bbauska

Are these the same people who were berating President Bush for his strikes against Islamic Extremists

?

Which Bush?
Which "extremists"?
Which actions are you talking about?

bbauska

I am concerned that President Obama is going to halfway do this. Either do the deed full bore, or don't do it at all

What does "full bore" mean? Troops? Occupation?
The actions in Libya turned out to have achieved the objectives set before the intervention. The genocide against the rebels was stopped. Ghaddaffi was thrown from power. And yet there is no large scale military occupation and the US, nor any other outside nation has become rsponsible for the development of the country ....
A limited exercise in Sysria, with limited objectives can also succeed. (It can also fail, but the point is that there is a reasonable chance of achieving a limited goal...
The Syrian military is not an adversary that can offer much resistance to a modern army and is as defenceless against the US as the were against the israelis's recent strikes. perhaps even more so... The US will be able to achieve whatever it wants militarily.

bbauska wrote:I am concerned that President Obama is going to halfway do this. Either do the deed full bore, or don't do it at all.

Don't be concerned. That is, in fact, the policy. Strike, but do nothing.

The President has said the goal is not to strike in such a way as to affect Assad's removal. This is a "warning" shot, a "shot across the bow." In other words, "Stop using chemical weapons or else."

The problem is that he has announced there is no "or else." So, you should not "be concerned" because what you are concerned about is in fact the truth. Like it, dislike it, but that's the plan.

It's a useless and dangerous plan, but that's the plan.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Are these the same people who were berating President Bush for his strikes against Islamic Extremists

?

Which Bush?
Which "extremists"?
Which actions are you talking about?

To be fair, I was listening to Secretary Kerry on the radio yesterday. He was interrupted, I believe, by Medea Benjamin of Code Pink. Of course, when she camped outside of GWB's house, that was national news. I doubt she received the same kind of attention yesterday.

The actions in Libya turned out to have achieved the objectives set before the intervention.

Interestingly, Syria is not the same. On Libya, the President said:

Defending the first war launched on his watch, President Barack Obama declared Monday night that the United States intervened in Libya to prevent a slaughter of civilians that would have stained the world's conscience and "been a betrayal of who we are." Yet he ruled out targeting Moammar Gadhafi, warning that trying to oust him militarily would be a costly mistake.

In Syria, up to 100K died before he cared. Was that "a betrayal of who we are?"

In light of recent events, this is an ironic statement:

Citing a failure to act in Libya, he said: "The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the U.N. Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security."

The genocide against the rebels was stopped. Ghaddaffi was thrown from power. And yet there is no large scale military occupation and the US, nor any other outside nation has become rsponsible for the development of the country ....

Yup, it's going so well in Libya--and throughout the Middle East . . . for Al Qaida:

The news that al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and his man in Yemen, Nasr al Wuhayshi, were communicating and hatching plots to attack Western targets in the region is no surprise. Like any CEO of a multinational company, Zawahiri is in regular communication with al Qaeda’s half dozen regional franchises—just as Osama bin Laden was before he was killed.

What is new is the rapid growth of these franchises—associated cells and sympathetic movements from Algeria to Aden. The uprisings that swept the Middle East two years ago initially threatened al Qaeda by suggesting a better alternative to terror and jihad in the form of democracy and peaceful change. Now the revolutions have all but failed, creating more chaos than constitutions, and Twitter is not mobilizing reform. The pandemonium in Syria, Libya, and Egypt, are like a hothouse for al Qaeda, which is thriving just as it has in Somalia and Afghanistan.

A limited exercise in Sysria, with limited objectives can also succeed. (It can also fail, but the point is that there is a reasonable chance of achieving a limited goal...

Please define what the goal of the President's strike is so that we may, in the future, measure its success or lack thereof. Also, please explain why his strategy will work.

Thanks.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Are these the same people who were berating President Bush for his strikes against Islamic Extremists

?

Which Bush?
Which "extremists"?
Which actions are you talking about?

bbauska

I am concerned that President Obama is going to halfway do this. Either do the deed full bore, or don't do it at all

What does "full bore" mean? Troops? Occupation?
The actions in Libya turned out to have achieved the objectives set before the intervention. The genocide against the rebels was stopped. Ghaddaffi was thrown from power. And yet there is no large scale military occupation and the US, nor any other outside nation has become rsponsible for the development of the country ....
A limited exercise in Sysria, with limited objectives can also succeed. (It can also fail, but the point is that there is a reasonable chance of achieving a limited goal...
The Syrian military is not an adversary that can offer much resistance to a modern army and is as defenceless against the US as the were against the israelis's recent strikes. perhaps even more so... The US will be able to achieve whatever it wants militarily.

