Drone attacks

[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.