Bingo.
As in “talk loudly and carry no stick”.
I don’t want “war with Syria”. In fact, I don’t want US to support either side there - both are horrible. But Obama has been spouting this crap about “red lines” and “game changers” and, when his bluff is called, is showing US to be a paper tiger. And THAT will come back to bite us later.
After Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Libya, I think we have balls-cred to burn anyway.
Considering that:
(1) The Muslim Brotherhood is now in power in Egypt;
(2) The current Libyan government is fairly heavily influenced by Islamists;
(3) Algeria, one of the most stable and moderate Muslim countries, has recently been having problems with radical Muslims;
(4) At least one rebel group in Syria has openly allied themselves with Al Qaeda;
(5) The Assad family has toned down its foreign adventurism over the last several years;
I’m beginning to think that, if we intervene at all, it should be on the side of Assad.
When Alexander Hamilton supported Jefferson for president over Burr, he supposedly said something to the effect that a smart crook is better than a dumb crook. In much the same way, a relatively rational group of thugs is preferable to an irrational group of thugs.
I’m thinking woosh.
Worked back in the 30s. Saved Europe from the bolshevik hordes, it did.
Then it worked in Spain, Iran, Argentina, Pakistan, Zaire, Indonesia, Iraq, Egypt…
I hear a lot of talk about Syrian air defenses being a strong deterrent and a reason why we don’t have the same options we had in Libya.
What kind of air defenses do they have, and are they advanced enough that a flight of Wild Weasels couldn’t take them out?
First I’ve ever heard of anyone calling Burr dumb, or Jefferson a crook.
Thank-you for causing me to go look up what Wild Weasel means and clearing up a misconception I had from playing with G.I. Joe’s as a child. This cite describes the upgrades and general capabilities of the Syrian air defenses. I have no idea what we do to counter it, but I imagine there are lots of options.
Well it looks like I got one thing right:
Honestly, Terr, if Obama hadn’t talked about “Red lines” and “game changers” you would be right here saying that Assad used chemical weapons because Obama didn’t speak out strongly enough against it. There is logically no thing that Obama can do that you will approve of.
No you didn’t. I am not a Republican.
given the fact that the Arab Spring hasn’t exactly produced pro-Western regimes there is no rush here. It’s a civil war after-all. And given Obama’s level of support for Americans in Benghazi I don’t see anything happening without a butt-load of world support.
Let the Chinese deal with it.
“Speaking up strongly.” Hilarious. That’s about the only thing that Obama is good at. As for backing his words up… not so much.
You have to be able to detect a plane to defend against it. Between stealth aircraft and radar/communication jamming aircraft it’s not a problem that can’t be smothered in money.
Might as well be some rebel faction that has tried their hand with chemical weapons. In any case, perhaps it does not really matter whether the West decides to support supposedly “good” rebels with arms or direct military interventions. If support is thrown behind forces fighting against the regime, then the Shia and other minorities will be left at the mercy of Islamists.
Is the U.S. government under Obama just feigning non-involvement in the Syrian Rebellion or has this ‘rebellion’ been a covert operation from the start?
Would this have been delivered by the CIA, together with the normal small arms and ermm..‘training personell’ precisely in order to escalate the conflict?
Escalate it to a point where the public would just have to support an attack on the bad people that used “weapons of mass destruction on their own people!!”
All the time inching closer toward the real intended target.
I tried. Months ago when the first reports of gas attacks surfaced.
If the interest of the board in that thread and this one in GD are any indication then there is not enough interest by the international community to support intervention.
Apparently the only real meaning of “red line” in Washington is theMetro train that serves Rockville or Silver Springs.
Well if there is a “red line” and the rebels used chemical weapons does that mean the US should intevene on behalf of Assad? In any the case is still open, but it looks increasingly to have been a Kuwaiti Incubator moment.
Not to hijack, but I’d be curious to know how many non-Republicans got your presidential vote in the past.
This whole thing reminds me of Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam: “I dares ya to cross that line” “I’m a-crossin’” Well, maybe it’s been crossed and maybe it hasn’t. Let’s get all of our facts straight. What chemical weapons were used? Who used them? Against who? What were the casualties? Pretty important stuff to know. I want us to be absolutely sure of these facts before proceeding. Then we have to ask what is in the best interest of the US and what is the most humanitarian course of action? What are our goals? What’s the end game? What are the long term impacts of any action on Syria and the region? If it takes weeks or months to sort it all out, I’m fine with that. We also need to take time to get a consensus from the rest of the world. Not rushing into action is a sign of strong leadership. We’re barely a decade removed from the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history, let’s try to learn from our mistakes. The neo-cons would like us to come in with guns blazing within moments of every crisis, real or invented, in the world. Thank goodness Syria didn’t come to a boil during the W years.