Here it comes: Syria
Just how much face would the US lose if the President were to announce "It is clear that nothing is clear. Due to the lack of compelling, direct, unequivocal evidence and the severe collateral risk which would result from military action, we deem such action at this time to be inappropriate and call for all parties to arrange peace talks at a neutral location."
DP,
Remember the Ego we are dealing with here....and the quality of advise he is getting from his White House Handlers....therein lies the real problem. Commonsense, statesmanship, and forward strategical thinking is not his or their strong points.
He got off his Teleprompter script and made the off the cuff comments about the Red Line business....and it has been all about CYA since then. Commonsense alone would have had him working with the UN Security Council Members to get a public statement condemning the use of Chemical Weapons even if the Members would not authorize force.
As usual....it has been Obama's Way or the Highway!
The guy is a complete Tosser who is nothing more than a Community Agitator who is in perpetual campaign mode despite having the obligation to "Lead" the Nation.
His policy of "Leading from Behind" alone should tell you what a Fool he is....and how poor his Advisers are....as One cannot lead from behind in any endeavor.
This is just the most dramatic failure of Obama's as the American Media cannot hide it from the Public....thank goodness for the International Media who owe no allegiance to Obama.
Why is it he has to go to Sweden to be asked tough direct questions?
Remember the Ego we are dealing with here....and the quality of advise he is getting from his White House Handlers....therein lies the real problem. Commonsense, statesmanship, and forward strategical thinking is not his or their strong points.
He got off his Teleprompter script and made the off the cuff comments about the Red Line business....and it has been all about CYA since then. Commonsense alone would have had him working with the UN Security Council Members to get a public statement condemning the use of Chemical Weapons even if the Members would not authorize force.
As usual....it has been Obama's Way or the Highway!
The guy is a complete Tosser who is nothing more than a Community Agitator who is in perpetual campaign mode despite having the obligation to "Lead" the Nation.
His policy of "Leading from Behind" alone should tell you what a Fool he is....and how poor his Advisers are....as One cannot lead from behind in any endeavor.
This is just the most dramatic failure of Obama's as the American Media cannot hide it from the Public....thank goodness for the International Media who owe no allegiance to Obama.
Why is it he has to go to Sweden to be asked tough direct questions?
As to the new concern about Iran and Russia is they know they are beating a Dead Horse on Syria as the American People have seen through the silliness of their arguments for the proposed Attacks on Syria and they have to find another bogus excuse to continue their campaign to save Obama's Face.
I wonder where we'd be now if Obama hadn't made that un-guarded comment...
Broadsword:
"We'll make it up as we go along." Got it. I suppose that's how most laws and rules come to be ... 
Pontius: Check out a map of where the fighting is, who controls what, and where the factions are. It isn't that simple. Even the Dayton Agreement took a lot of work and three reasonably well recognized spokesmen for their "sides" to get ironed out, and then about ten years of international support to achieve.
I wrote a paper on this inanity at staff college, nearly 20 years ago, that got me into a little bit of hot water with my adviser. I had to redirect my efforts toward a different element of the topic. 
Robert J Samuelson: (an economist)
doubleeweeight
By your own words you condemn yourself.
Good question. Do you have an answer, or are you "Just Asking Questions"
Nutloose:
Passed him by.
glojo:
You have put your finger on that which is "the international community" and "the media" and a lot else. Farce.
It's legal to do that.
If he court martials the nitwit who did that, it's might be a nail in Obama's "I'll bomb you" coffin. So why doesn't he? Se glojo's point up above.
Beags:
That makes sense. Looking after America's interests is what the government is supposed to do. If Russian and Iranian interests and ours are in conflict, particularly in a given area, for damned sure our government needs to consider that ... so the "hawks" are at least thinking at the appropriate level. Whether I agree with them or not is another matter.
Some people are against this due to being displeased with Obama. I am against this as I don't see the point of acting unilaterally. It is to me a politcally bad move to do so. First get multinational support, then move on with a course of action.
FFS, get things in the right order.
International law is by no means clear that the use of military force must always be authorised by the UN Security Council. There is a developing legal framework for military intervention on humanitarian grounds. Known as the Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, it was born out of the humanitarian disasters of the 1990s in Kosovo and Rwanda.
