Can anyone defend the Admin Syria drive?

[Terr]

@XT

Sanctions. Threat of military strikes.

Sanctions were there before, for a long time. “Threats” are not punishment. So - any punishment?

I know you and others desperately want Obama to look bad in all of this

What I “want” is immaterial. He looks like a bumbling idiot. Which is really what he is. Too bad it reflects badly on the United States, though.

[PhillyGuy]

@NotfooledbyW

Just before the Iraq invasion polls showed 60% favored Bush letting inspections continue and getting UN Sanction. The mood in the public is eerily the same favoring diplomacy over military action.

I don’t think we live in the same country.

In case we do, here is a reminder of how all-over-the-map were the Iraq invasion polls:

Public opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq

Not pre-invasion, but do you remember this shocker:

“Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?”

September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
. . .

CBS News and The New York Times have conducted a number of polls on the Iraq War that have included the question:

“Was Saddam personally involved in 9/11?”[10]
April 2003 responses: 53% said Yes, 38% said No.

Going beyond the polls, I think that in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, middle of the road Americans did not have a strong opinion. That’s why you can find pre-Iraq-invasion polls to prove whatever point you want. When opinion is weakly held, a slight change in the wording of the question makes all the difference. In as much as middle Americans did have a pre-Iraq-invasion opinion, they figured that if the administration said we needed to go to war, we probably did.

By contrast, this time I am hearing people pipe up with a strong opinion who usually have none. This is being discussed over dinner tables not previously known for opinionated foreign policy discussions. And those discussions tend to be strongly for staying out.

Now, personally, I think the reasons in favor of a brief punitive anti-poison gas campaign in Syria are far stronger than they were the case for a land invasion of Iraq or that graveyard of foreign armies, Afghanistan. But US public opinion, both on the basis of polling and personal observations, looks on it just the opposite. The dovishness of the present US zeitgeist is quite unusual and, therefore, likely to be fleeting.

[Werekoala]

@XT

What a load of horseshit. There was NEVER any intention of stopping the killing in Syria, nor any realistic way to do it.

And thank YOU for being honest enough to state the truth - Obama doesn’t care to stop the killing, just how it’s being done.

[BrainGlutton]

How can we ever hope to break the lightspeed barrier without the Admin Syria Drive?! Continue the research, I say!

[BrokenBriton]

@NotfooledbyW

The very best use of military force is to achieve your military objective by the mere threat of use of force without having to actually use it.

It was so cool how Obama persuaded the UK Parliament to hand him his arse. And then Assad, and then Putin: Master tactician.

[Ibn_Warraq]

When I saw Assad making all the statements about how the US must not arm rebels, this actually reminds me of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Kennedy told the Soviets if they pulled their missiles out of Cuba and the US promised no more attempts to topple Castro. Here Putin and Assad are saying, "look, we’ll get rid of chemical weapons, or at least give you credible cover for the idea that we’re getting rid of chemical weapons, and you make sure that Assad doesn’t get toppled.

[John_Mace]

@Terr

What I “want” is immaterial. He looks like a bumbling idiot. Which is really what he is. Too bad it reflects badly on the United States, though.

But you know what? I’ll take a bumbling idiot who doesn’t bomb for no good reason over a strategizing genius who does bomb. At the end of the day, we’re not bombing Syria (yet), and that is a good thing.

What happens going forward, we’ll see.

[elucidator]

Suppose you wanted to interview the leader of the opposition, or get a reaction to the day’s news. Who would you call? That’s the main reason I oppose “arming the opposition”. I have no idea who the hell they are.

[Terr]

@elucidator

Suppose you wanted to interview the leader of the opposition, or get a reaction to the day’s news. Who would you call? That’s the main reason I oppose “arming the opposition”. I have no idea who the hell they are.

Here are some

[RedFury]

@NotfooledbyW

To Terr, what XT wrote and a clue for you about what just happened. The very best use of military force is to achieve your military objective by the mere threat of use of force without having to actually use it.

Or maybe Putin looked into Obama’s eyes and saw the American soul. Obama had sung out a few soul brother lyrics so this could be it too. Just thinkin’

Perhaps if you were better informed about Obama’s/the US real goals in this conflict, you might not wax victorious about this episode:

Proposed Iraq/Syria oil pipeline.

Want to make it easy on yourself beyond Party lines? Follow the money. You are welcome.

---

Or you could simply inform yourself. Not like it is a secret. Where was the “red-line” here?

The U.S. and Chemical Weapons: No Leg to Stand On

@Stephen Zunes

…The Case of Iraq

The first country to allegedly use chemical weapons in the Middle East was Great Britain in 1920, as part of its efforts to put down a rebellion by Iraqi tribesmen when British forces seized the country following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. According to Winston Churchill, who then held the position of Britain’s Secretary of State for War and Air, “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.”

