A couple of minutes ago. Yet again, Kerry: “I don’t believe we’re going to war.”
OK, so he is either psychic or he’s full of shit.
Doesn’t matter what “you believe” but when you start lobbying missiles into an independent nation, how do you think they’ll see it? “Please, thank you Sir, may I have another?” Furthermore, all US’s military & technological advantages aside, what’s to stop Syria from responding in either conventional or unconventional ways? Never mind they have the backing of such midgets as Russia & Iran – and could even possibly ask Hezbollah to produce some well-earned blow-back.
You star a war (sorry Kerry that is exactly what you’re doing, semantic tricks aside) and you may have control over your side – but other than exterminating them, you have very little say on the response you may or may not get.
I know it’s purely semantic, but I am sympathetic with that view. When you are certain the side isn’t going to fire back, and you’re not trying to “win” anything, then you’re not really “going to war”. And that’s the way these things have always worked. The US has done this type of thing many times, and the other side doesn’t fire back.
Now, what Kerry is proposing is certainly an act of war, and it is in violation of international norms, the UN charter, etc, etc, etc. But most people use the phrase “going to war” when they expect both sides to be firing at each from some extended period of time.
Chances are, Kerry will be right, but that doesn’t mean his statement is right. Eventually someone will fire back and that will lead to war. Syria, unlike others we’ve bombed this way, has the ability to strike the US homeland through proxies. They’d be nuts to do it, but that doesn’t mean for sure that they won’t.
We need to dispense with this doctrine we’ve established under two Democratic Presidents that it’s okay to go to war if there are no casualties on our side. Because eventually there will be casualties on our side, and we’ll have two choices, neither of them good: escalate, or back down.
And you – and Kerry & Obama – know that how? As I said you start a war under certain given premises on your side – in this case that Syria is powerless to respond to your attacks. Yet you don’t know that.
Unconventional warfare. Never happened and everything always goes according to plan. Which is why you got your asses kicked in both, Iraq & Afghanistan. And now you’re dealing with an even more dangerous country in every way possible. You simply aren’t going to dictate what happens. I make no predictions myself – other than in the best scenario, that things will get worse, nor better.
Not an optimist or pessimist but rather a realist.
PS-doen’t take long to inflict huge amounts of damage in today’s wold – so I am not much for the ‘limits’ being put forth in the duration of the attack. But hey! Keep poking the hornet’s nest and you may find a bear as well.
I agree with you – but please leave the partisan crap aside. This has been going for the better part of a century. No matter which Party was in charge.
Heck, add the Maine, and we’re going back to almost 120 years of expansionism/imperialism.
The reason I got partisan is that in discussion boards like this, Democrats argued that what Clinton did several times was nothing like what Bush was proposing because no Americans got killed. And Obama seems to be continuing the same policy: it’s not really war if we strike from a distance.
It’s not the interventionism that’s questionable, you’re right, that’s been going on for a very long time. It’s using the American military frequently with the assumption that we can do it cost-free that’s a dangerous and reckless policy and pretty soon it’s going to cause a big problem for the President who is relying on a casualty-free outcome.
Eh. I don’t like this whole thing, but whether or not Kerry calls it “going to war” is pretty far down on my give-a-shit-o-meter. It’s semantics. If you want to call it “going to war”, more power to you. It is without a doubt an act of war, and that’s good enough for me.
Once more I agree with you. And I thought it was quite hypocritical of Kerry to say that there were no casualties in Libya – your Ambassador and three other Americans guarding him lost their lives w/out American forces doing anything when they were less than an hour away by air.
War it is – glad you don’t want to join Kerry in petty (absurd really) semantic games.
“Axis of Evil.” How quickly ‘we’ forget – besides, Armed Forces that would give the US plenty of headaches/pause. As Iran and many other nations outside the US’s friendly circle clearly saw, thus their rush for nuclear weapons. In fact I don’t doubt Brazil and Iran are nearly there – thanks to your F.P.
Obama may not be a lot of things he claimed to be, a “Liberal” certainly not one of them, but he is no fool.
Always pick what you think is the low hanging fruit first. Won’t be many in twenty years as all US enemies’ go nuclear…US Empire nothing but a past memory amongst them all. Not to say the next (empire) one will be any different. At heart they are all the same – claiming to improve the world while benefiting the very few who run it/them.
Perhaps WW-III is past due? I won’t be here – as the majority of you – but a clean start might just be the best solution for what is left of humanity.
Why are you assuming they don’t or couldn’t place them there if given orders? Homeland Security? We’ve had a laugh or three at their expense on this very Board, have we not?
As the belated Carl Sagan migh have said, look for Dragons under you bed nightly. Great way to live.
Because in the runup to the Iraq war, Bob Graham said that there were more Hezbollah operatives in the US than Al Qaeda operatives. I assume nothing has changed. Especially since Hezbollah has carried out attacks in Europe and Latin America.
Sen. Bob Graham, the Florida democrat who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee in the last Congress, and is now running for president, says the Bush Administration should be more concerned with Hezbollah than they are with Saddam Hussein.
“Does Saddam Hussein or Hezbollah represent the greater threat to the United States,” asks Graham. “In my opinion, there’s no question that Hezbollah is that greater threat, and yes, we should go after it first and go after it before we go to war with Iraq.”
Graham says Hezbollah has a global network of radical Islamic supporters, with enough operatives in the U.S. to pose a terrorist threat here.
“It has a significant presence of its trained operatives inside the United States waiting for the call to action,” says Graham.
But if we were to know that classified information, would we be more concerned? Would we be more afraid of Hezbollah than we are today?
“Well, I’m more concerned and more afraid than if I did not know what the scale of their presence was in the United States,” says Graham, without any hesitation.
As to the OP, personally I think Obama is trying to cover his rear end… he f’ed up when he drew the line in the sand, I still can’t believe that none of his staffers pointed out that it would be the same as asking for it.
But the most interesting recent development (IMO at least) is that apparently earlier today Putin said that he’s willing to back an operation in Syria IF it can be shown beyond all doubt that it was really Assad’s regime that used the chems. This puts Obama in an interesting situation, he’s been pushing for the attack so hard that he’s once again driving himself into a corner… he’s been making it almost clear that he’s going to order an attack even if congress doesn’t go for it. But now he could really open a can of worms if he does go ahead and order an attack without showing that proof that he has, simply because there’s no reason not to. It’s clear that all willing allies are more then welcome to join the party, and Obama really needs some allies at this point… Now Putin has put his money where his mouth is, literally in a way… Basically Putin is playing both sides here, slick. But if Obama does order an attack, without showing evidence first… will that mean that there is no evidence? Putin also made it clear that there will be “problems” if the attack happens without that proof.
There’s going to be some interesting developments to this story soon… Obama (and by extension the rest of the world) is really toeing the line behind which lies chaos and WW3.
But do we really need allies for a limited strike? Seems to me that it matters little. For the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, a coalition was very helpful because it meant more troops on the ground. In this case, we’re just doing a limited strike. No one’s going to provide us with cruise missiles or fighters or bombers, so a coalition would only exist for the sake of diplomacy.
As for worries about WWIII, don’t. Russia has no essential interests in Syria other than that it would be really nice to keep them as an arms customer.
The biggest worry is that Syria will be stupid and order their Hezbollah operatives to attack targets in the US, which would bring us into conflict with not just Syria, but probably Iran as well.