Why is no one pushing for a ceasefire, a separation of combatants, and a UN Green Line?
They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare.
Robert J Samuelson: (an economist)
Americans must be {war} weary. {He disagrees}
The truth is that for most Americans, the constant combat has imposed no
burdens, required no sacrifices and involved no disruptions. True, the money spent has been substantial. From 2001 to 2012, reckons the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan along with related operations cost $1.4 trillion. Although that’s a lot even by Washington standards, it pales next to all federal spending and the economy’s total production. From 2001 to 2012, federal spending totaled $33.3 trillion; the wars were 4 percent of that. Over the same period, the American economy produced $163 trillion of goods and services. War spending equaled nine-tenths of 1 percent of that.
As important, no special tax was ever imposed to pay war costs. They
were simply added to budget deficits, so that few, if any, Americans suffered a loss of income. It’s doubtful that much other government spending was crowded out by the wars.
The truth is that for most Americans, the constant combat has imposed no
burdens, required no sacrifices and involved no disruptions. True, the money spent has been substantial. From 2001 to 2012, reckons the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan along with related operations cost $1.4 trillion. Although that’s a lot even by Washington standards, it pales next to all federal spending and the economy’s total production. From 2001 to 2012, federal spending totaled $33.3 trillion; the wars were 4 percent of that. Over the same period, the American economy produced $163 trillion of goods and services. War spending equaled nine-tenths of 1 percent of that.
As important, no special tax was ever imposed to pay war costs. They
were simply added to budget deficits, so that few, if any, Americans suffered a loss of income. It’s doubtful that much other government spending was crowded out by the wars.
said event occurs as a CIA false flag exercise.
has Qatar really been trying to overthrow Assad to push a natural gas pipeline through Syria to Europe to knock off the russian gas supply monopoly?
Nutloose:
One feels Obama's chance has past him by,
glojo:
If I were the Syrian President and I was accused of this act then why oh why would I not insist on having the resident weapon inspectors come in IMMEDIATELY and carry out whatever tests they deem necessary? I say resident inspectors simply because they were but a short distance away from the attacked area (they were in the same city). Instead of inviting in these inspectors the Syrian Government refused entry and for days carried on bombarding that area in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that their actions were destroying any evidence that might be of use in the detection of what was used? Bottom line however is the FACT that the inspectors will NOT investigate who is responsible for the attack, but instead they are only tasked with trying to discover if a chemical was used and to me that is a farce!
Britain's MOD confirms Syrian planes crossed into international space
Use of Sarin might well have been an unathorised release by a local field commander, rather than directed by the government per se.
Of course al-Assad woudn't suggest this, as it would imply that he no longer had full control over his military forces.
Of course al-Assad woudn't suggest this, as it would imply that he no longer had full control over his military forces.
Beags:
it seems that the hawks in the US are more concerned about Russian and 'Eye-raynian' influence in the area than they are in the facts specific to this incident.
Some people are against this due to being displeased with Obama. I am against this as I don't see the point of acting unilaterally. It is to me a politcally bad move to do so. First get multinational support, then move on with a course of action.
FFS, get things in the right order.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
He seems to specialise in posting links to other sites he has found. His following post however seems very good:
Twitter has a block button. It takes 3 clicks and...
Twitter has a block button. It takes 3 clicks and about 2 seconds to totally remove from your timeline anyone who you "take offence" at. There is also a report function so you can tell Twatter about...
Twitter has a block button. It takes 3 clicks and about 2 seconds to totally remove from your timeline anyone who you "take offence" at. There is also a report function so you can tell Twatter about...
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 9th Sep 2013 at 14:00.
I did a canvas of my Congressional Rep's a few minutes ago....and the Senators shall be voting for the use of Military Force.....no PR releases saying that or explaining the reasons they shall vote that way of course. No sense telling the Voters why you are voting completely opposite of what they want you to do.
The House Member is doing the "I have not decided yet thing.".....which is unusual for her. She has been there too long it would appear. Our newly elected folks are all on the record as being against any Military Action.
I despair for our nation...if the Political Elite are so immune to the voter's desires on this matter as to vote for something that the vast majority of the people are so strongly against.
I see some folks changing jobs over this come 2014 and again in 2016.
The House Member is doing the "I have not decided yet thing.".....which is unusual for her. She has been there too long it would appear. Our newly elected folks are all on the record as being against any Military Action.
