News Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?

[jim hardy]

The billions we will spend of this "political statement" could be much better spent on providing humanitarian care in Syria ...

it's not like that would cost a lot

A friend of mine drives a truck for a big rice farm near here. He said they're busy plowing nine million bushels back into the ground for want of enough storage bins. And that's just one rice farm.

 

[cdux]

Any war where outsiders intervened to help rebels overthrow their rulers, from the American Revolution to Libya, with many in between.

I'm in disbelief you actually believe that.

Do you seriously think the US government goes into wars in the Middle East for Altruism alone?

 

[russ_watters]

This advantage is outweighed by far by the risk of an intervention of western countries.

Not really, no. As the second link I posted a few posts above details, Obama told him pretty explicitly on multiple occasions that we would do little to nothing: no ground troops, no no fly zone, no attempt to overthrow him and no action outside the UN (which Russia would veto anyway). That plus the lack of response to his test use a few months ago sends him a pretty clear message that the risk is low compared to the scope of the problem that the war represents for him.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm in disbelief you actually believe that.

Do you seriously think the US government goes into wars in the Middle East for Altruism alone?

I didn't say that and it isn't what you asked. You're goalpost shifting and cherry picking.

 

[lisab]

I'd like to ask again why almost nobody questions who used the chemical weapons. Why on Earth should Assad do so in the current situation?

I agree, it seemed very odd to me. But people frequently do things that are so stupid I can't fathom their reasoning.

This was just released:

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...cepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas

So who within the Assad government made the call to use a chemical weapon? Hard to say, but apparently it came as a big surprise to at least one official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense.

 

[russ_watters]

I have a very hard time figuring why some people want the US to jump into Syria.

As a person with morals, the death of 100,000 civilians at the hands of a dictator gives me pain. And the upping of the ante by using chemical weapons puts it squarely in the "war crimes" category. It tells me that if we do nothing, things are likely to get a lot worse.

Pursuing a diplomatic goal at the barrel of a gun is foolhardy...

You should tell that to the Kuwaitis and Libyans - unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "diplomatic goal".

IMO, we should let the players in Syria take car of themselves.

Since I'm arguing a contrarian position here (which doesn't require stating my position), I want to make it clear where I stand, so there is no confusion:

1. Use of chemical weapons against civilians is despicable, immoral, illegal, and therefore demands action by the international community.

2. I am fully aware that action by us to stop the war in Syria is probably against our self-interest. Our self-interest is probably best served by letting the two sides destroy each other for as long as they can (saying that gives me the urge to take a shower). Because while they are doing that, they are less interested in attacking us or Israel. But note: this should be an indication that any action by US (/the West in general) has mostly a benevolent intent. I'm a moral person and an idealist. I would give a dying criminal first-aid and I would help the civilian relatives of terrorists avoid being gassed. If their terrorist relatives thank me, great. If they still hate me, that's disappointing, but I'd help anyway.

3. So how do I reconcile 1 and 2? Not easily. As I said earlier in the thread, I would err on the side of being against the immoral, murderous criminal dictator even if the other side doesn't appear much better. At this point, they'd be hard-pressed to be worse. I'm dithering a bit, but what I can say for sure is:
A. No ground troops.
B. We need an action strong enough to prevent or deter the use of WMDs in the future. If a few airstrikes would do it, great (I doubt it, but that appears to be the likely response). If a no fly zone and ground-attack aircraft (to destroy chemical weapons bearing artillery and transports) could get it done, I would support it. If it tips the balance of power and deposes Assad, I'd be fine with it.

4. As Lisa (and a lot of news articles these days) points out, WMDs are a more arbitrary red line than people tend to say in speeches. There isn't much fundamental difference between a nuke and any other large bomb. Chemical weapons are just another way to kill a lot of people. What matters is who you are killing. The chemical weapons are being used against civilians, as a terror weapon. That's what makes them bad. But the only reason they represent a "red line" is because international law says so, not because they suddenly made the war a lot worse in practical terms. My "red line" was crossed long ago (which is why I started this thread last year and its predecessor two years ago).

