http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Now we're arming rebels. I can't believe there's anyone out there that thinks this is a good idea. What a mess.
Chamberlain made direct offers of peace to his enemy who was untrustworthy. It has no relevance to a situation where Obama directly threatened the enemy, forcing him to back down and allow international control of his WMD's. France has stepped up in a major military way and provided a navy including an aircraft carrier and an air force and backed his actions completely. In fact 24 allies, including Britain and Germany, have backed Obama on Syria. You should have known this. None of this is true. Check the map. Green equals rebel control. even Damascus is being threatened. What contest? Kerry threw them a bone and Russia and Syria fell all over themselves to take it. What "willpower" has Putin shown? Trying to save his only ally in the middle east from American bombing is an act of desperation he would have never considered if he didn't believe that Obama would carry through with it. Putin blinked. Is that your response? Turning my comment around? What a lame comeback . . .
Try to pay better attention. Syria is backing down from using chemical weapons and we didn't even have to use military force, just the threat of it. Once they are in international control, Israel will no longer have to worry about chemical attack. That's a giant win, chief.
Red, you've done a nice job in this thread laying out why this situation is a win for Obama. To me it looks a lot like LSU screwing up the clock management vs Tennessee, only to get a gift second chance compliments of UT putting 13 men on the field. My ultimate outlook is the same; winning is winning, even if it isn't always pretty. Just win, baby. But my question to you is this: in at least one of the threads on this topic, you went on record saying you disagreed with military action against Syria. Now that diplomcy - well crafted or not - has prevailed and you are in full Obama cheerleader mode, what will your reaction be if Syria screws us and we end up lobbing cruise missiles their way?
Oh? Did Russia get off its ass and do something constructive before Obama threatened to strike? Did Assad make a desperate appeal to the American people before Obama threatened to strike? Has Syria used chemical weapons since Obama threatened to strike? Are you sure you understand what "impotent" and "nothing" mean, amigo?
I am on record as saying that we don't need to go to war in Syria. I still think that. But I also said that speaking softly and carrying The Big Stick has proven effective before and could do so this time. We serve ourselves poorly by being a pussy like Britain. The Superpower is always going to be a player in Middle East politics and sometimes the other players need a reminder of just who the Superpower is and what that can mean for them. So I think Obama using The Big Stick to make our point is a smart thing. Right now it looks like it is working perfectly. At this point if Syria waffles, then they are asking for it. Russia's influence will plummet and they will look powerless to control their own puppet regime. We will have to hit Syria hard and suggest that they reconsider. Already this week the CIA is overtly sending more sophisticated arms and equipment to the Syrian rebels. It's their fight and they will have to win it for themselves like we did in our own revolution. But our revolution would have failed without the threat of the 18th century Superpower French Navy. We can influence this revolution without taking it on ourselves to fight the war. Air strikes to make a point is not going to war in the conventional sense. Reagan hit Libya without engaging in a general war. Clinton hit Afghanistan and Sudan without engaging in a general war. Dubya and Barry have hit Pakistan without engaging in a general war. Clinton engaged in successful general air campaign against Serbia without a single US casualty. We do not want to get stuck to the tar baby here, but we cannot allow that prudence to render us incapable of influencing the outcome in our best interests. It is a fine line that must be walked . . . but it ain't invisible.
It looks to me like whatever happened in that one on one at the G20, Putin came out fearing that Obama was going after Syria. He found a solution (a lame solution) that delayed a US strike and it worked for now. Now he is bypassing Obama and going directly to the American people via the WSJ to win sympathy and support. Putin is a douche bag snake.
Russia is claiming it was the rebels that used chemical weapons. He's also warning the US against a show of brute force. Says it would not be in the best interest of the US.
That didn't answer the question. We didn't win chit. Syria used chem weapons on Syria. Israel can take care of themselves. The US Govt. poked their nose in more shit. Unintended consequences to follow.
