I also support the deal ...so what?
You really want us to believe this is the reason to want to attack Syria, the only reason is due to the use of chemical weapons? You want to point to what Obama said as your proof? What he said is exactly the problem, just like his red line comment, it forced his hand and now he's stuck having to back what was actually said and not what was / is wanted. Your "proof" is nothing more than support of Obama being a bumbling idiot on foreign affairs, thanks for helping point this out further!

tom

You really want us to believe this is the reason to want to attack Syria, the only reason is due to the use of chemical weapons?

Until the chemical weapons attack, it wasn't in the cards was it? You don't have evidence of a Presidential statement that military intervention was an option until the use do you?
tom

You want to point to what Obama said as your proof?

Yes I do.
tom

What he said is exactly the problem, just like his red line comment, it forced his hand and now he's stuck having to back what was actually said and not what was / is wanted.

And yet he achieved the expressed goal, didn't he? A goal that the vast majority of Americans are happy he has achieved in the fashion he has achieved it. (The deal with the Russians)

tom

Your "proof" is nothing more than support of Obama being a bumbling idiot on foreign affairs, thanks for helping point this out further!

and yet
Tom

I also support the deal ...so what?

So you should be content with the results achieved.... Period.

In the past, more inflexible and certain "leadership" by Presidents has led to American military involvement in a large number of costly and losing conflicts. Viet Nam. Iraq ....
On the other hand, when a leader has retreated, like Reagan retreated from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine Barracks for instance ....no one second guesses the fact that he managed to avoid invovlement in the 20 year long Lebanese Civil War... No one worries for the next ten years about the undignified retreat, or the loss of "American influence". All things that political pundits, especially from the left, labelled Reagan with for a brief time after the retreat was ordered.
Reagan took his lumps and moved on .... and he was generally supported for avoiding the Lebanese conflict .
Just as Obama is enjoying support today for the results of his flexible approach to Syria and chemical weapons.
Results matter.
If you support the results, stop complaining about the technique used to get the result you agree with ...

rickyp wrote:tom

You really want us to believe this is the reason to want to attack Syria, the only reason is due to the use of chemical weapons?

Until the chemical weapons attack, it wasn't in the cards was it? You don't have evidence of a Presidential statement that military intervention was an option until the use do you?
tom

You want to point to what Obama said as your proof?

Yes I do.
tom

What he said is exactly the problem, just like his red line comment, it forced his hand and now he's stuck having to back what was actually said and not what was / is wanted.

And yet he achieved the expressed goal, didn't he? A goal that the vast majority of Americans are happy he has achieved in the fashion he has achieved it. (The deal with the Russians)

tom

Your "proof" is nothing more than support of Obama being a bumbling idiot on foreign affairs, thanks for helping point this out further!

and yet
Tom

I also support the deal ...so what?

So you should be content with the results achieved.... Period.

In the past, more inflexible and certain "leadership" by Presidents has led to American military involvement in a large number of costly and losing conflicts. Viet Nam. Iraq ....
On the other hand, when a leader has retreated, like Reagan retreated from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine Barracks for instance ....no one second guesses the fact that he managed to avoid invovlement in the 20 year long Lebanese Civil War... No one worries for the next ten years about the undignified retreat, or the loss of "American influence". All things that political pundits, especially from the left, labelled Reagan with for a brief time after the retreat was ordered.
Reagan took his lumps and moved on .... and he was generally supported for avoiding the Lebanese conflict .
Just as Obama is enjoying support today for the results of his flexible approach to Syria and chemical weapons.
Results matter.
If you support the results, stop complaining about the technique used to get the result you agree with ...

Um, we don't have a "result" yet. Did I miss it? Are the weapons destroyed?

People support it because they know the alternatives were either war or the President looking like a bigger fool. Those are exactly the reasons I support it.

What Percentage believe it will work?

even if it works, this was not the goal and only a fool would claim it was. We were pressured to back the rebels, we supplied them, we want Assad out but no, now it's only about the chemical weapons, that's all we ever cared about according to Rickyp and nobody else that is

Yep, it was just cool to let these people kill each other as much as they wanted (shy of chemical weapons that is) . We don't care who wins, we never cared, we only want to assure no chemical weapons are used. Chemical weapons supplied by Russia, the same Russia who is leading this new effort to get rid of them. You want to believe this will be carried out above board, wow, are your glasses on?

oh, and the result is just fine by me!
I want no involvement, none. I also have no problem with nations doing away with chemical weapons so I'm just fine and dandy with the end result (assuming it ever works out, a major IF). So I am behind the president, but was this the real goal? was this good diplomacy? was this a crowning achievement for Obama? no-no-no, he was schooled and the US was made to look ineffectual and stupid, backing Obama in this, even if you like the end result is being blind to the facts!

