so we must police EVERY future situation, every one!
no, that is not possible, it is not feasible, it is not going to happen yet you want it to happen here? If Obama had said we should stay out, would you disagree with him then? I think not, I can't seem to find any situations where you have disagreed with him.

and this attack, what would it do?
Already the weapons have been moved, assets are hidden, this would do little real damage to Assad while emboldening the rebels, this "help" would do nothing more than make the bloodshed even worse and ratchet things up to new levels of death not yet seen. How is this going to help ANYONE? This is nothing more than Obama saving face.

tom

so we must police EVERY future situation, every one

Lets take them one at a time.
And do what we can.

There is something to be said, as Ray has pointed to, that acting today discourages bad actors in the future. (namely Iran)
Or would you ignore Iran too?

well, what have we done in Iran to date?
Did we do anything to help the uprising a few years back? Have we done anything to stop their nuclear plans? Have we done anything to stop them from supporting terrorists? Or are you saying we should also attack Iran now as well? We are now to pick sides in any and every civil war, that would lead to more civil wars and more unrest around the globe would it not? We can't sit back and must take action... that would encourage more bloodshed?

I see something is brewing in the Southern Philippines right now, quick, pick a side and send troops NOW!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... me=topNews
...because we can't allow inaction and what we do today can affect what others do in the future!

I've been thinking about the deals that must be going on. I don't believe that Kerry mentioned the compromise by accident. I suspect that was orchestrated at the recent G-20 meeting. There may be some other deal involved relating to Snowden and getting the U.S. and Russian relationship back on track.

Then there is the deal making between Syria and Russia. Has Russia agreed to give Syria more conventional weapons in return for Assad handing in his chemical weapons? It is humiliating for Assad to give up his chemical weapons, but if it prevents the U.S. from getting involved AND enables him to replenish his forces, it is a good deal for him. It enables him to stay in power for a long time, perhaps not over the entire country, but enough of it that he and his family and the Alawites can survive and thrive. I'm just wondering about the back door agreements.

tom

well, what have we done in Iran to date?

Are you actually unaware of the sanctions on Iran?

http://www.ecustoms.com/compliance_solu ... 4godnhsATg

Did we do anything to help the uprising a few years back

?
No. If you mean by we, western allies. Weren't asked to actually. In fact the Green Movement made it clear they didn't want anything from the West.
Moreover it was an entirely internal matter and didn't involve WMD or genocide. Although the police and security forces were brutal towards many arrested .... they weren't gassing the demonstrators with Sarin.

Tom

Have we done anything to stop their nuclear plans?

Yes. See sanctions. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran and of course all the diplomatic efforts... and inspections regimen from the IAEA
They don't have weapons however....

Tom

Have we done anything to stop them from supporting terrorists?

Yes. Well, since Reagan stopped trading arms with them that is ...And if you exclude Haliburton ....

Or are you saying we should also attack Iran now as well?

No. Circumstances might at some point present a valid reason to do so, but they certainly don't exist today.
However, if the governemnt of Iran is aware that the West will act against Syria, they would be more willing to beleive a threat of action against themselves.
If there is no action against Syria, they would be less likely to take a threat entirely seriously.

Tom

We are now to pick sides in any and every civil war, that would lead to more civil wars and more unrest around the globe would it not?

No. And no one here has argued this ...
I've only argued that when there is a genocide or democide ocurring or where banned weapons of mass destruction are being used against defenceless civilians there is a moral imperative to act.

Tom

We can't sit back and must take action... that would encourage more bloodshed?

Doing nothing didn't help the Rwandans ...
Doing something, in order to make dictators understand that they can't slaughter their populace with impunity, might well accomplish a reduction in the effects of war.
It did in Libya and in Kosovo.
and apparently the threat of action has had an effect in Syria to the extent that Assad seems willing to give up his Sarin.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Law? What law? We're the Obama Administration!

I didn't know you were a fan of international law.

I'm not really sure it's in keeping with any particular law.

Ray Jay wrote:I've been thinking about the deals that must be going on. I don't believe that Kerry mentioned the compromise by accident. I suspect that was orchestrated at the recent G-20 meeting. There may be some other deal involved relating to Snowden and getting the U.S. and Russian relationship back on track.

I say this with no joy: if you believe this, I think you've either been duped or you're hitting the sauce too hard.

Kerry finished his answer with a dismissal of his own proposal--as if it was a lark.

Kerry said it was unlikely Assad would actually do this, and State Department spokeswomen Jennifer Psaki later clarified that the secretary was merely making a “rhetorical” argument, pointing out that a dictator with a “history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons.”

Plus, how does anyone think this statement helps, I'll never understand:

"We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria's civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."

I'll bet Assad could not sleep after reading that. Who could that possibly frighten?

Then there is the deal making between Syria and Russia. Has Russia agreed to give Syria more conventional weapons in return for Assad handing in his chemical weapons? It is humiliating for Assad to give up his chemical weapons, but if it prevents the U.S. from getting involved AND enables him to replenish his forces, it is a good deal for him. It enables him to stay in power for a long time, perhaps not over the entire country, but enough of it that he and his family and the Alawites can survive and thrive. I'm just wondering about the back door agreements.

There was no war in Iraq, but tracking down traces of WMD was difficult for UN inspectors. There is a war in Syria. How are they going to do this?