It was the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, that used chemical weapons on a scale far greater than any country had dared since the weapons were banned nearly 90 years ago. The Iraqis inflicted close to 100,000 casualties among Iranian soldiers using banned chemical agents, resulting in 20,000 deaths and tens of thousands of long-term injuries.

They were unable to do this alone, however. Despite ongoing Iraqi support for Abu Nidal and other terrorist groups during the 1980s, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism in order to provide the regime with thiodiglycol, a key component in the manufacture of mustard gas, and other chemical precursors for their weapons program. Walter Lang, a senior official with the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, noted how “the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern” to President Reagan and other administration officials since they “were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose.” Lang noted that the DIA believed Iraq’s use of chemical was “seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival.” In fact, DIA personnel were dispatched to Baghdad during the war to provide Saddam Hussein’s regime with U.S. satellite data on the location of Iranian troop concentrations in the full knowledge that the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against them.

Even the Iraqi regime’s use of chemical weapons against civilians was not seen as particularly problematic. The March 1988 massacre in the northern Iraqi city of Halabja, where Saddam’s forces murdered up to 5,000 Kurdish civilians with chemical weapons, was downplayed by the Reagan administration, with some officials even falsely claiming that Iran was actually responsible. The United States continued sending aid to Iraq even after the regime’s use of poison gas was confirmed.

When a 1988 Senate Foreign Relations committee staff report brought to light Saddam’s policy of widespread extermination in Iraqi Kurdistan, Senator Claiborne Pell introduced the Prevention

of Genocide Act to put pressure on the Iraqi regime, but the Bush administration successfully moved to have the measure killed. This came despite evidence emerging from UN reports in 1986 and 1987, prior to the Halabja tragedy, documenting Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians—allegations that were confirmed both by investigations from the CIA and from U.S. embassy staff who had visited Iraqi Kurdish refugees in Turkey. However, not only was the United States not particularly concerned about Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, the Reagan administration continued supporting the Iraqi government’s procurement effort of materials necessary for their development.

Given the U.S. culpability in the deaths of tens of thousands of people by Iraqi chemical weapons less than 25 years ago, the growing calls for the United States to go to war with Syria in response to that regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons that killed a few dozen people leads even many of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s fiercest opponents to question U.S. motivations.

This is not the only reason U.S. credibility on the issue of chemical weapons is questionable, however.

After denying and covering up Iraq’s use of chemical weapons in the late 1980s, the U.S. government—first under President Bill Clinton and then under President George W. Bush—began insisting that Iraq’s alleged chemical weapons stockpile was a dire threat, even though the country had completely destroyed its stockpile by 1993 and completely dismantled its chemical weapons program.

Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel—when they served in the U.S. Senate in 2002—all voted to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq, insisting that Iraq still had a chemical weapons arsenal that was so extensive it constituted a serious threaten to the national security of the United States, despite the fact that Iraq had rid itself of all such weapons nearly a decade earlier. As a result, it is not unreasonable to question the accuracy of any claims they might make today in regard to Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

It should also be noted that many of today’s most outspoken congressional advocates for U.S. military intervention in Syria in response to the Damascus regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons were among the most strident advocates in 2002-2003 for invading Iraq. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), whom the Democrats have chosen to be their ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was among the right-wing minority of House Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction. When no such weapons were found, Engel came up with the bizarre allegation that “it would not surprise me if those weapons of mass destruction that we cannot find in Iraq wound up and are today in Syria.”…

– much more at source.

US forces used ‘chemical weapon’ in Iraq

The US Has No Credibility Dealing With Chemical Weapons

The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it

US Protected Iraq at UN from Iranian Charges of Chemical Weapons Use

U.S. Record on Chemical Weapons Weakens Standing in Challenging Syria
Seems to me your posts are not just one-sided, but either ignorant or written without a clue of what you own beloved nation has done – and continues to do. Might not be CW but drones do as good a job at killing innocent (or even your own citizens) as anything else.

Cheers.

[Magiver]

@NotfooledbyW

But the right wing anti-Obama driven narrative is a solid argument is it that we must power down our minds and accept as reality. I still see no supporting reasoning or substance behind the right wing narrative that is mostly noise and little thought.

except that the majority of Americans don’t support the actions so you seem to be in a quandary over the left wing ant-obama driven narrative. There is no support for giving aid to rebels. We went through this with Osama Bin Laden. Look where it got us. We went through this in Somalia. Look where it got us.

[Magiver]

@NotfooledbyW

I agree Putin wants to get all the CW out of Syria ASAP. That is why Putin had offered to give Obama what he wants.

There is no support for military action against Syria either internationally or domestically. It’s naive to think Putin is going to do anything beyond selling Syria more weapons.

Obama put his foot in his mouth and now needs someone else to pull it out for him.

[John_Mace]

I should have added, and I was sorely remiss in not saying this earlier, that what Putin is doing in trying to salvage Assad’s regime is “unbelievably small” compared to what the US has done over many decades to advance our own interests. We’ve backed numerous dictators, autocrats and oppressive regimes in the name of “stability” or “anti-communism” or what-have-you. Even in this crisis, we have no problem cozying up to the Saudis, who are every bit as bad as Assad, only with more money to dole out to their supporters.