5. Screw the UN (especially Russia and China). It will be interesting to see what Obama does in the next few days, but it seems likely that he will not get UN approval to act, but will do so anyway. If so, he will have learned the lessson Clinton learned: the UN is not a legitimate organization when it comes to taking action to defend its moral principles. It is a farce, where the insane run the asylum. If acting is the right thing to do, history will not look favorably upon not doing it because some rogue nations didn't want him to. If it isn't the right thing to do, history won't look favorably upon doing it, regardless of if he has UN support (see: Bush-Iraq). Either way, the stance of the UN is not relevant to history's judgement.

 

[kith]

Not really, no. As the second link I posted a few posts above details, Obama told him pretty explicitly on multiple occasions that we would do little to nothing: no ground troops, no no fly zone, no attempt to overthrow him and no action outside the UN (which Russia would veto anyway). That plus the lack of response to his test use a few months ago sends him a pretty clear message that the risk is low compared to the scope of the problem that the war represents for him.

This line of reasoning already assumes that the regime is responsible for all the bad things happening which is the very thing I am questioning. Also I don't agree with your main point here: Assad knows that using chemical weapons against civilians is considered so evil that the international community is forced to react. Even given Obamas statements, it is a tremendously risky betting game how this reaction will look like. You only play such a game if you are desperate and my impression is not only that Assad's position isn't desperate but that it is much better than it had already been.

 

[turbo]

The US does not have the moral high ground in the case of chemical weapons. Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and against the Kurds (their own people).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

At the time, Saddam was America's bully-boy in the ME, and the US provided him with military equipment and satellite intelligence so he could carry out his attacks. There is a lot of bad stuff going on in Syria, but this fixation on chemical weapons/nerve agents ignores the past of our own government. I agree that the use of chemical weapons/nerve agents is reprehensible, but I have a hard time justifying the use of US military because of that, given our own country's sad record in this regard.

War sucks. Indiscriminate killing sucks worse. And IMO there is nothing more indiscriminate than chemical warfare.

 

[nsaspook]

This line of reasoning already assumes that the regime is responsible for all the bad things happening which is the very thing I am questioning. Also I don't agree with your main point here: Assad knows that using chemical weapons against civilians is considered so evil that the international community is forced to react. Even given Obamas statements, it is a tremendously risky betting game how this reaction will look like. You only play such a game if you are desperate and my impression is not only that Assad's position isn't desperate but that it is much better than it had already been.

The limited point of this upcoming attack (and statement of policy) is that chemical weapons against civilians (by either side) will not be tolerated because we don't like to see pictures of children dying "that way". The friends with weapons and money on both sides will restrain their forces for the required duration and then on with the show. Weighting who is the most evil of two evils is pointless because does anyone really believe the other sides leaders would not do the same thing if the roles were switched.

The current mess in Syria reminds me of the later phases of the Lebanese Civil War where the US learned a hard lesson about the limits of intervention. International intervention

 

[phoenix:\\]

As a person with morals, the death of 100,000 civilians at the hands of a dictator gives me pain. And the upping of the ante by using chemical weapons puts it squarely in the "war crimes" category. It tells me that if we do nothing, things are likely to get a lot worse.

100k people didn't die by chemical weapons, so you must distinguish between the two as later in your post you say we should enter because chemical weapons were used and that's illegal.

In addition, I would like to know your limit. Any in house dispute of a country with a death toll of 100,000 should be a cause for intervention? I would like to know this personally as I would like to know what morality you are basing this on.

"Moral" is a blanket term, you must define your morality before establishing it as the imperative to enter a foreign conflict unaffiliated with the U.S..

The limited point of this upcoming attack (and statement of policy) is that chemical weapons against civilians (by either side) will not be tolerated because we don't like to see pictures of children dying "that way".

as opposed to dying much, much more slowly because of either shrapnel, or molecular damage to cells via nuclear weapons? Just because one doesn't like seeing children die by use of chemical weapons and would rather see them blown to bits because they only see a flash of light, doesn't make chemical weapons wrong. It just means the people that refused to look for alternatives cannot stomach what they have caused or cannot stomach what war is, so they try to think it full of dandelions and trees blowing blissfully as the ocean beats upon the shores of the beach... A full throttle delusion they try to envelope themselves in without seeing the consequences of war.