I'm starting to believe it is unhelpful to refer to the Syrian "rebels". What we seeing is a 3-side war: the government, the Free Syrian Army, and ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant). There is a lot of conflict between the latter 2.

So, when I say that the U.S. should arm the rebels, what I really mean is that the U.S. should arm the FSA. The tragedy of the last 2 years is that we have not done so resulting in Assad getting stronger, and the ISIL getting stronger as well relative to the FSA.

Dismantling the Syrian chemical weapons is a worthy goal, especially because they could fall into the hands of ISIL. However, this is an extremely complex task that will take at least a year, and probably longer. That's a long time for us to be dependent on Assad.

fate

Um, we don't have a "result" yet. Did I miss it? Are the weapons destroyed

Chemical weapons were used in Syria half a dozen times. They haven't been used since the threats of action, and they are highly unlikely to be used again whilst the Russians have assumed responsibility for their control.
So the result is the elimination of their use .....

It is remotely possible that Syria could go rogue on the Russians.... Speculate, if you will, on the Russian response to that scenario.

ray

That's a long time for us to be dependent on Assad.

Thats a strange phrase?
Who's dependent on Assad and for what?
If anyone is dependent on Assad now, its Putin.... And I think Its more accurate to say that Assad is dependent on the Russians...more than ever...

Its like the despondency over the "loss of American Infuence in the Middle East". What influence is that? What evidence is there that the US has been able to moderate or change the political course in any nations that is hasn't invaded over the last 40 years?.. Even in Iraq, all the oil contracts went to China and other companies. After 10 years, the US was shut out of oil production there .....and pretty much every thing else. And Iraq became Irans best ally.
If the goal of the US has been the promotion of democracy, the many dictatorships and monarchies it has assisted over time have done little to move towards the establishment of democracy. If the goal has beeen the security of Israel and the promotion of a resolution to the Palestinian stand off and a lasting peace .... all its influence hasn;t brought anyone since Egypt the table ... 6 US Presidents ago.
If the goal is the maintenance of favorable commercial dealings, the Chinese and Japanese and others have been much more successful ..... and they are just customers and collaborators..
If the goal is the isolation of Iran ... at least since the Shah fell .... then its simply a confluence of interests. The Sunni Arabs nations abhore the Shia Iranians anyway, so they use a relationship with the US as protector ... Nothing that has happened in Syria has altered that relationship.
And if the US had real influence in the region , the Arab League would have been more overt in supporting the US in the stand off over chemical weapons. They weren't and aren't, because there hasn't been real influence by the US in ther region since the invasion of Iraq.
All the breast beating by those with ODS over the results in Syria live in a world in which they think the US possesses influence it actually hasn't had any results from over the last decades... Based on the pursuit of the goals I've listed... Maybe I'm missing some policy goals? But I'm pretty sure these are supposed to be the big goals.

rickyp wrote:fate

Um, we don't have a "result" yet. Did I miss it? Are the weapons destroyed

Chemical weapons were used in Syria half a dozen times. They haven't been used since the threats of action, and they are highly unlikely to be used again whilst the Russians have assumed responsibility for their control.
So the result is the elimination of their use .....

Wrong.

The result is a temporary suspension of their use.

Do you suppose that Assad would hesitate using them if he felt he needed to? If the war turned against him and he thought his best chance to turn the tide was to unleash chemical weapons, would he shrink from it?

No way. His rule, not to mention his life, is on the line. He will do what he thinks he needs to do.

It is remotely possible that Syria could go rogue on the Russians.... Speculate, if you will, on the Russian response to that scenario.

From one dictator to another, I might suppose there is a bit more leeway. In other words, I don't think the Russians will do anything, no matter what Assad does.

If you support the results, stop complaining about the technique used to get the result you agree with ...

"Technique?"



What kind of "technique" was that?

So, when the Secretary of State sticks his foot in his mouth, the Administration takes 5 positions in 4 days, and the sheer incoherence of the "policy" results in us making Russia a major player in the Middle East, we're supposed to rejoice? Uh, no. Incompetence is not a strategy.

Ricky:

ray

That's a long time for us to be dependent on Assad.

Thats a strange phrase?
Who's dependent on Assad and for what?
If anyone is dependent on Assad now, its Putin.... And I think Its more accurate to say that Assad is dependent on the Russians...more than ever...

Thanks for all the rhetoric that follows the part that I've quoted. We are dependent on Syria and Russia to follow through on their agreement. The President now has a vested interest to say that they are, even if they comply minimally.

I think we are heading into an end game now. Assad retains most of his country and his sponsors (Iran and Russia) retain their influence. Islamists control certain parts. The FSA is marginalized between the two. Maybe they get sufficient support from the Gulf and the U.S. Maybe not.

