|
Post by jdredd on Jul 18, 2012 20:07:20 GMT -5
Right now, Bashir Assad is rumored to be "missing".
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jul 18, 2012 20:20:10 GMT -5
Missing or in hiding?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 18, 2012 21:43:35 GMT -5
Not around.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jul 18, 2012 21:50:44 GMT -5
When ya gotta go, ya gotta go.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 1, 2013 0:55:08 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-what-the-iraq-war-taught-me-about-syria/2013/03/31/5ef2e6d0-97b2-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html?hpid=z2"It was inevitable that, with the exhaustion of their ideologies and economic models, these states would unravel — and that Iraq’s repressed Shiite majority, like Syria’s downtrodden Sunni majority, would demand redress. The difference is that the U.S. military triggered the transformation of Iraq, quickly disposing of the old regime and buffering the subsequent sectarian struggle. In Syria it has leaned back, providing humanitarian aid and prodding the opposition to unify but otherwise refusing to intervene. The results? No U.S. soldiers have been killed or wounded in Syria, and the cost is in the hundreds of millions rather than the hundreds of billions. But so far, the larger humanitarian price of Syria has been far greater. With 70,000 killed in just two years, Syria is producing fatalities at twice the rate of Iraq after the U.S. invasion; with 1.1 million people having fled to neighboring countries and 3 million expected by the end of this year. Syria is on course to produce 50 percent more refugees than Iraq after 2003." Here is a Washington Post editorial writer exercising his God-given right to spin history any way he likes it. I guess he supported the war in Iraq, and still seems to think it was a good idea. Personally, I'd rather have the 4,500 dead Americans and the $2 trillion we spent back, and to heck with the unprovable "things would be worse if we hadn't invaded" argument. So now on the basis of Iraq he thinks we should jump into Syria. Well, I can think of several good reasons to supply the anti-Assad forces with weapons, but the Iraq model is something I don't think we would be wise to repeat. Let those Arab SOB's kill each other until hell freezes over, but we shouldn't be sending young Americans to die for the sake of endless sectarian wars in the Mideast. Count me out as a old person sending young people to die needlessly.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 30, 2013 3:45:36 GMT -5
Obama opened his mouth about intervening if WMDs were used in Syria, and now he has to put his money where his mouth is. Or not.
But it's getting hard to keep track of who thinks we should jump into the fight and who doesn't. I'm getting to the point of wondering if it really matters. What difference did 11 years of war in Afghanistan make? What difference did invading Iraq make? We'll either go into Syria or not, and nothing of significance will change either way.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 30, 2013 15:54:42 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-obama-red-line-syria-20130430,0,584035.story "WASHINGTON -- President Obama softened his threat to Syria over its possible use of chemical weapons, telling reporters that if conclusive proof of such activity emerges, he “would rethink a range” of retaliatory options that might not include military action. Obama, who has called Syria’s use of chemical weapons in its civil war a “red line,” also made clear at a White House news conference Tuesday that the burden of a response is not the United States’ alone, but one that is shared by all nations." The question is: Does anyone care? Foreign policy was not on most people's radar last November, even though the right tried and failed to make Benghazigate an issue.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 2, 2013 21:17:59 GMT -5
John "Flaky" McCain appeared on Sunday shows claiming that the tide has turned against the Syrian rebels, and we should at least destroy Syrian Air Force bases. I doubt that will happen, since Republicans are presently obsessed with the IRS, so it looks like this could be a victory for Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia, and a defeat for Israel and Saudi Arabia. One more foreign policy failure for Obama.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 2, 2013 22:19:38 GMT -5
I mean, if Obama was never serious about getting rid of Assad, why did he open his big mouth? This could be a big sign of the decline of America as a super-power, which may not be a bad thing. Frankly, empire is too damn expensive.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 14, 2013 0:44:32 GMT -5
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/13/syria-used-chemical-weapons/"The Syrian government used chemical weapons against rebel forces trying to overthrow the regime, the Obama administration said Thursday, acknowledging that President Bashar Assad has without doubt crossed the “red line” President Obama laid down for U.S. action in the country’s bloody civil war. The announcement, which confirms what the U.S. and its allies have long suspected, ups the pressure on Mr. Obama, and key lawmakers on Capitol Hill said this means there must be deeper U.S. military involvement in the 2-year-old civil war." "Administration officials told The Associated Press on Thursday night that Mr. Obama has authorized sending arms directly to the rebels, but that no decisions had been made on the timing or on what kind of weaponry would be made available." I'm glad to see the US has gotten over it's post-9/11 hysteria about Al Qaeda enough to arm the Syrian rebels. I've got no problem with giving arms that enable the Sunnis and Shiites to kill each other for years to come, especially if it keeps Assad in fear.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 15, 2013 21:48:20 GMT -5
www.newrepublic.com/article/113460/american-left-turns-away-syrias-agony"The foreign policy discourse of American liberalism no longer includes an emphasis on freedom or democracy. It is saddened but not provoked by crimes against humanity. The satisfaction about quitting Iraq was undiversified by anxiety about the many reforms and reformers we were leaving behind, about the precariousness of the social and political progress that had been made. The relief at our withdrawal from Afghanistan is unaccompanied by regret for its consequences for the women of Afghanistan. What is the point of being a liberal if you are going to think like Rand Paul?" Once again, the question is: Do we want to be the world's policeman? And if we do, how do we decide what cause we need to support? Are we on the side of "freedom and democracy" if we support Israel? What about the freedom of Palestinians from Israeli occupation? I'm asking...