This is an opportunity for Obama to save face. It is an opportunity for Russia to flex. It is also a chance for Assad to do what dictators do in these situations: pay lip service to some agreement while ignoring most of it for as long as possible.

I want some rubble kissed by Lindsey Graham!

Oh, and one of those drones that play the Lumineers! You must watch the video.

This won't be a war for the 1%!

Doctor Fate wrote:I want some rubble kissed by Lindsey Graham!

Oh, and one of those drones that play the Lumineers! You must watch the video.

This won't be a war for the 1%!

Me? I want one of them senators for a year...

(The best part is the end... and who is paying for the ad!)

ummm, Ricky, sanctions and war are two different animals. You are calling for an act of war and comparing that to sanctions. So lets put some sanctions on Syria, oh wait, already done so we should do ...nothing?
You are all over the board here and I don't understand your position, and what about the event in the Philippines? you want us to pick sides and lob some missiles at someone, anyone who is on that other side.

GMTom wrote:ummm, Ricky, sanctions and war are two different animals. You are calling for an act of war and comparing that to sanctions. So lets put some sanctions on Syria, oh wait, already done so we should do ...nothing?
You are all over the board here and I don't understand your position, and what about the event in the Philippines? you want us to pick sides and lob some missiles at someone, anyone who is on that other side.

"All over the board" . . . Isn't that the official position of the State Department?

I'm confused by Obama's decision to ask Congress to delay the vote until they can work out the recent get rid of the chemical weapons agreement.

Wouldn't it have been better to have Congress change their resolution to authorize force if Syria did not turn over their weapons as of a certain date? I bet he could have gotten the votes for that. That would have forced Syria to take the deal seriously and not delay. Now we are on hold and the U.S. has limited control over the timing.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm confused by Obama's decision to ask Congress to delay the vote until they can work out the recent get rid of the chemical weapons agreement.

Wouldn't it have been better to have Congress change their resolution to authorize force if Syria did not turn over their weapons as of a certain date? I bet he could have gotten the votes for that. That would have forced Syria to take the deal seriously and not delay. Now we are on hold and the U.S. has limited control over the timing.

As for convincing people, he would have been better off using that video I posted. He even lost Congressman Mike Rogers, who supports taking action. That speech was a great illustration of cognitive dissonance.

Putin has schooled President Obama.

tom

ummm, Ricky, sanctions and war are two different animals. You are calling for an act of war and comparing that to sanctions

No I didn't. Once again you are arguing against something not written. Why don't you try quoting in your responses in order to provide a little discipline for your thinking?
You asked, perhaps because you don't know, "what have we done in Iran?"
Sanctions in Iran are an appropriate response.
Military strikes to ensure that military dictators cannot use Sarin Gas with impunity is also an appropriate response.
If Iran uses gas against its civilians (say Khurds) or if Iran looks to be gaining nuclear arms despite sanctions, perhaps a military strike would be appropriate at that time. (Would isolationists ignore a nuclear armed Iran or is your isolationism complete?)

Apparently it has caused Assad to admit he has chemical weapons (something that 3 days ago they were still denying) and acede to giving them up. If that happens, then the situation resolves itself fairly well.

For those who don't think a narrow military strike can have effect, Christianne Amanapour reminded people last night of Desert Fox in 1998. According to David Kay, who was very sceptical at the time of the strikes, his work in Iraq in 2002 proved that Deser Fox had been very effective....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)


Ray Jay wrote

:I've been thinking about the deals that must be going on. I don't believe that Kerry mentioned the compromise by accident.

Since reports indicate now that the idea was discussed at the G20, its apparent it wasn't. It was simply a way to table the idea in public..... which gave impetus to its acceptance. Perhaps Kerry was being clever or perhaps he got lucky. Sometimes they look the same.
It is a way for Assad to buy time, and for the Russians to remain relevant. A military strike would demonstrate their ultimate irrelevance ....
It also provides a way for the US and France to achieve the goal of ending the use of gas without resorting to a strike with its risks. It isn't fool proof but it is progess.
And it wouldn't have happened if Assad wasn't afraid of the strike. (See Saddam and Desert fox).
You'll note that sarin has not been deployed recently? Again, this is probably down to the threats and the seriousness with which Assad taks them ...

fate

There was no war in Iraq, but tracking down traces of WMD was difficult for UN inspectors. There is a war in Syria. How are they going to do this?

It was difficult to track down WMD in Iraq because they didn't exist....except for "traces". Same thing with green cheese on the moon and Bigfoot.
Syria will be surrendering theirs... And thats been done before successfully.
Libya also surrendered theirs remember? when Ghaddaffis regime fell there were no remnants...
And Ghaddaffi was responding to the military strikes against Saddam and threats of the same against him unless he gave them up .... (A Bush success...)

Is the goal of eliminating Syrias chemical weapons desirable or not?
As an "isolationist" how could you achieve this?
Obama made the arguement that the use of chemical weapons, without a response .... provides Assad with the encouragement to use them again. And that their continued proliferation in the area might lead to "otherr actors in the region" gaining them for use elsewhere. Perhaps even against American forces somewhere or in a terrorist attack.
You may remember that in the first conflict with Iraq in 91 that the use of chemical weapons by Saddam was a major concern ... If deployed effectively they could have presented a major problem even for the over whelming allied force... Without involvment in Syria , how would you deter the spread of Sarin from the region? How would you contain the nuclear aspirations of Iran if they witness Asssad acting with impunity with gas?

Or is that something that the US should not concern itself with either?