We had no problem backing Mubarak, Saddam Hussein, and even Assad when it suited our interests. We told the former Soviet Republics (like Lithuania, for one) to “go slow” when they were trying to break free from the USSR. Wouldn’t be prudent. All the while forgetting the history we celebrate every July 4th when our own Patriots and Founders acting rashly and radically to break free from Britain.

Would that we were more humble on the world stage today.

[Little_Nemo]

I have to say at this point that regardless of whatever justification there is for military action against Syria, the Obama administration has bungled the execution. They’ve failed to make the case to the American people, to Congress, and to the world diplomatic community.

[BrokenBriton]

@elucidator

Suppose you wanted to interview the leader of the opposition, or get a reaction to the day’s news. Who would you call?

Until that point, I thought you were talking about the US political class.

[NotfooledbyW]

@RedFury

Perhaps if you were better informed about Obama’s/the US real goals in this conflict, you might not wax victorious about this episode:

Proposed Iraq/Syria oil pipeline.

Want to make it easy on yourself beyond Party lines? Follow the money. You are welcome.

---

Or you could simply inform yourself. Not like it is a secret. Where was the “red-line” here?

The U.S. and Chemical Weapons: No Leg to Stand On

– much more at source.

US forces used ‘chemical weapon’ in Iraq

The US Has No Credibility Dealing With Chemical Weapons

The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it

US Protected Iraq at UN from Iranian Charges of Chemical Weapons Use

U.S. Record on Chemical Weapons Weakens Standing in Challenging Syria
Seems to me your posts are not just one-sided, but either ignorant or written without a clue of what you own beloved nation has done – and continues to do. Might not be CW but drones do as good a job at killing innocent (or even your own citizens) as anything else.

Cheers.

What does all that have to with President Obama? I see no links that suggest that
Obama plans to use chemical weapons during punitive strikes against Assad’s military weapons and assets.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Little_Nemo

I have to say at this point that regardless of whatever justification there is for military action against Syria, the Obama administration has bungled the execution. They’ve failed to make the case to the American people, to Congress, and to the world diplomatic community.

Why is failing to convince 60% of the public bungling?

Why is failing to convince partisan politicians who oppose anything Obama wants or tries to do bungling?

The Republican leadership in the House is convinced.

Failing to convince is failing to convince. The bungling thing is all right wing partisan hacks having a field day against a presidency they’ve wanted to destroy since day one.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Terr

You really don’t understand how this works. Obama does (or at least his people do), that’s why the administration realizes Kerry’s “offer” was a huge blunder and is desperately trying to walk it back.

There will be negotiations set up about setting up the surrender of control. There will be talks about where to hold the talks, about who the parties to the talks will be, about who takes eventual control, what exactly they take control of, what does “control” mean, how the “control” is handed over, etc. etc. A million (almost literally) details. Over each of which one can quibble basically forever, while maintaining the image of “moving forward”. Meantime the control is still Syria’s. For years, or decades, if need be.

You’d have a bit of an argument if the air strikes are no longer on the table. Kerry told reporters in Geneva that military action is still on the table.

Four of five of your predictions are already blown.

The talks are in Geneva and we know who we are talking to etc etc.

Are you predicting the Jets will win last nights game against the Patriots?

[NotfooledbyW]

@Magiver

except that the majority of Americans don’t support the actions so you seem to be in a quandary over the left wing ant-obama driven narrative. There is no support for giving aid to rebels. We went through this with Osama Bin Laden. Look where it got us. We went through this in Somalia. Look where it got us.

The Code Pink, Kucinich, Progressive Caucus, Lefty Lib opposition to Air Strikes has been the same throughout Obama’s Presidency. They oppose everything he does militarily. What they don’t do is feed the right wing propaganda machine stuff like Obama is a bungler, inept on foreign policy, has weakened America, Obama is an appeaser.

There nothing wrong about disagreeing with decisions Obama has made. There is a problem when people start throwing around goofy opinions like Obama was spanked by Putin etc.

Had Obama not taken an unpopular stand there we most likely would not be seeing the talks going on in Geneva right now. And the use of chemical weapons could be escalated once its settled that no nations were stepping up to do anything because Syria is a client state of Russia and Russia can block anything the UNSC could do any way.

Courageous leadership is not incompetence just because it is not popular.

Obama has bypassed Putin’s veto at the UNSC and forced him now to live up to his word and his promise.

Not bad and without firing a shot, yet.

[Terr]

@NotfooledbyW

You’d have a bit of an argument if the air strikes are no longer on the table. Kerry told reporters in Geneva that military action is still on the table.

Lots of hot air. No substance.

The talks are in Geneva and we know who we are talking to etc etc.

These are the talks about the talks.