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 24, 2013 1:56:49 GMT -5
www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/201372345621809143.html"President Barack Obama had said in June that the US would begin openly supplying the rebels after two years of balking at directly sending arms to the opposition. "We have been working with Congress to overcome some of the concerns that they initially had, and we believe that those concerns have been addressed and that we will now be able to proceed," a source familiar with administration plans told Reuters on condition of anonymity. US army general Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that more than $1bn would be spent per month if the US became more involved in Syria." The US doesn't have the money to invest in Detroit, but we have a billion dollars a month to keep the Syrian Civil War going.
Is anyone still wondering why this will be the Chinese century?
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jul 24, 2013 21:31:49 GMT -5
www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/201372345621809143.html"President Barack Obama had said in June that the US would begin openly supplying the rebels after two years of balking at directly sending arms to the opposition. "We have been working with Congress to overcome some of the concerns that they initially had, and we believe that those concerns have been addressed and that we will now be able to proceed," a source familiar with administration plans told Reuters on condition of anonymity. US army general Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that more than $1bn would be spent per month if the US became more involved in Syria." The US doesn't have the money to invest in Detroit, but we have a billion dollars a month to keep the Syrian Civil War going.
Is anyone still wondering why this will be the Chinese century? I agree that we need to stay out of Syria, and not send weapons either. Let other nations supply their needs. There are few, on either side, that really like the U.S. Oh, they would like the money, weapons, etc. to use to fight but would owe nothing when the fighting is done. One of the problems with fighting in Afghanistan is very similar to Vietnam. The phantom wall! We would not send troops into North Vietnam and the bombing was marginal at best. In Afghanistan, the insurgents hide in Pakistan. We can't/won't send troops into Pakistan and we get very little military help in routing the insurgents. (Pakistan only wants our money to transport supplies, then still blows them up forcing more trips!). The drones are a bit more precise but still can't complete the job. No troops, the job does not get done and won't get done. We never learn that we don't far very well when we fight a "limited" war but our enemies know this very well. In fact, I believe that Pakistan supports the insurgents as much out of fear of them as they do because they don't care much for the U.S. either. I just don't like giving weapons to a group that is partially at war with the U.S. and the rest are not highly supportive of us. Lybia hasn't shown us much and Egypt has a chance to redeam itself. But not if President Soetoro continues his Muslim Brotherhood membership.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 21, 2013 21:22:32 GMT -5
So once again Syria is being accused of using MWD's. Will Big O put his money where his mouth is this time or will he do his paper tiger thing again and shine it on? Of all the things the right says about Obama, one is undeniable: he is in over his head when it comes to world affairs.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Aug 22, 2013 16:58:29 GMT -5
So once again Syria is being accused of using MWD's. Will Big O put his money where his mouth is this time or will he do his paper tiger thing again and shine it on? Of all the things the right says about Obama, one is undeniable: he is in over his head when it comes to world affairs. He's been over his head since birth. But he may need to pull a rabbit from somewhere to save some face in 2014. Personally Syria can rot as far as I'm concerned.
|
|