Britain voted a definite 'No' to involvement with Syria. Looks like the pet-dog ran off from the masters leash.
Printable View
Britain voted a definite 'No' to involvement with Syria. Looks like the pet-dog ran off from the masters leash.
We apparently will be sending every single Cruise Missile (0) and drone (0) we possess!:canada:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Give me a break with the Benghazi garbage. 4 American foreign service officials were killed. They were stationed in a heavily targeted area during a civil war. They were combat diplomats, sometimes it doesn't go well. This does not change the fact that Libya is stabilized now that the government has been destroyed. That means massive quantities of civilians are not being steamrolled by government; it means real innocent lives that can go on learning, working, experiencing life and dragging the country out of the middle ages. The GOP attacks on the Obama admin for Benghazi are absurd, the Libya involvement was one of the only parts of this Presidency that I have been proud of.
I, quite simply, don't value American lives more highly than the lives of people from anywhere else. People suffering anywhere can be assisted by our troops and technology
Dude keep this up and I will have to travel to the US, eat humbe pie and buy you a beer.
You seem to be under the impression that such people want to be assisted by our troops and technology and that such assistance leads to positive outcomes. I don't know where you're getting your information on Libya, but the intervention has not been successful for Libyans or western interests. The deteriorating situation is not as heavily reported on as Iraq and Afghanistan because western troops are not on the ground, but the nation is just as chaotic and violent.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Ya, as if the senseless intervention in Libya wasn't stupid enough. Piss off I don't want warQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Once again the UK shows it is more in control of its country than Americans.
Looks like it. Obama wants to go to war even without it's allies concent. Americans don't want this war, nobody doesQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
big LOL at the nobel-price for peace though, can I have some cornflakes with that
This is serious though, Russia is sending fleet to the Mediterians. Hey Dutch government, where are our submarines at the moment, happily scanning?
I'll be very surprised if it goes down to ground troops. It's "Obama has lost it" grade and would quite likely force a resignation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Chemical weapons used. Probably.
Which side used them? Not sure.
UN resolution. None.
Allies ready to go. Not really.
Russia actively engaged to defend Syria. Probably as it has more face to lose if it doesn't stick up for one of its last allies.
Even bombing a country on the suspicion it used chemical weapons on its own people in a civil war is an act of war. Pretty stupid to do so considering the balance of facts and ROI.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and assistance in Libya) were an attempt to start a cascade in the region resulting in the overthrow of dictators and organizations hostile to US and the body of their own people's interests. The thrust has succeeded and caused the intended destabilization, which is a nice consolation for the years and treasure exhausted. Now, we need to guide the momentum further down the intended road.
Assassinations are relatively common in post collapse society. Reprisal attacks against former security forces are to be expected. A hit to the economy is also to be expected. These post-governments are tenuously in power, but few are now outright Islamist. We need to support the healthiest parts of their new economy and slam those components which are malignant. The goal is to spread this beyond the near east eventually in order to expand individual rights, consent of the governed, and economic opportunity worldwide. American interests expand beyond the realpolitikal, we are a revolutionary government with revolutionary beliefs in the rights of man. Our foreign policy must reflect that.
Invite is always open.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The only thing accomplished so far is to highlight the increasing isolation of the USA.
Not really, but certainly the credibility of the Obama administration. When it comes to diplomacy Russia still looks more isolated, I don't know why, but they rolled over after making a point out of wanting to block an UN-investigation of that attack, that happened anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
“I don't know why” Perhaps because each time they agreed on a “limited and/or Humanitarian” intervention, 2 years after, they find a US base?
What do you mean? This isn’t something I know anything about,and yes I am ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The fact that Assad has developed chemical weapons and it is being touted by some as a reason why the US wants him to stay in power in order to keep the Salafists from accessing them; this is the best rationale I've ever heard for every tin-pot dictator to ramp up chemical and nuclear weapons production. It is ultimate insurance against US intervention. What a joke the new foreign policy is. Where is Tom Donilon and Robert Gates when you need them? Susan Rice, huh. It must have been fun making her Nat Sec advisor in order to rub in the GOP's face, until you realize that she sucks eggs.
A lot of the deserters are army, they should have all the means to do such an attack. I don't know if this is true but it is supposed to be a jewish part. It makes Assad's involvement all the less believable if so
Absurd conspiracy nonsense. Assad is getting away with multiple chemical attacks on civilians and rebels.
Looks like Assad is gonna get his mandatory slap on the wrist after all. The good news is that it's not likely to be anything more than a slap, with Al-Nusra possibly getting a complementary smackdown in the process.
Yes, what wonderful news. We strike them with an expected and customary multi-billion dollar technical foul for killing 70 thousand civilians and another 1500 using Chem weapons, which does nothing to alter the course of the civil war or diminish his capability to use the weapons again. Success.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I can tell you that all I see from here is arrogance and a holeyer than thou attitude on the part of the US Administration. At least as it is portrayed in the media.
They make claims of knowing everything but claims are not proof. Another report on WMDs? Riiiighhht.