Ah... these same types of people refuse to see the damage the war causes in its aftermath as well. The children whom's parents died, or vice-versa of children dying and parents living. The emotional toll of war is much, much greater than any use of chemical weapons. But, so as long as people sit comfortably knowing that only nuclear weapons (can be termed chemical if you want to get technical), varying types of guns, and tanks are being used, its just, "Another conflict," and not, "An outrage!"

War in and of itself is wrong, once you pass that threshold and consider it good and right under the circumstances, all morality and "proper" forms of war become irrelevant. I find anyone declaring there to be a proper form of war to be foolish. There is none. It will and will always be a depraved act of humanity at its lowest and most base self. All human dignity and integrity is gone when war erupts.

 

[jim hardy]

wellll, that's one way to look at it.
But what if your white corpuscles take up that mindset ?

War and courage have done more great things than charity. Not your sympathy, but your bravery has saved the unfotunate. nietzsche

 

[phoenix:\\]

My white blood cells do not destroy parts of my body to help me stay safe.

As for the quote, Nietzche... I never found his views appealing or remotely wise. But I guess he believed in (in my opinion) of wisdom reaching not from current man but developing anew through destruction of old, conservative views of wisdom (parable of a madman). Given that, I guess he found his enlightenment although still... nothing that set him entirely apart from being just another shock-jock of the 19 century. I'd stick with Fuerbach or Kierkegaard (excluding the god stuff if that is not your type of thing); at least they have wise words to impart on a newer generation, and not societal destruction for restoration! I don't know about you but that sounds like a new-age cult's ideology to me.

"He who joyfully marches to the rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the spinal cord would suffice." ~ Albert Einstein

 

[russ_watters]

I'll come back to the other points later, but:

War in and of itself is wrong...

This and other similar pacifist platitudes (war is not the answer, wars never solve anything) are just plain nonsense/wrong -- even meaningless ("wrong" in your statement is a value judgement, but there are logical/factual flaws in the application). If one side wants a war, the other side had best show up and fight because the alternative is to be overrun. And once they overrun you, your enemy will be quite happy to listen to diplomacy and acquire peace: because they've already won the war! History is littered with examples of this. From WWII Europe to Iraq/Kuwait 1990. Both are also examples of wars partially caused by diplomacy (appeasement).

In this case, the war already exists, so the question of war being "wrong" is irrelevant. It is here. Choosing not to have it isn't an option for us: Telling the Syrians it is wrong is not going to make them stop (people have been telling them for 2.5 years). We could of course choose not to join, but the reality is that what ends wars is usually decisive victory, not diplomacy. Just ask the Koreans, who are technically still at war. Or Iraq. Or Germany. Or Japan. Or England circa 1815.

 

[phoenix:\\]

You have mistaken me to be a pacifistic. There are times when war is necessary, however, that doesn't make war a moral right, it is still wrong but can be seen as a necessary course of action (depending on the circumstances and thought). War can never be a good thing because of its very nature. Saying, "well, it being wrong is irrelevant," misses the point. War is never good which is what we all should recognize and by people seeing it as a wrong and not a right, different methods can be developed to deal with other governments hell-bent on war.

My gripe within that post is knowing that war is wrong and that the use of chemical weapons is a direct result of war, the use of chemical weapons in a depraved act, is never wrong if a war has erupted. There is something wrong with the very logic people are using today calling the use of chemical weapons an immoral action as there can never be a morally right action in the midst of war between warring nations. In other words, once you cross that line, any use of weaponry, and use of tactics, are allowed because both parties have forgone their reason.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't support military intervention by the west. At the very least there needs to be more time to let UN inspectors to do their work and return with solid data. What I would support though is immediate delivery of medical supplies, particularly Nerve Agent Antidote Kits, to as many people as possible in areas of conflict.

 

[nsaspook]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA_INTELLIGENCE_DOUBTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-29-03-11-56

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as the U.S. rhetoric increased. But.that lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.

I think we need to step back and be damn sure before any action as Assad could easily rig an incident that could be blamed on us.

 

[fargoth]

Since Obama said last year chemical weapons are a red line - the US has to do something.
The implications of not doing anything after threatening are very bad in the long run, since Syria as well as other renegade regimes might take it as a sign that they can do these things and get away with it.
Syria has used chemical weapons before, and the US did nothing - so they continued to use them, upping the ante every time.
Had Obama remained silent regarding chemical weapons in the first place, the US would have been better off staying out of this conflict.