Bush II
To specify which extremists is not addressing the real question. You (and others, for sure) have denounced the drone strikes against targets. A building in Afghanistan was destroyed, killing all (including 3 children). You were frustrated that the strike killed children, and should not have been launched. On the opposite hand, many on the right are turning into "doves" re: Syria. It makes EVERYONE look PARTISAN. Take a stand and follow it regardless of who the President is.

Full Bore means the will and ability to inflict such damage to Syria that they no longer have the will and ability to commence military activities against the rebels for their actions regarding chemical weapons.

What does that mean? It means that we Tomahawk, stealth fighter/bomber, Spec Force the crap out of them. It would involve cratering ALL of their runways, civilian and military. Destroying ALL radar sites, Establishing a no-fly zone, placing forces (preferably form Turkey or other Arab or Muslim nation near the refugee camps for protection. Barring that support, US places forces themselves. We surround the capital and force surrender.

Remember what happened in Iraq during the first invasion? Follow that and you should be fine.

I don't want the US to be involved in Syria. Personally, I do not care if Syria gasses it's own people. Attack the US or one of our allies directly, and we put into place the battle plan above.

Ray Jay wrote:So, I think Obama has terribly miscalculated by going to Congress, even if Congress gives him a green light. Obama has created a precedent. How does he not follow that precedent before moving on Iran. If I'm Netanyahu I order a full review of capabilities to surprise attack Iran today without U.S. support. It will only get harder.

Sorry, but what is such a terrible precedent about seeking advice from Congress before taking military action? Especially as the administration are looking at a 60-90 plan.

And it would be interesting to know what the rush is. Why do we have to act so quickly, that it's too fast to take a considered, open and democratic view beforehand?

The gas attack has already happened, so we can't stop it retroactively

There has not been (as far as we are aware) a gas attack since, so not acting in 10 days has not led to another.

The war has been gradually escalating for a couple of years, with many people caught up in it, and the last 10 days has not seen that change.

If it is to 'punish' Assad's regime, it can happen later.

If it is to remove his capacity to repeat, it's going to be less that straightforward even if it had happened a week later.

If it is to influence the course of the civil war, then a whole lot more planning seems reasonable.

I get the urge to 'do something', and I understand how it would feel and look more decisive if done quickly, but first we have to establish why we are doing it, what it is and come up with a proper plan. I think Israel understands that, frankly - there have been a variety of noises about what they do and don't want (tending to be that they would not object to limited strikes as long as they are prepared to defend themselves, but would not be happy for sustained action as it increases the chances of Israel getting caught up in it). Actually, the time it's taking gives Israel time to test missile defence (as it did yesterday) and move material to the North.

Iran's opinion is perhaps more down to what does actually happen, rather than the timeliness of it.

Is it just me, or has the left suddenly become "hawkish'?

Left and right have always had their hawks and their doves. On the right the doves tend to be isolationists rather than pacifists and on the left the hawks tend to be liberal interventionists rather than militaristic nationalists, but the factions have always existed within both political tendencies. Tony Blair was the most hawkish British PM since Churchill. Kennedy and LBJ were not exactly pacifists either. Neither was Bill Clinton for that matter.

Sassenach wrote:In truth we've distanced ourselves from Obama almost by accident. Cameron clearly wanted to get involved, as did Clegg and in all probability (even though he led his MPs into the no lobby) so did Ed Miliband. Miliband was playing politics. He expected the vote to succeed so he figured he could get some credit with his backbenchers by voting against it while never actually having to come out and say whether he supported intervention or not. That backfired though because it turned out a substantial number of Tories were dead against us getting involved, reflective of the overwhelming majority of the British people's feelings on the matter.

I'm not sure I accept that spin (as put out by the Coalition, who are also trying to tell us that this is all not as if we didn't have a vote on Iraq in 2003, when we did - and the Tories overwhelmingly supported it).

As I read it, Miliband's position was pretty consistent. Cameron decided to recall Parliament before discussing with Miliband. The Labour team wanted more evidence, and for that evidence to be presented, and if not then a second vote when more was known. Some concessions were made by Cameron, but not all of these. In the actual debate, the evidence presented was vague and not very convincing. The Coalition voted against the Labour proposal to ensure a second vote (and that was not just a Labour motion, it was co-sponsored by the SNP, and supported by all other opposition parties, even the DUP). Due to that, and a lack of proper evidence (which a day or so later Kerry presented, and more has come out since), I can't see why the Opposition was obliged to support the government.

Especially as that government had recalled parliament and the Tories put on a 3-line whip and still had a load of dissenters.