They say it doesn’t matter what the UN inspectors find because they know all that is necessary, even though the intelligence community admit that there is plenty of room for doubt.
Pretty much. That'll teach Odumbo not to draw red lines without good reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
We have proof that Assad has chemical weapons and proof that they were used to kill over 1,000 civilians. What more do you want? In Iraq, we didn't even have proof that Saddam had chemical weapons and we fought a 10 year war. These things are not equivalent and we have more than enough causus belli, from a humanitarian and/or National Security perspective. I want boots on the ground and the establishment of a new, legitimate police action, not an invasion. Boots on the ground is off of the table, but it shouldn't be.
1,429 victims apparently. Amazingly precise figures. I wonder if we can get the same team working on the civilian casualty figures from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
This time it's different apparently.
It's like the endless lies of an abusive partner.
Perhaps, but recent history puts "Because I say so" cred at (O). Without a source that can be verified, no one is buying it at face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
The President should decide to cease answering questions on Syria for a time. Deliberations should be made directly with potential coalition partners without the use of corrupting interlocutors, in order to protect Op Sec. This is one example of a government decision that will, implicity, mean the loss of lives and we are getting a babbling brook of info which serves to do nothing other than prepare Assad to withstand a minor intervention. If ever there was a time for Top Secret discretion, this is it.
You know, one possibility I haven't seen mentioned here is that elements of the Assad military or security apparatus contravened the big man and made a local decision to use the stuff.
Stretching things a bit, it might even amount to an internal coup-attempt.
To be honest, I'd even believe that it's a ploy by the foreign jihadis to lure the West into another damaging ground war, as more likely than a false-flag by actual rebels.
The first two just mean that autocrats with NBC will have more to worry about.
It will set a precedent for subordinates screwing over their masters in this particular manner, and it will make the West more likely to intervene in some way to destroy or secure the weapons of future stumbling regimes.
The last one, that's a bigger one.
To make a long post short, I'll just post some thoughts on the nuclear states we might conceivably have cause to jump into. Nuclear weapons are much bigger fish than toxic gases anyway.
On a case-by-case basis:
*North Korea would be the most probable candidate for American intervention, if only because most promising of success. Direct and massive intervention by the US would be almost certain at some point given the proximity to South Korea and Japan. On the other hand, China's disapproval would stall the US for at least a while, and the Chinese might even decide on their own that the North Korean monarchy had run its course and so take care of the situation themselves quickly and quietly, not least to pre-empt the US.
*Iran is a much larger country than North Korea, but its position within the Middle East makes intervention a considerably-probable scenario. The Saudis and Israelis would lobby furiously,I think. Actually finding the weapons might be the most difficult here. Special forces alone could not possibly accomplish anything. On the other hand, Russia would make itself felt here the most out of the three, which might preclude any invasion without Russian approval or cooperation. The Russians might have their own plan for getting their hands on the nukes.
*Pakistan is the most troubling case, and has the highest potential in the world to become a state with a government prepared to use nuclear weapons against external enemies -think jihadi takeover. That or its looming specter would be an existential threat to India, so they would be the first to try something 'hands-on' to complement diplomatic pressure on the international community. Some possibility of a full-scale Indo-Pakistani war with at-least limited nuclear exchange.
But keep in mind that no one would be so hasty as to act at the first sign of trouble in these countries, or else we might as well just take them out this year, confiscate all the goodies, and save the future trouble.
I assure you that it would take an exceptional situation of instability or civil war within one of these countries before one of the scenarios I outlined would come into play. Korea is moderately likely, lowest difficulty. Iran is least likely, and would be the most difficult to pull off. In all these cases, if there is a ground invasion the hope would be that no one would dare use nukes on their own soil to thwart the invader. Otherwise, there's no basis for endangering the entire military, and tht raises the likelihood of preemptive nuclear strikes to simply devastate an entire nation, but then again would Russia or China (even assuming their private relief) tolerate that? At this point, there are too many factors and too many unknowns for me to process.
I do agree that the NSA would probably find a mandate to keep a close eye on Pakistan - and NATO to retain a larger force in Afghanistan - if my suggestion turns out to be the case.
Again: these are all still very unlikely scenarios, even if hackles are to be raised by such a revelation. I'm sure that the government recognizes that SF have surprisingly little capacity to secure and extract nuclear weapons. I suppose they could just destroy them, but you'd need to bring in quite a bit of explosive force with the SF, and isn't there a small chance that the explosion would detonate the nuke? Which is to say, decision-makers might come to believe that nothing short of a ground invasion would do, but a ground invasion is much more difficult to initiate and sustain, not least for reasons mentioned earlier in the post.
Would that ultimately mean that, due to international inaction, for the first time, terrorists or rogue states or rogue elements within states would just end up using nukes against their own people or (more likely) external enemies? Hmm...
So my ideas could entail some pretty serious consequences, I suppose, and they're all closely associated.
What's the best-case scenario here, that Assad miscalculated after all and America's coming to save the day?