Drone attacks

[classicman]

More than that. Like a "doesn't exist" option.

[BigV]

well, you could try a combination therapy; ignore, denial and bourbon. putting your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la for periods of acute awareness could be done as needed, but it will definitely interfere with your browsing and posting experience. this is known as a side effect. I can't say if this is covered under the ACA.

[classicman]

"Obama showed he wasn't going to intervene in Syria."

Bullshit - the overwhelming pushback from ... well everybody ... is what convinced him.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

"Obama showed he wasn't going to intervene in Syria."

Bullshit - the overwhelming pushback from ... well everybody ... is what convinced him.

When most of the people around him were pushing for intervention? Biden, Clinton, etc.? They were all pushing intervention. The non-intervention crowd wasn't as loud as they thought there were.

Obama had AT LEAST four chances to intervene in Syria and he never took them. The only time he seriously mentioned intervention is after Assad was accused and "convicted" of using chemical weapons. That was Obama's red line and he felt obligated. Yet, Obama never went through with any of them. The second Russia offered a chemical weapon deal he jumped on it with no hesitation.

Which is exactly what Obama did until, as I stated, virtually EVERYONE, pushed back and fought him on it. Another huge stumbling block for his desired intervention was the decision against his buddy in England.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Obama has not been hawkish with Syria.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Only a wacko would advocate an American intervention in Syria's civil war.

Which is exactly what Obama did until, as I stated, virtually EVERYONE, pushed back and fought him on it. Another huge stumbling block for his desired intervention was the decision against his buddy in England.

[classicman]

Wow really? Did I imagine his whole impassioned speech about it?
Guess some only see what they want to see. Obama advocated strikes in Syria. Kerry did as well. Once the tide turned in Britain, and the public backlash was ENORMOUS, they sang a different tune.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Guess some only see what they want to see.

You, too, need to look further. Up until the second chemical weapons attack, he was refusing to get involved militarily. Then he decided he had to maintain his "red line", and made the impassioned speech. Luckily for everyone (except the moderate rebels in Syria), an out appeared, and he jumped at it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Guess some only see what they want to see.

So why did you hear hype and myths presented for public consumption? Obama's strategy did not change. It included a staged play with the Russians where Kerry 'accidentally' dropped a suggestion that Russia took seriously. This was apparently scripted. Not entirely sure how much of the script was held by the Russians in advance. But while some had such poor sources as to be deceived into an ENORMOUS backlash, Obama's strategy to end Assad's entire chemical weapon stockpile and production facilities worked - 100%.

Not scripted was Parliament's rejection of military participation. But then Britain was there mostly for political justification. Britain's military contribution would have been minor. A few submarines launching cruise missiles were easily replaced a few more American destroyers and/or submarines.

Of course, you cannot blame Britain (or any other NATO country) for not wanting involvement. Since even in the Cellar in 2003, you can read how often and how egregiously the American administration openly lied to them - again and again.

Use of chemical weapons was a red line for the same reason first strike use of nuclear weapons must also result in world wide condemnation.

America's tiny military threat was so major to Syria that even no aircraft carrier groups were needed. That and the scripted cooperation with Russia completely defanged Assad's chemical weapons. The ENORMOUS backlash was lots of phooey and little substance. Russia got great political cover while cooperating in defanging an ally (Assad).

We have not seen such a military triumph since Holbrooke all but kidnapped Milosevic in Dayton and got him to surrender. Again without a military invasion. That's what great leaders do. Win military victories (put the dispute on a negotiation table) without deploying soldiers.

Your news sources need fixing if you really bought an enormous backlash myth.

BTW there was, apparently, more than two chemical attacks. Actual number remains vague and unconfirmed. Assad may have used chemical weapons seven times.

Meanwhile, any American intervention in Syria's civil war is obviously as bogus as Mission Accomplished. But so many extremists want it. That extremist solution is a 'classic' example of contempt for the American soldier.

[piercehawkeye45]

But the story didn't start after Syria used chemical weapons the second time. Obama was very resistant to get involved prior to that. He made absolutely no attempt. The first time he mentioned to get involved was in March or so when the first set of chemical weapon accusations were made. Obama said he would send in small arms. Did he actually go through with it? No. Also, there was very little pushback against intervention at that time.

Then, when Assad used chemical weapons the second time, it took Obama a long time before deciding to attack. Also, I remember a lot of articles calling Obama weak because he did not respond quickly to his "red line".

So I ask you the question. Did Obama delay attacking Assad because he secretly wanted to get involved but couldn't think of an excuse or because he didn't want to get involved but felt he had to because Assad crossed his red line?

Yes there was pushback after he decided to attack but then also you have to assume that Obama was suddenly influenced by the media when his past history does not always line up with that. Also, I read sources from all sides and while there was a strong non-interventionist push, there was definitely interventionist voices as well. So it wasn't "everyone" or even close to "everyone". The 90% of American against intervening in Syria poll was a skewed question that was not representative. The true poll was more like 60%.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You, too, need to look further. Up until the second chemical weapons attack, he was refusing to get involved militarily. Then he decided he had to maintain his "red line", and made the impassioned speech. Luckily for everyone (except the moderate rebels in Syria), an out appeared, and he jumped at it.

Yes.

[piercehawkeye45]

You have a point. To my defense, my tone is reactionary to the more vocal anti-interventionists who tend to use "intervention" as an umbrella term and make no attempt to separate the difference between the current intervention in Syria with the intervention in Afghanistan in the 80's or the Bush wars. I find that very deceiving. While there are obvious similarities, the differences are too great to be direct analogies.


But yes, we are arming and training Syrian rebels (I actually thought it was less before you pointed that out). However, when compared to other countries who are involved, the scale is much less and it is absolutely clear that changing the balance of the civil war in not one of our objectives. This is a big difference from Afghanistan in the 80's where we were one of if not the main supplier of weapons and training and had the objective of overthrowing the Soviet regime in Kabul. It is clear that the US does not want to "own" the civil war and is making a strong attempt to minimize blowback. These two points are often ignored by anti-interventionists who want to argue against the current Syrian intervention by making it into the next Afghanistan intervention.


I understand and agree that intervening in Syria is a bad idea. The situation is too complex and we will have no control over what happens. Personally, I think we should stay out of the Syrian Civil War but still keep a close eye and be prepared for unexpected events (chemical weapons, Jordan collapsing, Israel getting involved). I am not completely against the current amount intervention because it is pretty much the minimal amount of intervention we can have. We should not be a main supplier of weapons and we should not try to change the balance of powers. That is just asking for blowback.

I am just strongly against the idea of using "intervention" as an umbrella term since it can mean so many different things. I am not accusing you are anyone on here of doing that but I see it all the time in articles I read so I tend to be jumpy against it.

[Griff]

I wasn't precise enough. I thought the Post article was minimizing the "intervention" not you. I don't want this exchange to turn personal to the detriment of the discussion.

[piercehawkeye45]

Agreed.

[classicman]

an out appeared, and he jumped at it.

Bullshit. He was all ready to go until the last moment when he realized that EVERYONE was against him.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

He was all ready to go until the last moment when he realized that EVERYONE was against him.

There exists a simple word. Bluffing. Apparently having you in a poker game is quite profitable.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Bullshit. He was all ready to go until the last moment when he realized that EVERYONE was against him.

Two questions:

1) If Obama was so inclined in attacking Syria, why did he cancel the weapon shipments to rebels earlier this year when there was little pushback?

2) If Obama wanted to attack Syria, why did he wait for congress approval (8 - 10 day wait) when he could have just attacked right after the allegations?