Can Assad wipe out a rebel town?
Can Assad hit a US Navy ship or a US town?
I would think an enemy you can’t touch in war would be the greater danger to Assad in his situation.
What to compare ‘unbelievably small’ to?
200 Cruise Missiles is quite small compared to the force that was thrown at Saddam Hussein after 200 inspectors were moving about unfettered inside Iraq for a few months and nobody was killing anybody with chemical weapons at the time.
I think you need some perspective here.
The last 10 days of policy reads like a Python sketch now.
A big damn foot that stomps down from the sky and crushes Assad? That would do nicely.
An enemy you can’t touch in war that does “unbelievably small” attacks is a much less important enemy than the enemy that can and did do a lot more damage.
And yet, the threat of an ‘unbelievably small’ attack seems to be enough to get the Syrians to consider giving control of their chemical weapons to Russia to stave it off. How do you reconcile this?
It’s amazing how much people put blinders on when it is convenient. Syrians’ consideration of the proposal is a ruse. It will never actually happen, but the talks about how to do it can stretch for a decade or so. It is an obvious ruse, but it does put the administration in a bind, since rejecting it out of hand makes them look like warmongers.
Have you ever heard the Middle Eastern story about teaching a donkey to talk?
Cruise missile with an inert warhead, a practice bomb.
Paint it pink and put his name on it, then put it through a window in his headquarters.
Or have an assassin walk over, boop him on the nose, and say ‘next time you die’.
No shit.
That’s where you get people talking out of their ass.
It might be a ruse, though if I were Obama I’d make sure it’s on a definite time table and verifiable. However, the important point here is that they are obviously alarmed enough about our proposed ‘unbelievably small’ attack to warrant having said ruse. Also, if it stops them using chemical weapons in the future then it’s already accomplished the only meaningful point of this entire exercise. To me, it seems more like it’s you with blinders on about this whole thing, to be honest.
Yup, I’ve heard it several times. I think it can be applicable to this situation from either perspective. Maybe Assad can dance long enough that Obama is out and someone else, less likely to bomb his country is in. Maybe the donkey WILL learn to sing. Or, maybe Assad dies tonight from hot, kinky sex with a 20 year old male love slave with the donkey egging him on.
Wouldn’t it be part and parcel of this sneaky ruse that he not use them again? Isn’t that rather the whole point?
Did you even read what Kerry actually said? When asked what Assad could do to avoid being attacke, Kerry said, “Sure, he could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay.”
As for “unbelievably small,” it was clearly a manner of speaking, as in, “something short of total war.” So to some extent I think it’s unreasonable to bust his balls over that particular phrasing. Perhaps a fairer criticism is more broadly to ask why the administration is telegraphing the intended scope and timing of the attack in such detail. This blog postfrom Washington Post offers what I find a persuasive answer, which, in short, is that a military strike can be telegraphed as explicitly as you like and still basically achieve the goal of being punitive. Moreover, such an operation could be taken as a warning shot, with the unspoken message being that the next one will be worse.
Moreover, communicating the targets and timing of an attack beforehand–if it comes to that–gives Assad plenty of time to make sure civilians are kept out of the way. If he chooses to use them as human shields, the whole world will know it.
I saw that short a long time ago. Assad vs Godzilla. Did not turn out well for Assad.
Better than that, don’t depend on the Assad regime, get the word out yourself, by whatever means. It says we can blow up your shit, we can tell you when we will do it, we will make the effort to protect civilians, and there ain’t shit you can do about it.
We can nip your earlobe or slice off your nuts, and the choice is entirely ours.
I like your style.
Right. So “within the next week” is a manner of speaking, as in “sometime in the future”.
And saying it will also significantly degrade and deter future attacks tells us the opposite. He’s trying to convince us that it will and will not be significant at the same time. And he’s asking for 90 days of bombing.
This is Doublespeak if I’ve ever heard it.
Nothing to worry our pretty little heads over. Fiddle-de-dee, why it’s just the tiniest little attack EV-ah!
snicker For puppy Dopers with inadequate cultural education, the original here…
… and Obama is folding:
“I don’t anticipate that you would see a succession of votes this week or anytime in the immediate future,” Obama said. “So I think there will be time during the course of the debates here in the United States for the international community, the Russians and the Syrians to work with us and say is there a way to resolve this.”
Next the talks about the talks start up with Russians/Syrians for a few months. Then the actual talks for a few years. Then they will probably break down. It seems that Russians/Assad outplayed US. If all this comes to pass, this will be a huge boost to Assad. Hopefully not too big a boost so that his side doesn’t win outright.
So, if Obama persists he’s a warmonger, if he relents, he’s a wussie. If he spreads his hands and creates peace with his divine power, he’s stealing his shtick from Jesus?