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

[blzrul]

Meh...surely you're not implying Obama is the only POTUS ever, or the only world leader ever, to rattle a sabre? Last time I checked sabre-rattling doesn't usually generate casualties. And, sometimes it works (see Cuban Missile Crisis) Personally, much as I deplore what's happening, I don't know what anyone could do to stop it.

[/dev/null]

We didn't care when Saddam gassed his own people, so I find it hard to believe we give a damn about the Syrians.

We don't really care about the Syrians. But Obama tried to sound like a hardass during last years election and now the Syrians are calling his bluff. Does he back up his neo-conservative chest thumping by launching an attack that is not popular both at home and abroad? Or does he back down and further erode an American foreign policy that nobody outside of MSNBC takes seriously?

 

but I don't see what can be done. Who the heck do you bomb? I vote for sabre-rattling. It's just as effective as anything we can do, and fewer people will die. No matter what we do, or don't do, those poor slobs are toast.

 

I vote to continue what we've been doing - absolutely nothing. It's none of our business.

[DC Tom]

We didn't care when Saddam gassed his own people, so I find it hard to believe we give a damn about the Syrians. In any event it seems like there was a delay while the samples were collected and analyzed to be sure that the rumors were true, with the empty time filled in of course by sabre-rattling. Then we're waiting for the rest of the "civilized' world to weigh in, so more sabre-rattling is called for. Now we hear there won't be any troops sent in (yet) which is good, but I don't see what can be done. Who the heck do you bomb? I vote for sabre-rattling. It's just as effective as anything we can do, and fewer people will die. No matter what we do, or don't do, those poor slobs are toast.

 

The only target worth bombing is Assad and his underlings. Any other target causes people to suffer who have absolutely nothing to do with anything, and polarizes the situation even further.

 

Of course, since the administration has already said that the point of any action will be "punishment" and not "regime change," Assad's pretty damn sure he's safe from retribution, which makes any act of "punishment" worse than useless.

 

I vote to continue what we've been doing - absolutely nothing. It's none of our business.

 

Except that if rebels win, there's a significant risk of al-Qaeda getting access to a largely intact chemical weapons infrastructure.

 

Which simply highlights the need for a sound, rational, coherent policy based on an understanding of our national security needs, the reality of the situation in Syria, and our diplomatic, intelligence, and military capabilities in that region. Instead we get "Don't cross this line, or you're get a stern finger-wagging...someday, eventually. Mmm-kay?"

[blzrul]

I must have missed the "Roadmap to Mideast Crises" that lays out exactly what's going to happen and exactly how to react to it. It's pretty much been "they kill people in horrible ways whenever they feel like it"...our problem as a nation is that we recognize how much that sucks, and it's hard to look away. Looking away is partially WHY things are a freaking mess in the Middle East. The world looked away while Hitler gassed Jews, and post-war guilt drove the victors to kick a bunch of Arabs off "their" land to create Israel. Oversimplification to be sure...unless you're an Arab.

[/dev/null]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-barracks-idUSBRE97T0N820130830

[TakeYouToTasker]

Tin pots saber rattle. Paper tigers saber rattle. That's why they aren't taken seriously. Nations who want to have influence and be taken seriously speak carefully, and seriously, in measured words; and most importantly, they don't give threats, they give ultimatums. And they mean it.

Edited August 30, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[dayman]

Tin pots saber rattle. Paper tigers saber rattle. That's why they aren't taken seriously. Nations who want to have influence and be taken seriously speak carefully, and seriously, in measured words; and most importantly, they don't give threats, they give ultimatums. And they mean it.

 

True. That's what we need to do. Ultimatums.

[DC Tom]

I must have missed the "Roadmap to Mideast Crises" that lays out exactly what's going to happen and exactly how to react to it. It's pretty much been "they kill people in horrible ways whenever they feel like it"...our problem as a nation is that we recognize how much that sucks, and it's hard to look away. Looking away is partially WHY things are a freaking mess in the Middle East. The world looked away while Hitler gassed Jews, and post-war guilt drove the victors to kick a bunch of Arabs off "their" land to create Israel. Oversimplification to be sure...unless you're an Arab.

 

The roadmap to ANY crisis begins with knowing what the !@#$ YOU'RE doing. Even Clinton's "ignore it and hope it goes away" foreign policy included that step.

 

I'm not seeing that right now. Two years in, and we're still dithering over a course of action? Bush may have been all over the map with his excuses for Iraq...Obama can't even seem to find the damned map.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

True. That's what we need to do. Ultimatums.

Read more carefully. You have the option, first and foremost, to make measures statements, or none at all.