There are enough places to do good for humankind where the resources of this intervention could have been tunneled to - so the moral argument is moot.

 

[jim hardy]

Since Obama said last year chemical weapons are a red line - the US has to do something.

He could admit the mistake.

 

[jim hardy]

Who's the liar?


http://syrianfreepress.wordpress.co...nufactured-chemical-weapons-outside-damascus/

On the 21st of August 2013 several western and Arab TV channels reported that chemical agents had been used in the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar. According to the media, between 20 and 625 people died as a result of an attack with the use of shells containing the sarin nerve gas.

Representatives of the opposition claim that it was the Syrian army that used chemical weapons. A spokesman for the Syrian government has announced that this statement is a far cry from reality and is aimed at disrupting the UN experts’ work.

Russia has announced that, according to its information, on the 21st of August chemical agents were used in the suburbs of Damascus by the opposition units and not by President Bashar al-Assad’s army. Accusations against the government troops are based on unverified information.

On the 21st of August the UN Security Council held an extraordinary meeting and called for a thorough investigation of the reports about the tragedy in the suburbs of Damascus. Russia shares the view that a comprehensive investigation is indispensable. It can be carried out by the UN experts already stationed in Syria.

 

[fargoth]

He could admit the mistake.

Well, that wouldn't help much, since he would still have to hold true to his word...
If he would just say, "uhm, I re-examined our priorities... chemical weapons are just dandy as far as we're concerned" - then he would signal all other renegade countries that it's alright to do whatever they want, even if the US warns them - just as long as they don't directly harm US's interests.

The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

 

[OmCheeto]

...
The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

I have the opposite opinion.

I'd take a healthy dose of sabre-rattling over sabre-wielding any day.

As long as the rattling has an effect, of course. Perhaps they should play re-runs of "Shock and Awe" for Assad, on Syrian TV.

Anyone remember that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NktsxucDvNI​

According to my googling, the sun set in Damascus about 1.5 hours ago.

Perhaps they should remind Assad that Obama didn't stop the drone strikes when he was first elected.

hmmmm... Obama's nearly a half hour late?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-syria

Maybe Barry's on the phone with Bashy, trying to work things out. That would be nice. I'm not in the mood for any more shock and awe.

 

[nsaspook]

Well, that wouldn't help much, since he would still have to hold true to his word...
If he would just say, "uhm, I re-examined our priorities... chemical weapons are just dandy as far as we're concerned" - then he would signal all other renegade countries that it's alright to do whatever they want, even if the US warns them - just as long as they don't directly harm US's interests.

The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

We've spent a week telling Assad these attacks are only a message, What are his possible 'positive' responses to that message? Will he say:

1. I'm sorry and swear to never do it again and continues the killings with other weapons.
2. Says nothing and continues the killings with other weapons.
3. Says we never used chemical weapons anyway and continues the killings with other weapons.

Warning, other weapons:

Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway's report contains images viewers may find extremely distressing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

The more likely 'negative' response only draws us closer into another war that we can't or don't want to win and nothing positive for the innocent people in Syria.

 

[OmCheeto]

Nice piece of sabre-rattling by John Kerry in The New Yorker.

JOHN KERRY’S CASE FOR BOMBING SYRIA
AUGUST 30, 2013
...

Both Obama and Kerry acknowledged the war-weariness of the American public and the widespread skepticism about any military action post-Iraq. But doing nothing in response to the gas attack would send the wrong message to potential aggressors, the President said, and that would constitute “a danger to our national security.” This, though, was Kerry’s moment. From anti-war protestor to public defender of a prospective U.S. bombing raid, he has come a long way. History would, he said, “judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction.”

Oh! The President is speaking. Ciao!

 

[nsaspook]

Oh! The President is speaking. Ciao!

I just don't see the President attacking Syria if Congress says no. The President has kicked the can down the street and has lost his power of personal sabre-rattling.

 

[OmCheeto]

I just don't see the President attacking Syria if Congress says no.

Agreed. I don't think he will attack Syria if congress doesn't approve it. I would say more about the decision^[1] congress is about to make, but I'd be way off topic.

