you mean like getting captured during an attack of a convoy? Because as we all know, we do so well with transporting people in convoys in areas that Al Qaeda operates.
I want to be sure I’m understanding you. Are you saying it’s better to leave the CW’s in Syria than to take them out, because if we take them out, Al Qaeda might hijack our convoy?
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. A base is easier to defend.
The whole thing amounts to a stunt because there is nothing stopping Assad from making more, or hiding what he has now. There is no way to verify it and there isn’t the political will to act on it. All we’re doing is exposing some of the weapons to capture by people we know wish to harm us.
Ridding Syria of CW solves the multitude of problems that unsecured CW could cause. I am talking about Chemical weapons being resolved not the unesolvable civil war. Ravenman will tell you as would I that there is little chance for the civil war itself to be resolved. So why do you keep throwing it in our faces about the fact that Assad continues to kill Syrians? We know that. But I doubt any president even one you’d vote for that could win would say the conflict there is not our problem.
With that logic, I don’t know why you bother getting out of bed. There’s nothing to stop your boss from firing you when you get to work, and a mugger might attack you on your way there. Or a meteor could fall on you.
But for normal people, getting CWs out of the hands of crazy dictators is usually seen as a plus, even if the process is not guaranteed to be 100% safe. It’s a lot safer than you seem to think, though. The fact that some of our convoys have been attacked somewhere, sometime has nothing to do with this one, which will probably get a bit of extra protection. And Al Quaeda does not control Syria the way they control some regions of Afghanistan.
Except we’re not ridding Syria of anything they can’t currently hide or reproduce. So at best we’re increasing the likelihood of CW’s getting into the hands of really bad people.
that’s a really bad bit of logic. It’s all about probability and risk management. It’s riskier to move CW’s in a convoy than it is to leave them on a guarded base. Especially when the likelihood of them being reproduced or hidden from inspectors is quite high.
Will someone please tell Magiver that I have 100 percent agreed in writing that a base is easier to defend. Read what I have told him. The point is that defending CW as it is SAFELY being transported SAFELY to a place for destruction with a few days of very heightened security means that once it is gone from the war zone then the security requirements drop to zero.
And then the zero is inarguably the easiest security requirement is all options. There is nothing there the need be secured from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Magiver’s other nonsense is essentially what got 4500 US troops killed in Iraq for nothing. That is the American right winger expressions of no trusting that the UNSC and OPCW professionals cannot verify the absence if CW an BW and Nuclear weapons in dictatorial or theocratic regimes.
That warmonger argument failed miserably in Iraq and it is currently being used to destroy peaceful resolution with Iran. Using the argument as it applies to Syria right now is for the purpose of dissing what Obama and the civilized nations of the world are accomplishing.
That’s a lot of meaning to unpack from the word “removed”. Taking you at your word that this was what you meant at the time, it might be helpful to explain your meaning more thoroughly in the future, because I don’t think a reasonable person could read your original remarks and get all the above out of it. Thanks for the explanation.
Will somebody tell NotfooledbyW that I was responding to TonySinclair in regards to the safety of CW’s on a military base. And while there at it, I’m not suggesting we attack them. That would be the person in the WH who shot off his mouth about red lines drawn.
I believe Tony was commenting on your posts as they relate to mine. And since I am in agreement with you that a fixed base is easier to secure CW than a convoy in transit through any part of a war zone, so I wanted to let Tony know that my position is the same as you on that.
I have not seen anyone here that is arguing that a convoy load of CW is easier to defend than base and I did not see Tony say any anything about that.
So why are you bringing an argument to this topic that no one is arguing against you?
Your repeated mention of the base being easier to protect is quite meaningless to this discussion.
Can you explain why you keep repeating something that apparently we all agree with you and I have told you that I do.
Do you think it is possible for a US President to use the threat of military force to expect to diminish or eliminate a global security threat and then not use that force if the security objective ends up being achieved by other means such as what OPCW is now doing in Syria?
