Which Gas attack did POTUS Really Really Really Mean Would be a Trigge

[B-Man]

On Poking Animals and Other Stupid Things

By Victor Davis Hanson

 

There are lots of reasons why many of us who would like to punish the Assad-family regime for its long history of anti-American and savage and genocidal conduct fear the present course is unwise, not in America’s interest, and dangerous — at least as it has so far been articulated.

 

One of the most unwise things to do in war is to preempt with the intention of merely wounding or humiliating an adversary without any intention of following through with further responses, or of ensuring that the attacked has little ability to retaliate, or of being prepared for a long tit-for-tat sequence in which the preemptor (i.e., us) has the upper hand.

 

{snip}

 

Are we prepared for any of these scenarios in Syria, when the talk is not about steps two, three, and four, but mostly about our initial one-quarter or one-third step, as if the beginning will be the end because we say it is?

 

The point is not that a great power should not retaliate against grievances, only that when it preempts — and boldly starts an aggression for whatever cause, whether foolish or wise — it should be prepared to do so in such force that the attacked cannot retaliate, or at least realizes its planned retaliation would only ensure it more misery. Otherwise, poking an animal in the eye — no matter its apparent small size or lack of ferocity — will ensure some sort of response of who knows what caliber.

 

.

[birdog1960]

.

no kidding, these unwise things have been done repeatedly for the last 50 years...so what would you have obama do now? hear lots of criticism but not many solutions.

[Chef Jim]

no kidding, these unwise things have been done repeatedly for the last 50 years...so what would you have obama do now? hear lots of criticism but not many solutions.

 

Well first take responsibility for the red line remark. Have some !@#$ing balls about it and then go with what Congress votes on. It's not rocket surgery unless you're clueless when it comes to being a leader/manger.

[birdog1960]

Well first take responsibility for the red line remark. Have some !@#$ing balls about it and then go with what Congress votes on. It's not rocket surgery unless you're clueless when it comes to being a leader/manger.

he can't take responsibilty for the red line statement until congress ok's a strike. it risks an even worse impression of impotence. other than that, he will do exactly as you suggest, i believe. based on the number of ships and possibly subs in the gulf, i've heard an estimate of about 300 tomahawks aimed at top gov't and military officials. won't change much except kill some real bad f%^ckers while saving face with our mid east allies. seems the best of a bad list of choices. doing nothing is likely the best choice but it doesn't seem possible.

[Chef Jim]

he can't take responsibilty for the red line statement until congress ok's a strike. it risks an even worse impression of impotence. other than that, he will do exactly as you suggest, i believe. based on the number of ships and possibly subs in the gulf, i've heard an estimate of about 300 tomahawks aimed at top gov't and military officials. won't change much except kill some real bad f%^ckers while saving face with our mid east allies. seems the best of a bad list of choices. doing nothing is likely the best choice but it doesn't seem possible.

 

So he can't take responsibility for something he said. Ok right, got it. So this is the "leader" you are falling in line behind? Do you wear a dress on the weekends?

[birdog1960]

So he can't take responsibility for something he said. Ok right, got it. So this is the "leader" you are falling in line behind? Do you wear a dress on the weekends?

chemical weapon use has been near uniformally agreed internationally as a line in the sand or red line that can't be crossed without consequence for decades. he verbalized this likely to prevent further use after earlier reports. it didn't work. i'm sure he'd now prefer that he didn't say it but it changes nothing. the resulting action would almost certainly be the same. i don't see much but a symbolic problem that will be of little or no consequence long term.

[B-Man]

i don't see much but a symbolic problem that will be of little or no consequence long term.

 

 

Shall We Now Retake Libya?

By Stanley Kurtz

 

Where are the humanitarians on Libya? The country is swiftly turning into another Somalia. The government is paralyzed, while its authority throughout the country has disintegrated. Brutal tribal and Islamist militias rule. Egyptian Christians and black Africans are subject to mistreatment, torture, and execution on racial and religious grounds. A rebellion by resentful Easterners and greedy security men has almost entirely choked off the country’s oil supply, its economic lifeline. Running on reserves, by the end of the year the government may no longer be able to provide food, medicine, electricity, or salaries.

 

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda factions driven out of Mali by the French make their home in Libya’s southern desert, armed with weapons plundered from Qaddafi’s arsenals. Other arms, and no doubt Islamist fighters as well, flow to the rebel forces in Syria, strengthening precisely those elements that most threaten our counterweight to Assad. A year ago, Senators McCain and Graham repeatedly cited our apparent success in Libya as a model for intervention in Syria. They haven’t mentioned it lately.

 

Have the Libyans now suffered less as a result of our intervention than they would have had Qaddafi taken Benghazi? What will the answer to that question be after government-supplied food, medicine, and electricity run out?

 

Did we cause the political, humanitarian, and security crisis currently engulfing Libya? Yes and no. The problems are rooted in Libya’s political culture. Yet they were known before we acted. Our intervention’s tragic outcome was predictable and predicted.

 

At some point, the humanitarian impulse runs up against our inability to enforce and pay for universal world order.

 

Humanitarian considerations ought to play a role in our actions across the world, but not as the primary driver. Security concerns must remain paramount because American blood and treasure is finite, while the sorrows of the world are not.