I despair for our nation...if the Political Elite are so immune to the voter's desires on this matter as to vote for something that the vast majority of the people are so strongly against.
I see some folks changing jobs over this come 2014 and again in 2016.
Some people are against this due to being displeased with Obama. I am against this as I don't see the point of acting unilaterally. It is to me a politcally bad move to do so. First get multinational support, then move on with a course of action.
If Russian and Iranian interests and ours are in conflict, particularly in a given area, for damned sure our government needs to consider that ... so the "hawks" are at least thinking at the appropriate level.
Last edited by dead_pan; 9th Sep 2013 at 14:29.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The really telling point is the last one: let us do it one hundred per cent
The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
- U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
- U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
- The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
- U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
- The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.
The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:
- Is a vital national security interest threatened?
- Do we have a clear attainable objective?
- Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
- Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
- Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
- Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
- Is the action supported by the American people?
- Do we have genuine broad international support?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hey....Obama, Kerry, et al are doing a great job of selling this.....why just listen to Kerry in the Senate Hearings a few days ago.
If you have to endure the advert I apologize....but at least it does serve as an example of how to communicate that perhaps Kerry could learn from.
Hilarious: Just How Bad Were the Senate Hearings on Syria? | Independent Journal Review
If you have to endure the advert I apologize....but at least it does serve as an example of how to communicate that perhaps Kerry could learn from.
Hilarious: Just How Bad Were the Senate Hearings on Syria? | Independent Journal Review
Obama Doctrine
What personal or political interest of mine is at play?
If I lose....who can I blame?
My intentions are all that matters...not the outcome.
Have I covered my Ass?
Who is my Fall Guy?
What time does the Bus get here.
Who cares about Public Support....so long as the Media supports me.
Enemies are those that do not fully agree with me.
Attack all enemies except those that can fight back.
Throw someone under the Bus...anyone...but deny wrongdoing.
When caught on Audio Tape or Video....LIE and DENY.
What personal or political interest of mine is at play?
If I lose....who can I blame?
My intentions are all that matters...not the outcome.
Have I covered my Ass?
Who is my Fall Guy?
What time does the Bus get here.
Who cares about Public Support....so long as the Media supports me.
Enemies are those that do not fully agree with me.
Attack all enemies except those that can fight back.
Throw someone under the Bus...anyone...but deny wrongdoing.
When caught on Audio Tape or Video....LIE and DENY.
Yes....you have seen through my facade.....darn it....I thought it had been well hidden.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some expert Ghouta analysis:
I think that Bush/Bliar have screwed up the public of the world's trust by going to war on a pile of lies.
In Iraq the weapons just didn't exist. In Syria we know for absolute certain that they do and that they have been used repeatedly.
The problem we now have is that if Assad is not punished in some way then it will be open season for despots and freedom fighters all over the world to use WMD at will.
Assad's propaganda in articles like this EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack (which is a pack of lies written by one of his supporters) has been incredibly successful. People seem far more willing to believe this rubbish than they are what their governments tell them. Thank you Blair/Brown.
Assad has concentrated on the propaganda message that the rebels are all foreigners and that they are all religious extremists. Both of these are lies yet they have been repeated many times by the mainstream press as well as endlessly on the social media.
I think that Bush/Bliar have screwed up the public of the world's trust by going to war on a pile of lies.
In Iraq the weapons just didn't exist. In Syria we know for absolute certain that they do and that they have been used repeatedly.
The problem we now have is that if Assad is not punished in some way then it will be open season for despots and freedom fighters all over the world to use WMD at will.
Assad's propaganda in articles like this EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack (which is a pack of lies written by one of his supporters) has been incredibly successful. People seem far more willing to believe this rubbish than they are what their governments tell them. Thank you Blair/Brown.
Assad has concentrated on the propaganda message that the rebels are all foreigners and that they are all religious extremists. Both of these are lies yet they have been repeated many times by the mainstream press as well as endlessly on the social media.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without question that is exactly what is at play here. There is going to be some serious soul searching once this has settled. What does it say about us, and how we perceive our place in the world, not to mention our relationship with our elected representatives. Interesting times lies ahead.
Last edited by TomJoad; 9th Sep 2013 at 16:48.