The President has kicked the can down the street and has lost his power of personal sabre-rattling.

hmmm... Who was the last president to wage un-authorized air strikes against another country, without congress's approval?

Was that Nixon?

hmmm...

Barry doesn't strike me as being a Dick^[2]...

------------------------
[1]fools...
[2]For our compatriots who do not speak American as a first language, "Dick" is short for "Richard", as in, Richard "Tricky Dick" Milhous^[3] Nixon".
[3]Why is it that people always accentuate the middle name when trying to insult people?

 

[fargoth]

I have the opposite opinion.

I'd take a healthy dose of sabre-rattling over sabre-wielding any day.

As long as the rattling has an effect, of course.

So, if the sabre-rattling has not effect (as in this instance) - if you don't put your money where your mouth is, you'd lose all your sabre-rattling abilities.

 

[fargoth]

We've spent a week telling Assad these attacks are only a message, What are his possible 'positive' responses to that message? Will he say:

1. I'm sorry and swear to never do it again and continues the killings with other weapons.
2. Says nothing and continues the killings with other weapons.
3. Says we never used chemical weapons anyway and continues the killings with other weapons.

Warning, other weapons:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

The more likely 'negative' response only draws us closer into another war that we can't or don't want to win and nothing positive for the innocent people in Syria.

The action against Syria would not help these people.
But failing to act would jeopardise other innocent people all over the world.
The US is already taken only half seriously by the world's bullies (thanks to north korea)
What would Iran learn from the actions of the US if it fails to follow it's threats?
Why do you think no country gives a damn about UN resolutions, as long as they don't come from the security council?

 

[OmCheeto]

So, if the sabre-rattling has not effect (as in this instance) - if you don't put your money where your mouth is, you'd lose all your sabre-rattling abilities.

I think that's what spooky just said. Unfortunately, we don't live in a dictatorship, and Barry's hands are tied.

btw, has anyone checked out the targets yet?

I wonder what Rommel could have done with google Earth at his disposal.

hmmm...

...
Rommel is regarded as having been a humane and professional officer. His Afrika Korps was never accused of war crimes, and soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely. Orders to kill Jewish soldiers, civilians and captured commandos were ignored.
...

 

[fargoth]

We've spent a week telling Assad these attacks are only a message, What are his possible 'positive' responses to that message? Will he say:

1. I'm sorry and swear to never do it again and continues the killings with other weapons.
2. Says nothing and continues the killings with other weapons.
3. Says we never used chemical weapons anyway and continues the killings with other weapons.

Warning, other weapons:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

The more likely 'negative' response only draws us closer into another war that we can't or don't want to win and nothing positive for the innocent people in Syria.

I guess you mean to say the US should do more than just sending a message.
I would disagree - if the US would topple Assad's regime, it would only change the victims from Sunnis to Alawites.
And would most probably push Syria into a taliban-like regime.

 

[amonraa]

Here's why not everyone is convinced and some stepped back and others decided not to involve in dragging the region to hell.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

And regardless who did it, targeting the regime would be like committing suicide to the whole region or put in other words, handing in the region to Al Qaeda affiliated groups and other Jihadists who will first thing do is hit Israel.

 

[fargoth]

Here's why not everyone is convinced and some stepped back and others decided not to involve in dragging the region to hell.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

And regardless who did it, targeting the regime would be like committing suicide to the whole region or put in other words, handing in the region to Al Qaeda affiliated groups and other Jihadists who will first thing do is hit Israel.

If the story you have posted would turn out to be true, it would make an outside attack unnecessary.
But if Assad is to blame, there are only talks about sending a message, and not getting really involved in a way which would shift the balance of powers.

 

[nsaspook]

The action against Syria would not help these people.
But failing to act would jeopardise other innocent people all over the world.
The US is already taken only half seriously by the world's bullies (thanks to north korea)
What would Iran learn from the actions of the US if it fails to follow it's threats?
Why do you think no country gives a damn about UN resolutions, as long as they don't come from the security council?

Out of all the things happening in the world that needs to be fixed, Syria as a gateway to mass destruction worldwide is pretty low on my list.

 

[fargoth]

Out of all the things happening in the world that needs to be fixed, Syria as a gateway to mass destruction worldwide is pretty low on my list.

