|
Post by jdredd on Aug 20, 2013 3:56:03 GMT -5
I don't have the link at the moment and I don't have time to look right now. But, the Obama administration has stated its mission is to engage Syria, through opposition forces, to obtain a STALEMATE! I am not kidding, a STALEMATE! How much is that going to cost and will it mean eventual troops engaging somewhere to obtain that STALEMATE? I can't say a word because I think at one time I suggested we arm the Syrian rebels just enough so they don't lose but not enough to win so that the Sunnis and Shiites would be killing each other for years to come! Tongue was firmly in cheek, of course. The question is, does the GOP have a plan? I would bet big bucks that a GOP White House in 2017 would continue the same blunders Obama is. I'm wondering if our foreign policy is dreamed up somewhere in the stagnant stinking bowels of the State Department and is pretty much the same no matter which party controls Washington.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 25, 2013 0:39:21 GMT -5
america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/24/us-moves-forces-towardsyriaconsultswithcameron.html"U.S. intelligence officials sought Saturday to determine whether Syria's government unleashed a deadly chemical weapons attack on its citizens last week while the Obama administration prepared for a possible military response by moving naval forces closer to Syria. President Barack Obama has emphasized that quick intervention in the years-old Syrian civil war is problematic because of the international considerations that should precede a military strike. Obama is also likely to encounter national resistance to a military intervention. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll released Saturday evening found that about 60 percent of Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria, with only 9 percent in favor." Here's what I'm not getting: 60% of Americans are opposed to US intervention in Syria, but the CIA blowing away SUSPECTED Al Qaeda all over the Middle East with killer drones is fine with the American people. So couldn't we just take out Assad with a drone strike? No, we will no doubt intervene in the clumsiest and most expensive way possible.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 27, 2013 1:00:55 GMT -5
I'm loving the suspense. Will he or won't he? Will Big O make the call to launch the cruise missles or will he wait for the UN, that is, do nothing. Both the American left and the right are split on the wisdom of going into Syria. Yes, Big O made a promise to punish Assad if he used MWD's, but IMO he should eat his own words if he thinks it's in America's long-term interest to look the other way. Personally, I think we should just assassinate Assad, who is obviously guilty of crimes against the Syrian people. But as I said before, if we do intervene it will be in the clumsiest, most expensive, and most counter-productive way possible if our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq are any indication. And Big O doesn't have the huevos to go after Assad personally and then take the consequences like a man. I bet Hillary would.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 29, 2013 0:32:07 GMT -5
OK, Sargent Obama, we await your orders. Are we going arrest Assad, or just break a few of his windows? Can't we just shoot him?
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Aug 29, 2013 0:57:13 GMT -5
OK, Sargent Obama, we await your orders. Are we going arrest Assad, or just break a few of his windows? Can't we just shoot him? If they are million dollar windows I might be on board but this is nothing but a HUGE financial bloodbath for us. I wanna see proof chemical weapons were really used. I wanna see proof the Syrian government is responsible. But what the hell the "I Surrender" Frenchies called Obama out, what option does he have but to lace-up Michelle 's strap-on and prove he is a president.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 31, 2013 5:10:20 GMT -5
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/iowa-gop-leaders-slam-potential-syria-strike/“As fathers, we believe our children’s lives are worth far more than the price you’ll pay for admitting you’re wrong when it comes to dragging us into war in Syria,” Mr. Spiker and Mr. Fischer wrote. Mr. Obama has said he considering ordering the U.S. bombing of selected sites in Syria after U.S. intelligence officials concluded Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons on civilians in Syria in a suburb of Damascus earlier this month. “We believe the prosperity of America’s next generation is worth more than profits for defense contractors and the bump in the polls you and your fellow politicians may receive from portraying yourselves as wartime leaders,” the two men wrote. The two Republican leaders noted that the U.S. has “been at war for over 10 years now, costing us trillions of dollars and resulting in the death of thousands of American soldiers and untold numbers of civilians. Many of those who survive come home with debilitating injuries, strained families, and emotional scars.” Wow, here are two Republican Senators saying the exact same things some libs were saying before Bush invaded Iraq, including taking a shot at defense contractors. How things have changed. Whether Obama goes through with it doesn't change MY opinion of him. Obama and Assad are BOTH war criminals in my book.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 4, 2013 2:14:39 GMT -5
I never buy USA Today because of it's dumbed-down journalism, but today it had an appropriate headline: "SYRIA SELL BEGINS". No subtlety there.
The powers-that-be have decided it's time to jump into the Syria quagmire (Murdoch's WSJ is pro-intervention). The opposition is on the far left and the far right, Occupy and Tea Party joining together. Interesting.