I think that with Lavrov on board, you could get a UNSCR to demand he turn over what chem weapons he's got. Will only take three or four years to get it sorted, but it's a move forward. Might even get China on board.
Is this a perfect solution? No. It's a political solution.
Politics is, some say, the art of the possible.
I'd like to see the Japanese, the Swedes, the Kiwis, and maybe the Indonesians and Kenyans involved in the UN group that collects and removes the chem weapons onto a US or Russian ship for disposal.
I'd like the US to provide armed Reapers as cover so that each time such a convoy of weapons heading to the port for a Russian or US ship is attacked by the Al Q rebels, they get the hot lead enema they so richly deserve.
I know, I've been smoking bad weed again, but a man can hallucinate, right?
Is this a perfect solution? No. It's a political solution.
Politics is, some say, the art of the possible.
I'd like to see the Japanese, the Swedes, the Kiwis, and maybe the Indonesians and Kenyans involved in the UN group that collects and removes the chem weapons onto a US or Russian ship for disposal.
I'd like the US to provide armed Reapers as cover so that each time such a convoy of weapons heading to the port for a Russian or US ship is attacked by the Al Q rebels, they get the hot lead enema they so richly deserve.
I know, I've been smoking bad weed again, but a man can hallucinate, right?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 9th Sep 2013 at 16:48.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politics is, some say, the art of the possible.
I'd like to see the Japanese, the Swedes, the Kiwis, and maybe the Indonesians and Kenyans involved in the UN group that collects and removes the chem weapons onto a US or Russian ship for disposal.
I know, I've been smoking bad weed again, but a man can hallucinate, right?
Did we not enforce a no fly zone when Saddam used chem weapons on the Marsh Arabs. If we found the political will then why not now. Get Russia involved and convince Assad it's his best option.
Last edited by TomJoad; 9th Sep 2013 at 16:55.
Did we not enforce a no fly zone when Saddam used chem weapons on the Marsh Arabs. If we found the political will then why not now.
Get Russia involved and convince Assad it's his best option.
It won't work as was found out in Libya. Qaddafi retained a hidden cache of chemical weapons and the US will be wary of any such proposal. In reality the Syrians are never going to allow the in depth and intrusive inspection regime that the US would require before it signed off on any deal. The Syrians could simply retain an undeclared cache or covert production while handing over a token of their inventory.
Inspectors uncover Qaddafi?s hidden WMD stockpile | Homeland Security News Wire
OPCW Inspectors Verify Newly Declared Chemical Weapons Materials in Libya
Syria still won't allow the IAEA full and unrestricted access to the Dair Alzour site struck by Israel in 2007. You can imagine how they would react to any deal that would involve intrusive inspections in regards to chemical weapons?
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Doc...gov2012-42.pdf
Inspectors uncover Qaddafi?s hidden WMD stockpile | Homeland Security News Wire
OPCW Inspectors Verify Newly Declared Chemical Weapons Materials in Libya
Syria still won't allow the IAEA full and unrestricted access to the Dair Alzour site struck by Israel in 2007. You can imagine how they would react to any deal that would involve intrusive inspections in regards to chemical weapons?
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Doc...gov2012-42.pdf
I believe we see the start of a Russian initiative to work out a deal with the Syrians to prevent Obama from ordering an attack.
If the Syrians will play ball with Russia....then Putin shall be the Winner and Obama the distinct loser. Obama should never have dissed Putin personally as he did....as Putin has every motivation to cut Obama off at the knees anyway he can.
Putin shall be seen as a Peace Maker and Obama will be painted as being the War Monger.....and rightfully so as anything that stops an American Attack is the right thing to do.
Obama is way out of his depth...and has been since being elected the first time.
This time it is in the World's eye....and World Media that he is shown for how incompetent he is.
If the Syrians will play ball with Russia....then Putin shall be the Winner and Obama the distinct loser. Obama should never have dissed Putin personally as he did....as Putin has every motivation to cut Obama off at the knees anyway he can.
Putin shall be seen as a Peace Maker and Obama will be painted as being the War Monger.....and rightfully so as anything that stops an American Attack is the right thing to do.
Obama is way out of his depth...and has been since being elected the first time.
This time it is in the World's eye....and World Media that he is shown for how incompetent he is.