Obama will lob some missiles and change the subject when it comes up again.
Regards,
Shodan
Obama now has senate approval for his mad adventure. My prediction: he will lob a few missiles at Syria (which will hit no targets of any consequence), and then announce “mission accomplished” to the American people. Its all about saving face-whatever he does, will not affect the war in Syria in the slightest.
“You may rely on it.”
Let’s not be premature. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to let out of committee, a resolution authorizing force against Syria, by a 10-7-1 vote. (Markey voted Present.) The entire Senate has not yet voted on this resolution, though if the quoted material is correct, they probably will pass it too:
What would you have him do? Should we follow the example of George W Bush and enter a decade-long war in a Middle East country? What did we accomplish in Iraq?
What are you talking about? In both Mali and Libyan interventions the French were willing to contribute militarily?
How is this a “mad adventure”? And its quite amusing to see one projecting in general.
Indeed, Silenus!
The U.S. Neocon Gulf War 2 for democracy building in Iraq placed us right
in the middle of a religious struggle that had divided the Middle East and
the Subcontinent for centuries. It forced us to take sides when it was
absolutely unnecessary, and it cost us 1 trillion dollars plus.
For us to take sides AGAIN in the same religious war is going to poison
our sacred “drones versus terror” doctrine. George Bush and Dick Chaney
gave us the Gulf 2 war for regime change when they should have been
fighting the Afghan was against Taliban terror. President Obama should
keep the purity of the drone war completely separated from Muslim
religious feuds. Partition of Syria will more likely lead to the same peace
process as the partition of Yugoslavia.
Syria2~90813.rtf
Well, let us examine the meaning of “mad”-I take the definition as “doing something recklessly and without reflection and thought”. In the first place, Assad has dispersed his weapons-we might hit a few sites, but we will also hit some schools, hospitals, public venues…then we will be treated to images of dead bodies, blood and mayhem…just like the (alleged) Sarin gas attacks. Second, this will likely strengthen Assad’s hand-he may well decide to do a few massacres of his own (such as totally wiping out an enemy held town.Third, it will embolden the Iranians, who will decide to expand their activities.
And in the end, Obama will be seen as weak, thus sabotaging everything he thinks is accomplishing.
^^^ that’s assuming we shoot at dispersed weapons.
Much more effective to take out command and control sites, which generally stay in one place.
Senators voting Wednesday to authorize a Syria strike received, on average, 83 percent more campaign financing from defense contractors than lawmakers voting against war.
We’ll launch a few rockets and call it good. Obama ain’t Bush, he isn’t about to send in the boots. Since the cost effectiveness of ousting Khadaffi was about a million times greater than ousting Saddam, crippling Assad and arming the oppostion seems to be the right way to effect regime change, even if you’re not saying that’s your goal.
Yes, cuz it is very important to put these people in charge instead. Or this guy.
Why on earth do we want to effect regime change? As pointed out upthread, Libya is degenerating into chaos. Iraq is better, but still a mess. In Syria, the opposition isn’t unified; when Assad goes, they’ll all be fighting each other.
Thomas Hobbes made the case centuries ago for even a ruthless ruler being preferable to chaos. I would argue that there have been a few cases where the reverse would have been true (Pol Pot, for instance), but very few. Neither Saddam, nor Qaddafi, nor Assad qualifies. Not even close.
What makes you think that? The French government intends to participate in the intervention. Although if the US congress votes against it, Hollande is going to be left out in the cold.
Assad has been massacring people in large numbers for two years. He doesn’t seem to need any pretense to do so.
That’s your opinion. I believe all three qualify quite well.
NY Times article on Syrian Rebel Atrocities.
These are the noble freedom fighters that we want to depose Assad for? :dubious: Lets substitute one brutal regime for total chaos with groups fracturing and competing for power.
I just don’t see any positive role we can play in this mess. Libya did have some unity among the rebel militias during the war. Syria doesn’t even have a united rebel force.
When did Obama ever say he wanted to effect regime change?
A couple of days ago…
Barack Obama dramatically escalated his plans for military action in Syria yesterday.
The US president said proposed strikes against the regime were part of a ‘broader strategy’ to topple Bashar Assad, who is accused of killing hundreds of civilians with chemical weapons.
The suggestion of ‘regime change’ emerged as tensions in the region were heightened further by the Israeli firing of two missiles in the eastern Mediterranean in the early hours of yesterday.
http://www.ablxboston.com/national/14627-we-want-to-topple-assad-obama-raises-stakes-as-no10-refuses-to-rule-out-more-help-for-syria-rebels.html
Barack Obama dramatically escalated his plans for military action in Syria yesterday.
The US president said proposed strikes against the regime were part of a ‘broader strategy’ to topple Bashar Assad, who is accused of killing hundreds of civilians with chemical weapons.
The suggestion of ‘regime change’ emerged as tensions in the region were heightened further by the Israeli firing of two missiles in the eastern Mediterranean in the early hours of yesterday.