get congress and the US people on board and sell his reason to attack. It also gives him time to develop a clearer plan of attack, the what, why and how which will also help get the people to agree. If Syria agrees to Putin's plan, but doesn't follow through or there is another chemical attack that will just play into Obama's hand.

So far to me this has made Obama look unsure with what he wants to do and how to do it. He made big claims about the "red line" and recently claimed he didn't make the red line. Instead saying it is an international red line. Also claiming "my credibility isn't on the line, but congress' is." He needs to stand behind what he says and take responsibility for what he says and does. He is the leader of this country, so yes his credibility is on the line. Those are my big issues with how he has handled this so far and why I don't think he is a good leader or looks like a strong leader.

Also what happens if congress votes no, does that handcuff him? His VP has stated in the past he would impeach any president that takes military action without congress' approval. So where does that leave the administration?

With that being said this could still turn for his favor.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Syria

#74 Post by Hype » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:39 am

Bandit72 wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Bandit72 wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Bandit72 wrote:I was referring to 'deaths'
That's a stupid way of measuring...

Can anyone tell the difference between the storming of Normandy and the gas chambers? :confused:
It's not a 'measurement', it's the final result. I thought you of all people were against fighting fire with fire, no?
No, I've been pretty clear that I'm a pragmatist. And I don't buy your denial of "measurement"... the point is you can't just add up deaths.
I don't follow. My point is that death by chemical weapons is obviously the same as death by any other military force. I just find it weird that it's one rule for one weapon and one rule for another. That is all.
I do follow. My point is that they're not obviously the same (in fact, they're not even non-obviously the same.) There is a discussion we could have about why different rules exist in war for different ways of killing, and on the face of it, yeah, I sort of agree with what you were probably thinking, but isn't it weird to have any rules in war in the first place? If nations can agree not to use chemical weapons against each other, couldn't they also just agree, just as easily, not to use any weapons? Well, duh, but that's called idealism for a reason... And no, that's not all.

Anyway, if you want to see a bunch of very smart people discussing the issue, here's a blog-post by a philosopher in which he asks the sort of question you're really asking, and in which philosophers respond in the comments (I know a few of them... they're very smart...) http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/08/on-t ... apons.html

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Syria

#75 Post by Bandit72 » Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:13 am

Great article.
Of 188 signatory nations to the CWC, state parties listed below have also declared stockpiles, agreed to monitored disposal, and verification, and in some cases, used CW in conflict. Both military targets and civilian populations have been affected—the affected populations were not always damaged collaterally, but rather at times, the target of the attack. As of 2012, only four nations are confirmed as having chemical weapons: the United States, Russia, North Korea and Syria.
I wonder how easy they are for a nation to stockpile but not use? Would the west use it to their advantage, again (Iraq WMD's), to cause conflict? To paraphrase the late Bill Hicks :

"Syria? Incredible Weapons...Chemical weapons."
"Well, How do we know that?"
"...ahem...er...we (the french) looked at the receipt."

Post Reply