I don't doubt that there was some politicking from Miliband (he is a politician after all), but there was and since then has been plenty of it from others - Clegg and Ashdown have been bizarre, frankly, and the Tories are totally misrepresenting Miliband and Labour's position. Seems the idea is to refuse to hold a vote out of a fit of pique, regardless of how the evidence changes over time.

Sassenach wrote:

Is it just me, or has the left suddenly become "hawkish'?

Left and right have always had their hawks and their doves. On the right the doves tend to be isolationists rather than pacifists and on the left the hawks tend to be liberal interventionists rather than militaristic nationalists, but the factions have always existed within both political tendencies. Tony Blair was the most hawkish British PM since Churchill. Kennedy and LBJ were not exactly pacifists either. Neither was Bill Clinton for that matter.

I look at the main players
Pelosi - Dove under Bush/ Hawk under Obama
Reid - Dove under Bush/ Hawk under Obama
McCain - Hawk under Bush/ dove under Obama
Graham - Hawk under Bush/ dove under Obama
Obama - Dove under Bush/ Hawk now

I am looking at the change people are going through, not specific hawks or doves...

bbauska wrote:I don't want the US to be involved in Syria. Personally, I do not care if Syria gasses it's own people. Attack the US or one of our allies directly, and we put into place the battle plan above.

As much as I am cautious about military action, the need for haste or the scope, I cannot agree with the part I have italicised. Our nations (and Syria) have all signed up to Geneva Conventions that make this a war crime. Whether we go to war over it is one question. Whether we should care if people are being gassed is quite another. Of course we should care - they are human beings.

Brad: McCain -

Hawk under Bush/ dove under Obama
Graham - Hawk under Bush/ dove under Obama

Both McCain and Graham have been consistently pro intervention, right?

bbauska wrote: look at the main players
Pelosi - Dove under Bush/ Hawk under Obama
Reid - Dove under Bush/ Hawk under Obama
McCain - Hawk under Bush/ dove under Obama
Graham - Hawk under Bush/ dove under Obama
Obama - Dove under Bush/ Hawk now

Oh, I think you've misread McCain and Graham. They want far MORE intervention than Obama.

Republican Senator John McCain said he won’t back authorization for using military force against Syria unless it includes more support for rebel forces as lawmakers and Obama administration officials work on language that can help the measure clear Congress.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, delayed debate on a resolution giving President Barack Obama backing for a strike on Syria while negotiations continue. Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, the top Republican on the panel, predicted enough senators will be satisfied with the changes to approve it.

Arizona’s McCain, a leading Republican voice on national security, said he wants to include provisions for arming Syrian rebels and assurances that military strikes would be able to deter further Syrian use of chemical weapons with an emphasis on forcing Bashar al-Assad from power.

“I feel in the strongest terms that we need to have that momentum,” he said.

you know bbauska, i really don't understand why you try and represent others without quoting them. You only write what you want, not what was said ...

To specify which extremists is not addressing the real question. You (and others, for sure) have denounced the drone strikes against targets. A building in Afghanistan was destroyed, killing all (including 3 children). You were frustrated that the strike killed children, and should not have been launched.

we had a very long debate about the drone program. here
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1127&start=30

Reread the debate and you'll find that what you write here is very different from what you represent...
I understand you have a problem with nuance and context, that you seem comfortable only with narrow labels, ...but if you made the attempt to quote people cut and paste, you might actually aregue with real people and not the image you hold.

bbauska

I do not care if Syria gasses it's own people

Which btw begs the question. Does this callous remark really represent your view of your fellow man?

Ray Jay wrote:Brad: McCain -

Hawk under Bush/ dove under Obama
Graham - Hawk under Bush/ dove under Obama

Both McCain and Graham have been consistently pro intervention, right?

Seems that way to me.

I think the idea that the 'left' is one homogeneous bloc that all agree at any one time is pretty silly. As it is of the 'right' - I get the impression that Rand Paul is pretty consistently anti-interventionist.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for someone to explain the coherence of the Obama Doctrine. He now says it wasn't him who set the red line.

Watch the video here, starting at 34:12 and tell me if he did not do exactly that.

danivon wrote:I think the idea that the 'left' is one homogeneous bloc that all agree at any one time is pretty silly. As it is of the 'right' - I get the impression that Rand Paul is pretty consistently anti-interventionist.

The Speaker has said he would support the authorization, but he's not pushing other members. This is a bipartisan issue. Some of each side fall on different sides of it. Eleanor Norton Holmes, the Rep of DC, is supportive only because she wants to support Obama.

Kucinich (far left) and other liberals hate the idea.

Paul (Libertarian) and other conservatives hate the idea.

The polls are against intervention.

If the President wants popular support, he's going to have to convince the American people that we have a reason to intervene.