I’ve taken nothing but guff on this forum from what John Mace just called my allies because I thought Bush was right in September of 2002 to use the threat of US Military Force to get Iraq to allow the resumption of inspections.
Bush only got wrong with me when he had the diplomacy option handed to him squarely on his lap and then he opted for war instead for no reason whatsoever.
So I am consistent in my view regardless of Party affiliation.
The best use of American power is when you don’t have to actually use it.
Obama is not likely to use it on Syria but was not deterred to issue the threat to get what he wanted.
So you can drop your Obama-can-do-no-wrong hero worship dodge of making a coherent argument.
If Obama bombs Syria if Assad is considered to be cooperating with the UNSC and the CWC agency, then I will not think he can do no wrong.
So if Assad complies and all CW are destroyed by Next Years Mid term elections I guess I wont’ have to admit Obama did wrong.
We have a side in this civil war. The innocent and good people of Syrian… Muslim Christian whatever. And never have I seen a suggestion that the US will support terrorists.
And the Russian Ship Killer in the Mediterranean is going to do what? The USA remains a member of NATO… Firing on a NATO member is not something Putin would dare do. So you think Putin would start a war against NATO when Turkey is a NATO Member and holds the key for Russian ships to get from the Mediterranean Sea to the Black Sea.
Is it? Really? What hat did you pull that number out of? That doesn’t even qualify as bullshit.
There’s nothing inconsistent with my thinking. Obama said something stupid and didn’t have the political capacity to back it up. Putin was the only person capable of pulling Obama’s foot out of his mouth. Not only is he NOT intimidated by anything the President does he sent his own big stick into the region as a show of force. He got exactly what he wanted and that was no change in the status quo. Assad is where he wants him to be and Putin is in charge of the UN resolution.
Putin might veto a UN authorization for force, but Putin won’t look good if the mass murderer he is vouching for does not comply with the CWC and UNSC Resolutions demanding he comply or Chapter VII will be invoked.
And **Putin has no veto on Obama ordering a strike **on Syria - never did, never will?
The first poll below kills your argument:
The second poll is too close to call but if Syria kills again with CW and Obama revisits a call for action… watch out dude.
and you keep saying Obama has ‘no support’… 44% is not ‘no support’… he’s four points away from a tie. If something bad happens in Syria with CW Americans are slowly getting informed on what is at stake… except you. of course.
So what is your number? I say 99% of diplomacy is behind the scenes. You say what? 99% of diplomacy is in the open? How often do you see Secretary Kerry on TV meeting with heads of state and foreign ministers or talking on the phone with them?
Come on Magiver, show us you have some sense about things.
and he cares why? Seriously, that’s a stupid thing to say. He’s not running for class president. And nothing has changed in relation in Syria. The killing continues.
He has a veto on any UN vote. And without political support Obama doesn’t have the authority to attack another nation just cuz he wants to. It’s not his private army to do with as he likes.
there is no support for Obama attacking Syria in your polls. You’re not even trying.
Obama does not need ‘political capacity’ whatever that is, to order a strike against Syria. He has that authority when Americans put him in the presidency which included his role as Commander in Chief.
Are you saying politics paralyzed his ability to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and order a couple hundred cruise missiles be launched at regime military targets in Syria?
How does politics stop Obama if he decides to order the strikes?
Bush did not have political support from the US public prior to the invasion to invade Iraq without giving the UN inspectors more time. That was around 55% in February of 2003 according to CBS poll and others that a majority of Americans wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time.
But Bush invaded anyway?
Bush did not have authorization from the UNSC either.
De Villepin had a veto waiting if Bush could get nine members to authorize the use of force on March 17, 2003. But Bush did not get support from enough members.
Bush did not have authorization from the UNSC but he invaded with ground troops anyway.
Why would you think Obama needs a UNSC authorization to bomb Syria if it violates its agreement with the UNSC and the CWC?
For God’s sake, if Syria violates the agreements to destroy its CW arsenal 44% of Americans would favor strikes against the Assad regime. And that is before people could see the reports that are quite convincing that the Assad regime has killed women and children with Sarin.
Ok, after reading/following this and a couple of other associated threads, I’ve decided that NFW is a full-time paid employee of the Administration/DNC - either that or he is living on disability/welfare/mom’s good nature and has nothing to do but comb the Intarwebs all day/night correlating information to make his case. I picture him as something like Mr. Universe in the “Serenity” movie.
Heck, I had to send the supermodels out to get me pizza so I would have enough to time to post this! Anyway, what should happen is…wow, that was fast! Well, OK, pass me a slice…
Can’t make an argument I see. I moved out and worked and lived on my own since I was fifteen years old. Worked my way through high school… … Got a break in a major construction company were I worked my way up from a draftsman to project Engineer and to Project Manager. I have managed Water and Wastewater Projects valued at up to $100 million in total construction value.
Now I am an estimator for a global construction company.
I am doing well. Never had anything given to me by parents or government.
Obama’s positions on Foreign Policy and military matters and diplomacy just happen to be identical to mine.
If you can’t discuss things without personal attacks, assumptions and things you know nothing about, why are you here?
This is favoring a strike if you want Congress to approve it:
“If the diplomatic efforts to take control of Syria’s chemical weapons do not work, do you think Congress should or should not approve the use of military force against Syria?” Should, Should not, Unsure % % % 9/12-15/13 44 48 8
44% is support. You say 44% is no support. How do you justify such a massive mathematical error?
Having failed to convince the UNSC, having failed to convince NATO, having failed to convince the US Congress and having failed to convince the American people, I think it will be very hard for Obama to use the military in Syria in the event they do not fully cooperate with the CW inspectors.
To which I say: GOOD!!
We don’t need to be bombing any more countries that are not a threat to us.
It is a threat to us. You may be opposed to any bombing of countries not overtly attacking us and that is fine, but they are a threat.
The Syrian civil war is going to last a very long time. It’s a country in chaos with Islamic militants running around freely. Here are some other countries/territories that have fit that profile:
Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan, Yemen, Chechnya/Dagestan, and Somalia. There are probably many more if I go back further than 20 years. How many Americans have died, been hijacked, been kidnapped due to terrorist attacks originating from the militants inhabiting these locales?
Syrian refugees are starting to arrive on our shores. I wonder if any of their children will grow up with crappy parents, never fitting in, and find themselves idolizing the militant life still going strong 20 years later in what they mistakenly view as home?
If you want to ignore the threat or do not think the threat is worth any effort, great, it’s not like you’re the only one.