Would you like to make a small bet?
Oh, it will “come through”. It will agree to negotiate it. For a long, long time.
Again, would you like to make a small bet?
So are we going to demand a cease fire long enough to get the CWs and then just leave and say “carry on”?
Are you seeing the win for Obama that is coming out of your no win situation. This could be bigger than the Lake Placid win where a no win situation was presumed to be the reality.
I’m seeing no win for conservatives who bailed on support for American presidential strong leadership in the world and Rand Paul isolationists who suggest we run from trouble. There’s norhing presidential about Rand Paul’s preferred weakness at the sign of trouble when a red line is crossed by a murderous thug dictator like Assad.
How small of a bet? *Unbelievably *small?
Seriously, why would your scenario of dragged out negotiations be counter productive to the preferred outcome of both sides continuing to exhaust each other for a long, long time? I mean, who really cares what some people think it makes Obama look like? I actually worked for OFA, and I prefer that result to a strike of any size.
$100 to the charity of the winner’s choice. I bet that one year from today, Syria’s chemical weapons will still not be under any “international control” (though Assad may allow some Russian inspections to take place). Wanna take it?
Oh I have no problem with the outcome of Al Queda continuing to fight Hezbollah and Assad. But it is exactly the same outcome that would have happened without the war noises from the US. Obama looks like a fool and is hugely politically weakened. Which is a good outcome as well, as far as I am concerned.
Tomorrow night, Obama makes his case for a military strike against Syria:
My fellow Americans. I stand before you tonight to urge you to support a resolution I submitted to Congress to authorize a military strike against Syria in the wake of incontrovertible evidence that the regime of President Assad used Chemical Weapons against his own people.
Some of you have asked, what is our long term strategy? Well, you saw just today what that strategy is. I can assure you that, each week, Secretary Kerry will give a news conference in which he will jokingly offer a solution to this terrible international crisis. Upon receiving the reaction of Syria and Russia, we will say: Ah hah! So, you don’t want us to bomb you after all. In which case, we expect Congress to expeditiously grant us authority tp commence a 90 day effort of unbelievably small attacks against Syria that will significantly degrade and deter any future CW attacks. I am confident that President Assad will take each joke very seriously, as evidenced by his denial of any use of CWs by his regime.
Further, our closest ally, Russia, will help ensure that Syria sequester its CWs, and open an inspection effort to contain the CWs that Assad assures he has not use. What could possibly go wrong with this strategy?
Failing compliance by Syria, we will amass what I call the Coalition of the Expedient, consisting of the US and Saudi Arabia, to punish the rogue regime in the mildest way possible. Lest any of you doubt the value of this Coalition, let me point out that Saudi Arabia is one the leading Middle Eastern countries in the vanguard of democratization of the region. I have it on good faith that within 5 years, women in Saudi Arabia will be able to drive automobiles provided they have the permission from only a senior male relative, and are accompanied by only 2 of such relatives to ensure that they do not insight unrelated men to, justifiably, rape them. Such progress is only possible if we agree to bomb the living daylights out of Syria in the most unbelievably small way possible.
In closing, my fellow Americans, let me leave you with these thoughts:
Small is big
War is Peace
and
We all love Big Brother!
I’ve already won any bets when you admit that Syria will negotiate for a long time. If negotiations are engaged there should be no further use of CW on innocent Syrians and Assad is admitting to possession of them.
Obama’s win on this has already arrived with Putin’s offer to engage in a process where he and Syria have necessarily admitted that the CW arsenal exists under Syrian control. They are not saying let inspectors in to verify that nothing is there.
Think about that.
And last night Senators Graham and McCain in a joint statement explained how a new draft resolution by the US and presented to the UNSC should read. There’s some good reports in the anti-strike biased Huffington Post:
I don’t see how Russia can veto or prolong any reasonable UNSC resolution that begin a UN process to sieze control of Syria’s CW arsenal.
And if Obans secures something similar to UNSC Reolution 1441 that was produced for Iraq, Obama will score a huge national security feat for ourselves and the world.
U
We are not there now, so what’s with the question about leaving? Obama’s red line reference was about CW. The CW is bring addressed with the threat of the use of force looming over the negotiating table.
That use of force is the best use of force available in situations like these.
And Assad got away with killing civilians with chemical weapons without ANY action by Obama, no matter how gung-ho Obama was about the attack. Which will hugely boost Assad where it counts - in the Middle East. He went toe to toe with the “Great Satan” - and won.
Watch and learn.
You (well, Obama) are not fooling anyone with that “threat of use of force looming over the negotiating table”. Obama’s best chance to use force was about 10 days ago. He wimped out. He is not going to be able to attack Syria in the future without huge problems at home.
No idea, and nor would he.
I’m guessing he might pull everyone together by proposing a bid for the Winter Olympics.
Why ten days ago?
Have you factored into your (Obama is a wimpy jerk) narrative the fact that Boehner and Cantor likely will not put a vote on the floor if the votes for a strike are not there? Obama has Kosovo as a precedent for proceeding without Congress backing. Your ‘ten days ago’ milestone is wishful thinking at best. There is no substance behind it.
Did Obama miss some atmospheric conditions or star and planet alignment window ten days ago that prevents cruise missiles being launched?
Public statements by Damascus and Moscow and the Sec Gen of the UN do not bode well for the US rightwing defamation campaign against Obama. That’s because Obama’s objective has been to degrade Assad’s ability to use CW against his own citizens. UN inspectors doing anything on the ground inside Syria achieves the objective many times better than a military stroke would.
Apparently, there is just something about being president that makes you want to get involved in a land war in Asia. I have been kinda flabbergasted by the Obama Administration’s push for war in Syria. I keep wondering, “Why does Obama want to put America’s dick in that pencil sharpener?” I KNOW why Bush wanted to do it … twice … he was an idiot under the guidance of actively evil men (Cheney, Rumsfeld, the PNAC crew). But while I know Obama is a Wall Street tool, I didn’t think he was an idiot.
Listening to Kerry right now. He says that we have “no choice” but to act against Assad. That what Assad has done “directly affects the security of the United States”.
Wait… Didn’t Obama just tell us a few days ago that the reason he’s going to Congress for permission is that he couldn’t make the argument that the security of the United States was in danger?
Perhaps you need to check your baseline premises then.
Sometimes it parses more easily if you substitute ‘Israel’ for “United States”.
Only for the uninformed or the faithful. Otherwise, no, it really doesn’t.
You really think that? Good luck with it.
When a person assumes the office of the president, does he automatically give up any right to personal convictions about right and wrong? Does he/she have to jettison any personal ideology and replace it with some kind of external “presidential” philosophy? If so, who decides what that should be?
I think we’ve seen enough examples through history that presidents tend to behave in line with their personal convictions. No different than any other person. It’s just that nobody’s convictions and motives are as scrutinized as those of the president.
I don’t see how this president has proven himself to be an “idiot”. I disagree with his position on military involvement in Syria, but I understand why he chose to go that route and the realpolitik path he took to get there.