 

Yet by insisting on policing the internal use of chemical weapons, we have landed ourselves in a no-win situation. A limited strike may not only lay bare our inability to block internal use, it may goad Assad into further chemical attacks, even proliferation. Attempted regime change could have the same effects, or worse. Even in strictly humanitarian terms, we may shortly be no better off than we would have been had we drawn our red line against proliferation rather than use. In security terms, humanitarian hawkishness has already damaged our credibility, while raising the dangers of proliferation far higher than they were weeks ago.

 

Humanitarian interventionism feels good in theory. In practice, it fails.

[birdog1960]

the problem i was referring to was obama's statement. there will be plenty of consequences to what happens in syria no matter what the us does. wanna weigh in on how you'd handle the situation?

Edited September 5, 2013 by birdog1960

[Chef Jim]

the problem i was referring to was obama's statement. there will be plenty of consequences to what happens in syria no matter what the us does. wanna weigh in on how you'd handle the situation?

 

Monitor the situation closely realizing that the US should no longer be the world's parent and keep in constant touch with other world leaders and leave it at that for the moment. If the media asks that would be my regular comment. But also add this is not our war to get involved in.

[Doc]

what would your ideal action be right now? last week? just interested in what actions hcould have made that you'd be pleased and satisfied with.

Do nothing. If this truly is "the world's red-line," let someone else take action.

[B-Man]

Tailor-made for the low information voter........ Socialized media...

 

 

White House launches Syria Web site

 

The White House has launched a new Web site pitching its case for military action in Syria.

 

National Security Adviser Susan Rice announced the site in a tweet Thursday morning.

 

At the top of the site are the words “Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria,” along with a quote from President Obama making the case for U.S. intervention.

 

“Explore this page to learn more about President Obama’s response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons in Syria and get the latest news from the White House about the situation,” the site says.

 

 

http://www.washingto...syria-web-site/

[DC Tom]

chemical weapon use has been near uniformally agreed internationally as a line in the sand or red line that can't be crossed without consequence for decades.

 

No, it hasn't.

[Jauronimo]

chemical weapon use has been near uniformally agreed internationally as a line in the sand or red line that can't be crossed without consequence for decades. he verbalized this likely to prevent further use after earlier reports. it didn't work. i'm sure he'd now prefer that he didn't say it but it changes nothing. the resulting action would almost certainly be the same. i don't see much but a symbolic problem that will be of little or no consequence long term.

Genocide was declared as THE line in the sand and occurrence of which would demand international intervention. So now when it comes up we just don't call it genocide. Its ethnic cleansing or civil war. Seems like we really just need to tinker with the definition of chemical warfare rather than intervene. Work smarter, not harder.

[Doc]

Genocide was declared as THE line in the sand and occurrence of which would demand international intervention. So now when it comes up we just don't call it genocide. Its ethnic cleansing or civil war. Seems like we really just need to tinker with the definition of chemical warfare rather than intervene. Work smarter, not harder.

Well then, Assad's just cleansing Syria of those who aren't immune to chemical weapons.

[DC Tom]

Genocide was declared as THE line in the sand and occurrence of which would demand international intervention. So now when it comes up we just don't call it genocide. Its ethnic cleansing or civil war.

 

Or "genocide-like activities."

 

Because, y'know, genocide is actually covered by international law, and requires a direct response. Unlike chemical weapons.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Kim Jong-un should gas some of his people and see what we would do.

 

To quote Willy Wonka:

 

"The suspense is terrible, I hope it will last."

[B-Man]

Jay Leno: "President Obama is being pretty clever on selling his war on Syria to Congress. He told them Assad supports ObamaCare."

 

 

.

[GG]

it's an apt comparison. facing a similar situation he shot and then(possibly) thought about the problem after. obama is cost/benefit analyzing before any actions are undertaken. it's a fundamental difference in philosophy. i'd choose the latter almost every time. but i suppose cowboys are more appealing to a certain section of the populace.

 

Case in point?

 

And when exactly did Bush not man up to statements he made a year before?

 

The fundamental difference in philosophies between the two Presidents is that while you may disagree with the politics of W, he was decisive in his actions and did not cower from difficult decisions. You & your friends probably got a lot of kicks out of the Great Decider, but I'll take that any day over a waffling milquetoast.

[/dev/null]

Tailor-made for the low information voter........ Socialized media...

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.washingto...syria-web-site/

 

war.gov?

 

If they really want to get their message out they should try designing another Katy Perry outfit

[B-Man]

Per Barack -------- "No one says no to Joe"

 

 

Joe Biden, lawmakers meet in White House Situation Room

 

Vice President Joe Biden hosted a late-afternoon briefing on Syria with a small set of House and Senate members in the White House Situation Room Thursday, according to a White House official.

 

Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken, who has taken an increasingly high profile during the Syria debate, joined Biden in briefing lawmakers.

With Congress threatening to vote down President Barack Obama’s request for formal authorization to launch reprisal strikes in Syria, the administration has vowed to “flood the zone” to overcome objections on Capitol Hill. Biden’s meeting followed on the handful of phone calls Obama made to senators on Wednesday night, conference calls and briefings conducted by senior administration officials in recent days, now-daily in-person briefings for large groups of lawmakers, and an increasing number of targeted one-on-one calls between senior administration officials and members of Congress.

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2e4Ak0F6q

 

 

 

No more of that "Vote your Conscience" B.S.

 

 

Its back to a campaign rally.......

 

 

 

.

Edited September 6, 2013 by B-Man