Well Chaa!!!. Then we’ll throw a 1.4 million dollar missile at an unbelievably small number of their hidy holes until then learn their lesson.:rolleyes:
Miller, you simply must pay more attention to disguising your agenda of ruthless violence.
NOT doing something stupid is a course of action. It’s not irrelevant to your question. I didn’t deliberately cross the center line and kill 10 people today. I didn’t pour gasoline on the ground at the fuel pump and light it.
Obama could have done what he’s good at and deliver a speech condemning it. Great deliverer of speeches. We the great nation of exceptional people do hereby condemn the use of chemical weapons by person or persons in the land of Syria. We will no longer buy the things we weren’t buying from you anyway but now we really really won’t buy them.
Is Miller actually the President because I don’t see any threats made by him/her.
Protecting our allies and our bases in the region is the same as defending them. You would quibble that the purpose of degrading Syria’s CW is not to defend or protect our allies and bases in the region.
So, the US caves on the first controversial issue, which is whether the UNSC resolution will contain the threat of force if Syria doesn’t comply. Now, Obama’s take is that such a resolution was never a possibility, and that the US might still strike on its own so everything is still A-OK. But the fact is, a UNSC resolution to use force is a prerequisite for almost every country on earth to support a military strike. And most Americans don’t want to go it alone on this one.
Round 1 goes to Russia, China and Syria.
So are you telling us that Israel has no interest in degrading Assad’s CW arsenal which is said to be the world’s third largest?
So once again; Obama’s red line is exactly wrong according to you if it is to degrade Assad’s arsenal in order to protect bases in the region and allies like Israel, but Perez’s red line is exactly right when it’s to defend citizens?
There is no UNSC Resolution at all if Obama didnt force Putin to agree to negotiate one by the threat of force. The original theat of force is still there. It was not through the UN, it was from Obama as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military on earth.
So this is not round one by any means. And Obama’s threat to bomb Syria is still circling about on the Mediteranean Sea, waiting for the word. If Putin votes yes to open a UNSC Resolution regarding Syria, and Syria complies fully - Obama wins a huge national security trophy (much bigger than Bush getting Saddam Husseins pistol) on his watch. If Syris does not comply then the UNSC declares Syria in material breach of its disarmament obligation (Putin cannot veto a material breach by Syria). This means Syris is in violation of international law just like Iraq was for so many years. At that point Obama can justify the same attack because Syria is clearly violating international law and the UNSC is unable to enforce it because of Purin’s veto power.
I trust Obama won’t do what Bush did when Iraq complied under 1441 by bombing Syria anyway if UN inspectors are finding Syrian cooperation all along the way.
A UNSC without the threat of force is nothing more than a nasty letter. BFD.
Meanwhile, reports are that the Syrians have been scattering their CWs about the country. Only they know how much they have, so it’ll be interesting to see how we hold them accountable for their full stash. And, of course, the civli war rages on. The rebels, feeling let down by the US are left without allies to help them. That is, except your friendly neighborhood “foreign fighter” freshly arrived from Yemen, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia or what-have-you.
Assad, I’m sure, is comfortably nursing his brandy tonight. He hasn’t felt this safe in months.
I still, can’t believe you seriously think OBAMA forced PUTIN to do anything. Wait a minute… are you posting from an alternate universe? :dubious:
American warships deployed offshore Syria
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/itea…
Obama brought up the subject to Putin in June at the G20 Summit to get Syria to give up its CW arsenal. Something happened that helped Tootie Pootie to make up his mind.
Do you think it was Randy Dandy Paul cowering in fear at the sign of trouble that Brought Pootie to the table.
In your universe what made Putin come around. He could have come around in June before all those babies were killed.
1441 got Hussein to proactively cooperate on longstanding unresolved issues. Remember?
1441 had the threat of force from a couple of member states although the UNSC itself did not authorize it unless the UNSC convened to decide if it was necessary.
This one for Syria need not have the threat of force written in it. The same threat of force is circling on the Mediterranean Sea whether Congress authorizes it or not.
American warships deployed offshore Syria
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/itea…
Reports from whom?
If you think we should hold them accountable and you seem wary of peaceful inspections why do you oppose a punitive strike by the USA? If you don’t care or don’t think we should hold them accountable, why do you comment on the UNSC method of transfer from Syria to safe control and destruction of as many CW as possible as soon as possible?
I recall your view was that you didn’t care if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction so I must assume you don’t care if Syria does too?
Pardon me if I’m missing something by jumping into the middle of conversation here, but isn’t that pretty much what both you and I have been advocating? It’s none of our business, so stay the fuck out.
That is to say, none of the US’s business as one country standing alone. If, in fact, the oft mentioned “international community” pulls together to “do something”, I’d be game for the US being one member of such a coalition. Playing, as it were, a minor part since no one country need push itself to the forefront of truly international effort. Just for kicks, maybe we let the French take the lead this time.
People who rejoice in hopelessness and cynicism get on my nerves.
I oppose military intervention because I don’t believe it can succeed, especially under the circumstances that prevailed. Those circumstances may have changed, at this point, its hard to tell. I still don’t see any hope in military intervention, but not so much because we shouldn’t but because we won’t.
We shouldn’t lead mostly because we’ve done such an awful job so far, we have too many people who hate and mistrust us. Had it not been for George and Dicks Excellent Military Adventure, perhaps we might have been better placed. Perhaps.
So, lets lead. Bandages, not ammo. No lethal aid for anyone. Food for the hungry, medicine for the wounded. Suppose we don’t choose a side, just this once, try it out. Help everyone we can, ignore their affiliations. The hungry have no allegiances, the orphan has no agenda. And the powerless have no friends. Except, perhaps, us.
And if not us, who? If not now, when?
there is no “table”. Nothing Obama has suggested doing remotely affects Putin. His unbelievably small use of force is a pointless illegal exercise in futility. It doesn’t even qualify as saber rattling. Putin has thrown him a rope to help him pull his foot out of his mouth. If he doesn’t let it die a natural death then the hole gets deeper.
Isn’t that rather odd? Can you explain Putin’s actions, other than finding Jesus? Why is Putin doing this, the goodness of his, ah, heart?
How about in Sudan or Yugoslavia where we tried to limit our involvement to only providing non-military aid? The aid workers then had to stand by helplessly as the people they were there to assist were then killed anyway. In some cases, they even got to watch.
Although I’ll admit you do have one new suggestion - helping everyone without regard for which side they’re on. So I guess your policy would be that after a death squad comes in and murders a town full of people, you’d want us to set up a mess tent and feed the killers.