How can you say Obama could not back it up? It would take sixty days for Congress to stop any military action using the might of the US military that Obama has at his disposal as Commander in Chief. He proposed three days of strikes. He’d be using missiles already paid for by Congress for situations like Syria. Do you think Congress has a stash of missiles locked in a vault and Obama does not have a key. What can you possibly mean when you make such a silly claim?
Do you think it likely that asking and being denied a vote by Congress followed by opinion polls is a public announcement that he has no support?
Because we’re not under attack by Syria and there is no support by Congress, the public, or the UN.
Neither of those points could stop Obama from launching strikes if he decided to. You are saying Obama’s mistake was putting down a red line and not able to back it up. Yet you cannot make even a slim case that Obama serves under anyone in the entire universe that had the authority to stop two days of missile strikes had Obama ordered them launched.
So Obama has made no mistake for me to defend. You have made a mistake that when challenged you cannot defend. The mistake is in your house Magiver not the White House.
PS: The Joint Chief’s or some Admiral somewhere could refuse I guess to carry out Obama’s orders but then I’d expect they’d be fired and there’d be a few coming up to take their place.
To combine a couple of responses: Yes, my question for Adaher was based on his discussion with NFBW, and I completely agree with NFBW that although a base is safer than a convoy, a base without CWs is safer than a base full of them, and (now speaking only for myself) it is IMO bizarre to turn down the opportunity to remove CWs from Syria because of fears that the US military cannot defend itself if an al Qaeda patrol strikes it.
I assume that the people planning the removal will be at least as intelligent and informed as Adaher, and will take special precautions to prevent a hijacking. For example, I would expect active air cover, which your typical convoy doesn’t have. I suppose it’s possible that al Qaeda could cause some damage even then, but I find it inconceivable that they would be able to actually come away with intact CWs.
It’s IMO equally ridiculous to turn down this opportunity on the grounds that Assad may rebuild CWs in the future. He can’t do it without the inspectors knowing about it. If he does rebuild, or if he kicks the inspectors out, then that’s something we’ll have to deal with, but you can’t be paralyzed into inaction by fears of what may happen in the future.
I also find it bizarre to argue that Obama does not have the authority to direct military strikes against Syria without Congressional permission. That’s exactly what Bill Clinton did in Iraq in 1998, Operation Desert Fox. Many congressmen and media pundits howled in outrage, called it wagging the dog, called it a transparent attempt to distract attention away from his impeachment proceedings, etc, etc. But they couldn’t stop it.
It’s true that there is some debate about the applicability of the War Powers Resolution to Syria, but it’s about whether Congress could stop Obama even after 60 days, not whether he needs permission. The issue is whether remote strikes from air and sea, without any boots on the ground, even constitute the type of hostilities that invoke the WPR.
Assuming the strikes are covered by the WPR, Obama doesn’t even need to inform Congress, let alone ask permission, for 48 hours, and if Congress disapproves, he still has another 58 days before he has to stop. I’m no expert, but that seems to be more than adequate time to destroy a few WMD facilities or depots.
That’s interesting. So we only needed to hire these people to avoid being ambushed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
it has nothing to do with paralysis and everything to do with wasting time and money on something that can’t be backed up. He made a statement he literally can’t back up. If Assad goes on a tare and gasses thousands of people Obama can’t stop him from doing it unless Congress agrees.
The WPR was designed to limit Presidential power. It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[3][4] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces.
Again, Syria poses no threat to the United States.
“boots on the ground” is not a legal definition of war. It’s a soundbite for public consumption.
And again, he doesn’t have the political capital to do this. It would be political suicide to waste money on a fruitless venture when there are so many problems at home. Congress holds the power to wage war and FUND IT. If he goes against public and political opinion he risks (as Jesse Jackson once pined) getting his political balls cut off.
There were no CW in Iraq to move and there was no civil war when Bush sent 150,000 ground troops in to be ambushed.
Afghanistan had nothing to do with CW.
Why the comparison?
It’s really hard to believe that you can’t understand the difference in defensive measures that would be taken for a mission like this, as compared with a routine patrol.
And I’m sure that Obama is terrified of losing all the Congressional support and good will he currently enjoys.