I also don't see it as a positive that Assad is now dependent on The Russians. Do you?

ray

I also don't see it as a positive that Assad is now dependent on The Russians. Do you?

Assad has been dependent on the Russians for 30 years. When has the US ever influenced Syria?
Whats changed about that?

The only thing changed in any way is that Putin has made a commitment on Syrian chemical weapons,.

fate

Do you suppose that Assad would hesitate using them if he felt he needed to? If the war turned against him and he thought his best chance to turn the tide was to unleash chemical weapons, would he shrink from it?

All speculation of course... And you should consider that
Putin behaves much like all the other strong men who have lead Russia. His client states are meant to behave according to his wishes...
Assad requires a sanctuary if worst comes to worst. If he embarreses the Russians by using chemical weapons they won't offer him sanctuary. More likely they'll end his life... And Putin won't hestitate as Obama has ... He doesn't have a chattering class of all knowing pundits, or a rebellious congress to deal with ... Democracy can be limiting that way.

rickyp wrote:fate

Do you suppose that Assad would hesitate using them if he felt he needed to? If the war turned against him and he thought his best chance to turn the tide was to unleash chemical weapons, would he shrink from it?

All speculation of course... And you should consider that

Unlike your statements that say, basically, this is a resolved situation.

Putin behaves much like all the other strong men who have lead Russia. His client states are meant to behave according to his wishes...

So, let's follow your logic. You also said:

Assad has been dependent on the Russians for 30 years.

Leaving aside the fact that he's only been in power for 13 years, you have a conundrum. Assad, you say, is dependent on Russia. Russia, you say, controls its client states.

So, apparently, by your reasoning, Putin approved of Assad using chemical weapons, but that makes Putin a trustworthy partner for removing the weapons? Furthermore, he can be trusted to help remove the weapons, that according to DefSec Hagel, were supplied (in part) by Russia?

This seems logical to you?

Assad requires a sanctuary if worst comes to worst. If he embarreses the Russians by using chemical weapons they won't offer him sanctuary. More likely they'll end his life...

Says you.

And Putin won't hestitate as Obama has ... He doesn't have a chattering class of all knowing pundits, or a rebellious congress to deal with ... Democracy can be limiting that way.

Yeah, Putin just jails his opponents. Obama hasn't figured that one out . . . yet.

fate

Leaving aside the fact that he's only been in power for 13 years, you have a conundrum. Assad, you say, is dependent on Russia. Russia, you say, controls its client states.

The father came to power in 1970. And relied on the Soviets and later Russians for the necxt 30 years.
To be accurate I'll amend that to say the Assads'

And yes I do think its logical to assume that the Russians can remove the chemical weapons, in fact they are better placed than any other power.

They can be trusted until their actions can't be verified.
That was good enough for Ron Reagan wasn't it?
Trust and verify.

rickyp wrote:And yes I do think its logical to assume that the Russians can remove the chemical weapons, in fact they are better placed than any other power.

You missed the point. So surprising.

The Russians supplied the weapons.

Assad used them.

The Russians "control" Assad.

So, they must have approved of his use of chemical weapons. At the very least, they were indifferent until the US was getting ready to launch an attack.

Now, the Russians will remove the weapons, or demand they be turned over?

That is not consistent.

They can be trusted until their actions can't be verified.

What did the Russians do to earn your trust? Was it when they helped Assad get the weapons? Maybe it's now when they insist the rebels (and not Assad) used them?

But, they're trustworthy because . . . Kerry looked into Lavrov's soul and thought it trustworthy?

That was good enough for Ron Reagan wasn't it?
Trust and verify.

Right, but we actually could verify. How is this deal going to be verified? How long until we get the weapons?

fate

The Russians supplied the weapons

.
No they didn't.

It was decades ago that the Syrians learned how to make the weapons from Russian and Iranian advisors . But having learned how they don't depend on the Russians anymore..
The Syrians made the weapons from materials supplied by countries from several foreign countries, including the US and Britain.

Fate

Now, the Russians will remove the weapons, or demand they be turned over?

So far so ggod.

AMSTERDAM, Sept 21 (Reuters) - Syria has handed over information about its chemical arsenal to a U.N.-backed weapons watchdog, meeting the first deadline of an ambitious disarmament operation that averted the threat of Western air strikes.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said on Saturday it had "received the expected disclosure" from Damascus, 24 hours after saying it had been given a partial document from Syrian authorities.

But a senior Russian official suggested on Saturday that if there were clear indications that Assad were not committed to handing over chemical weapons, Moscow may stop supporting him.

"I'm talking theoretically and hypothetically, but if we became sure that Assad is cheating, we could change our position," said Sergei Ivanov, chief of staff for President Vladimir Putin

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... C620130921