But the way I look at it, it's the 22nd year of American military involvement in the Middle East if you count from Desert Storm.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 5, 2013 15:33:16 GMT -5
Trying to keep track of who is for or against the Syrian Intervention is no easy task. The Rothchild's consevative "Economist" magazine is definitely pro: the new issue has a picture of Assad and the headlines "Hit Him Hard". The liberal but pro-Israel "New Republic" magazine is more subtle:www.newrepublic.com/article/114612/syria-war-irans-rouhani-would-benefit-us-intervention"Following the recent chemical strikes in Damascus, some analysts began to focus on whether Iranian president Hassan Rouhani had the will or ability to change the Islamic Republic's policy toward Syria (see PolicyWatch 2123). In the past few days, the "will" part of that question may have been answered: Rouhani and his allies seem to be using the chemical weapons controversy to pick their first major fight with domestic opponents. If so, the outcome of this fight—as exhibited in how Tehran reacts to any military strikes by the United States and its allies—will invigorate either the president or his critics. Based on the belief that successful foreign policy is the main key to ending Iran's economic crisis, Rouhani may have decided that he cannot cede the Syria issue, nuclear negotiations, or other diplomatic matters to the hardliners." Woulda US strike be a blow against Iranian "hardliners" (and in Israel's eyes Iran is the problem, not Syria, I believe) and help the Iranian "moderates"? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 5, 2013 15:41:37 GMT -5
The liberal "Nation" magazine seems to be definitely anti-intervention: www.thenation.com/blogs/john-nichols#axzz2e3KEGIVV"Thus, when members of Congress decide which side they’re on in the Syrian intervention votes that are expected to take place next week, they will have to consider whether they want to respond to pro-war pressure from inside-the-Beltway—as so many did when they authorized action against Iraq—or to the anti-war sentiments of their constituents. Reflecting on the proposed intervention, Congressman Alan Grayson, D-Florida, allowed as how “nobody wants this except the military-industrial complex.”
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Sept 6, 2013 10:11:32 GMT -5
Let me see if I understand this correctly. I’m counting on you JD.
Syrians are killing Syrians so the US (I won’t say we) is going to fire missile into Syria killing Syrians so Syrians won’t kill Syrians.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 7, 2013 1:35:28 GMT -5
Let me see if I understand this correctly. I’m counting on you JD. Syrians are killing Syrians so the US (I won’t say we) is going to fire missile into Syria killing Syrians so Syrians won’t kill Syrians. You've pretty much summed it up, T. Personally, I'm glad that so many people on the right have come out against another adventure in the Middle East. Unfortunately, I think it is a done deal, and America will have to suffer the consequences. I always thought Afghanistan and Iraq were nails in our coffin, and I bet this will be another.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Sept 7, 2013 22:55:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 13, 2013 16:12:41 GMT -5
I guess the reason Dredd's Solution to Syria, just assassinating Assad, is not being considered is because, gosh darn, it's against International Law. I guess we are trapped being the world's policeman and not the world's vigilante. In my opinion, if war criminal Assad is not worth assassinating despite International Law, he's not worth ANY action. Let's just go home.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 14, 2013 23:16:21 GMT -5
Well, looks like Obama and Putin have cut a deal on Syria. I'm sure Big O will get a lot of grief for it, and defending him has never floated my boat, but I see some wisdom to the deal. The thing is, people tend to lose perspective (myself included), and looking at the big picture, our balance of power with Russia is a HELL of a lot more important than what happens in Syria. Don't forget, Russia still has THOUSANDS of nukes. As much as I would like to see Assad's head on a pole, he is small potatoes.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 1, 2013 23:53:45 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/world/asia/drone-strike-hits-compound-used-by-pakistani-taliban-leader.html?hp&_r=0 "Mr. Mehsud had a $5 million United States government bounty on his head. But Mr. Mehsud’s death also comes at a delicate time. Just last week Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan, who strenuously opposes drone strikes, met with President Obama at the White House to express that opposition. Mr. Sharif’s plans to engage in peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban have also been thrown into disarray — and possibly rendered unnecessary — by Friday’s attack. Instead, enraged Taliban commanders have vowed to repay Mr. Mehsud’s killing in bloodshed. “Our revenge will be unprecedented,” Abu Omar, a Taliban commander in North Waziristan, said by phone on Friday." Uh...does it seem like this is kind of a bad moment to murder Mr. Medsud? Why would peace talks now be "unnecessary"? Does anyone else in the world think this makes us look downright bloodthirsty? Not that I care, it's not my war.
|
|