Because he wants to remain in power.
Confucius say: Don’t fuck with the Israelis!
I’m sorry, did I suggest that was a reasonable and rational course of action? First and foremost on his list of things he wants is staying alive. There was a chance, perhaps, that a negotiated settlement might offer that, but that’s gone. The reasonable and moderate opposition is most likely gone as well. So if he starts to lose, he will do anything. A bloodbath doesn’t worry him, so long as none of it is his.
Hell, it wouldn’t be that hard to start a war with Israel even if he didn’t want one!
With corollary: If you’re Third World country.
Hey, I’m a pessimist, I love being wrong. Doesn’t happen often enough. What scares me most about people is the widespread belief that they know exactly what God wants them to do, like an ant crawling across Einstein’s toes suddenly develops calculus.
How many Muslims crave an Israelgeddon? Millions. And that Allah will intervene on their behalf, if their faith is strong and unquestioning. How many Israelis believe that, but with a different polarity? Shit, how many American *Christians *believe that?!
I suspect, but cannot prove, that this is the elephant in Obama’s mind, to get this over with as quickly as possible before it spins out of control. Force Assad to the table, get this papered over so that everybody goes back down in DefCon numbers.
The Guns of August was only a hundred years ago, and we ain’t that much smarter. If at all.
I’m not following you. What is “this” (see emphasis, above) and what does “goes back down in DefCon numbers” mean?
With troops, aircraft, and ships - I believe no.
Logistics - yes, rush shipments of anti-tank shells and bombs. Note: we’ve also withheld to influence restraint when Israel has rolled up a big advantage.
Intelligence - probably though I have no sources.
You don’t buy the ‘leader of the free world crap’ as you call it, and you have expressed a view that you don’t care if countries like Iraq having WMD, so your position is rare among serious thinkers on this matter.
Obama did not set the international norm on the use of CW, and you know the deal with Putin as a permanent member of the UNSC.
Obama’s choice to strike Syria is not absolute that he make it, but you must agree that the US Military is the most powerful in the world, so if there is to be punitive strikes and Obama is convinced Assad’s regime did it, the decision to act falls on our president as primarily the only single nation that can deliver a blow.
If the US does not act, and nothing can be done, then being signatory to this means little.
That is what I meant, that Obama did not bring up the red line and need for a strike just out of the blue.
And could you explain how I could possibly be in a condition you define as being fooled by Obama. According to you Obama isn’t lying, he isn’t selling, he isn’t hyping. I’ve heard the reasoning and case for action and I agree. Why must you go down the ‘fooled by Obama’ route?
Is Obama lying or do you simply disagree with him?
DefCon numbers refers to the status of defense (or maybe it doesn’t any more, I don’t keep up), basically “cooling off”. As to what “this” is, it follows immediately after:
The suggestion is that one of the prominent motivations for Obama’s military plans is to shut this down before it gets any more out of hand. To prevent that, he is willing to go to some extreme lengths. The question then becomes is Obama the kind of man who would sacrifice his career and reputation to prevent a million deaths? He fuckin’ well better be. That’s the man I voted for.
You way overestimate Syrian military. No, US is not “the only single nation that can deliver a blow”. There are dozens of nations that can singly do it. I’m not even talking France or Germany. Hell, Saudi Arabia can do it.
“To prevent a million deaths” Obama better be prepared to send 100,000 combat troops into Syria, and leave them there for a while, building a reasonably run state that would prevent sectarian violence. Because without that, there will be massacres, whichever side wins.
Will you be rooting for Obama to do that?
No. Per Leviticus 11:3-8: " You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them."
As far as I know, elephants fail on both counts.
And as an aside, even if they were not otherwise forbidden, the method of slaughter required (a pious shochet and a single slash to the throat) would be untenable as to an adult elephant.
I think you grossly overestimate the influence the US has in Syria. Obama, or any US president, just doesn’t have the strings to pull. What he does have is the biggest, baddest military in the world, ever, and he seems to think that is a useful tool.
And Obama’s longer term plan, such as it is, consists of giving more aid to the rebels, including weapons. To me, that means more violence, not less.
Oh, I don’t know about that. A lot of people were shown to be wrong about caring too much about WMDs, and whether they pose a threat to the US. Few people would have us do a “do over” in Iraq. I think my view is now a mainstream view, if not the mainstream view.
Once again, you are wrong. There are plenty of other countries that can strike Syria. Israel has already done it at least once. (Not that I’m suggesting Israel act this time, but any number of European countries could do so, or Saudi Arabia).
If you had continued to read your cite, you would have noticed that:
In fact, you chopped your quote off right there. So yeah, being a signatory doesn’t mean much if you’re not actually a signatory.
I disagree with him, as do most Americans. We are not fooled by the idea that the US must be the world’s policeman, that we can even do anything about this with a “limited military action”, and, in fact, that the international community actually cares much about what happens, internally, in Syria.
It’s not clear the Saudi’s can do what the US with sea launched cruise missiles can do. Accuracy is needed to deliver the blow that ought to be delivered.
Just to be clear, when I said i didn’t think Obama was lying to us, I was talking about the evidence he has that Assad was the one who deployed the CWs, and not the rebels.
I’m not one to yell “liar”, and I don’t expect politicians to always tell the truth, but I’m hearing a lot of what I will charitably call exaggerations from Obama and his administration about the whole concept of responding to CW use, whether the US needs to be the one to take action, whether action they take will make any difference, and how much the rest of the international community is with us on this.
American-supplied fighter-bombers are plenty accurate.
Tastes like chicken.
Or, er, so I’ve heard. :o
Syria didn’t agree to the treaty banning production of chemical weapons, but it did accede to the one saying that you can’t use them. See:
and
Then you are saying Obama is a fool, because you are not.
Is it with all your infallible wisdom and knowledge that you somehow know with doubtless certainty that ‘limited military action’ won’t do anything about the situation in Syria. How do you know Obama is a fool?
That knowledge seems to be a reach, even for an isolationist who could care less if any murderous dictator in any part of the world gathers and uses chemical or biological weapons on vulnerable innocent people.