[Chef Jim]

Since the majority of the world has singed off on a ban of chemical weapons aren't the countries who signed off obligated to do something? It's my understanding that inspections need to be done and I know the UN was there this week (I know I know). Isn't there a protocol in the treaty? And I assume this protocol is not "the US shall be the only country that will do anything and that anything will be to lob a few symbolic cruise missiles.". Where are the other 188 countries that accepted and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention?

[Nanker]

Exactly what did we do when Iraq and Iran were duking it out for nearly a decade and gas attacks amongst them were common?

 

There is no upside for us to get involved further in Syria. BO already achieved what he wanted - the moderate Christians have mostly been killed already or extremely marginalized, so the Moslem Brudderhood can run amok in the area with near impunity.

 

The ONLY military action against Syria that makes any sense to me is to at this point is to make them forfeit their air force. If all we're going to do is lob some Toms at them - what's the point? They disrespected our reservoir-tipped thin-skinned Nobel Peace Prize Winner?

[DC Tom]

Since the majority of the world has singed off on a ban of chemical weapons aren't the countries who signed off obligated to do something? It's my understanding that inspections need to be done and I know the UN was there this week (I know I know). Isn't there a protocol in the treaty? And I assume this protocol is not "the US shall be the only country that will do anything and that anything will be to lob a few symbolic cruise missiles.". Where are the other 188 countries that accepted and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention?

 

The CWC doesn't contain any meaningful enforcement provisions beyond discussing sanctions. And as Syria isn't a signatory anyway, it doesn't apply to them - it's a convention that's only enforced on the signers of the convention.

 

Basically...useless.

 

The ONLY military action against Syria that makes any sense to me is to at this point is to make them forfeit their air force. If all we're going to do is lob some Toms at them - what's the point? They disrespected our reservoir-tipped thin-skinned Nobel Peace Prize Winner?

 

What? How'd I get dragged into this? What do you want me to do, call them idiots?

[Tiberius]

I guess the House of Representatives will have a meaningful debate?? LOL!! Right! Sorry, but I think our President sees this as an opportunity to make that rats nest actually try and have to explain itself. No way will Obama get authorizatio0n to attack. No way

[Chef Jim]

 

 

The CWC doesn't contain any meaningful enforcement provisions beyond discussing sanctions. And as Syria isn't a signatory anyway, it doesn't apply to them - it's a convention that's only enforced on the signers of the convention.

 

Basically...useless.

 

 

Ok wasn't sure if was only enforced on or by the signers. So it's both and you're it's useless in this case.

 

I guess the House of Representatives will have a meaningful debate?? LOL!! Right! Sorry, but I think our President sees this as an opportunity to make that rats nest actually try and have to explain itself. No way will Obama get authorizatio0n to attack. No way

 

So should he attack without authorization?

 

I guess the House of Representatives will have a meaningful debate?? LOL!! Right! Sorry, but I think our President sees this as an opportunity to make that rats nest actually try and have to explain itself. No way will Obama get authorizatio0n to attack. No way

 

So should he attack without authorization?

[Tiberius]

Ok wasn't sure if was only enforced on or by the signers. So it's both and you're it's useless in this case.

 

 

 

So should he attack without authorization?

 

 

 

So should he attack without authorization?

I don't know. Not sure it would accomplish much. I think he punted on this for that reason. What would you do?

[dayman]

Just do nothing. Announce that we don't care. Let Assad gas his people all he wants. Nobody in this country cares enough to get involved in this nonsense anymore. That area of the world is literally hell on Earth. Let them have their hellish life.

[DC Tom]

I guess the House of Representatives will have a meaningful debate?? LOL!! Right! Sorry, but I think our President sees this as an opportunity to make that rats nest actually try and have to explain itself. No way will Obama get authorizatio0n to attack. No way

 

They would if they could. But they'd have to pass the resolution before they knew what was in it, I'm sure...

[/dev/null]

Just do nothing. Announce that we don't care. Let Assad gas his people all he wants. Nobody in this country cares enough to get involved in this nonsense anymore. That area of the world is literally hell on Earth. Let them have their hellish life.

^this

 

They would if they could. But they'd have to pass the resolution before they knew what was in it, I'm sure...

I saw a meme of Pelosi with the caption "We have to start this war so we know who's in it"

[Doc]

Just do nothing. Announce that we don't care. Let Assad gas his people all he wants. Nobody in this country cares enough to get involved in this nonsense anymore. That area of the world is literally hell on Earth. Let them have their hellish life.

That would be the smart thing to do. But...they defied Barry!

[Tiberius]

They would if they could. But they'd have to pass the resolution before they knew what was in it, I'm sure...

They would what? Pass something or try and debate something? Pretty interesting he didn't call them back into session, he's just passing the buck, can't blame him. I guess they will have to stop their 40th attempt to repeal Obamacare and discuss something else.