Just out of curiosity, could you share that list?

 

[nsaspook]

I guess you mean to say the US should do more than just sending a message.
I would disagree - if the US would topple Assad's regime, it would only change the victims from Sunnis to Alawites.
And would most probably push Syria into a taliban-like regime.

I don't think we should do anything. The Assad regime is about as good as it can get in Syria today.

 

[fargoth]

I don't think we should do anything. The Assad regime is about as good as it can get in Syria today.

I partly agree, there is no need to shift the balance of power - and no one is planning to do that.

But we disagree on the necessity of preserving the deterrence powers of the US's threats in this part of the world.

 

[jim hardy]

(in response to "He could admit the mistake." )

"Well, that wouldn't help much, since he would still have to hold true to his word...

Why ?
Anybody can make a mistake but it takes a fool to defend one.

If he would just say, "uhm, I re-examined our priorities... chemical weapons are just dandy as far as we're concerned" - then he would signal all other renegade countries that it's alright to do whatever they want, even if the US warns them - just as long as they don't directly harm US's interests.

That's indeed how geopolitics works, isn't it ?
Forcibly imposing our standards on the world is vigilantism.

The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

That one I agree with. As Flip Wilson's character Geraldine used to say: "Don't let your mouth write a check your body can't cash".

I can preach to my neighbor that he shouldn't sin
but I can rightfully shoot at him only in self defense.

 

[nsaspook]

Just out of curiosity, could you share that list?

Here's a few http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/27/10_conflicts_to_watch_in_2013

 

[OmCheeto]

I was going to request that my first post in this thread be deleted, as I really don't have a clue what is going on over there.

But...

​

It seems I'm not alone.

And they are there.

So much for my theory of "Being on the Front Line of reality" theory...

 

[nsaspook]

But we disagree on the necessity of preserving the deterrence powers of the US's threats in this part of the world.

That's my problems with 'threats', it works until someone like Assad calls your bluff. Ok, we want to make a example of Assad but he's just the wrong person to kick in the shin as he has nothing to lose by kicking us in the groin.

 

[fargoth]

Why ?
Anybody can make a mistake but it takes a fool to defend one.

The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

That one I agree with. As Flip Wilson's character Geraldine used to say: "Don't let your mouth write a check your body can't cash".

We both agree Obama shouldn't have threatened with a military action.
And I think we both agree that an empty threat is worse than no threat.

We disagree on the importance of keeping the power of threats.. If you lose the ability to use military action threats - you lose a lot of influence on what's happening in the world..
I think this power is necessary for the US to keep it's status as a superpower, and it's important to it's allies as well.

 

[nsaspook]

It seems I'm not alone.

And they are there.

They practice the words of Arnaud Amalric

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

 

[fargoth]

That's my problems with 'threats', it works until someone like Assad calls your bluff. Ok, we want to make a example of Assad but he's just the wrong person to kick in the shin as he has nothing to lose by kicking us in the groin.

But he does, he still thinks (and maybe correctly) that he can win this war - kicking the US in the groin would certainly make him lose, and he knows that.

 

[Borg]

Here's a few http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/27/10_conflicts_to_watch_in_2013

I know it's a serious threat but still - the Philippine http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/27/10_conflicts_to_watch_in_2013?page=0,12 couldn't come up with a better acronym?

 

[OmCheeto]

They practice the words of Arnaud Amalric

Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

This reminds me of Golda's purported quote:

השלום יבוא כאשר הערבים יאהבו את ילדיהם יותר מאשר הם שונאים אותנו

----------------------
There's a rule about speaking English in this forum. But, given the availability of google translate, I think we might only get half an infraction...

 

[nsaspook]

There's a rule about speaking English in this forum. But, given the availability of google translate, I think we might only get half an infraction...

I should get one for the incomplete quote.

Yes, you can't figure out who's killing whom without a program.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/31/217574150/president-obama-to-speak-on-syria

It seems Obama has effectively shifted the responsibility of potential interference with Syria to Congress, rather than making it a decision of his own.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It seems Obama has effectively shifted the responsibility of potential interference with Syria to Congress, rather than making it a decision of his own.

As, according to the Constitution, he should.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

As, according to the Constitution, he should.

Precisely. I'm all for his decision, and am glad that he ignored the opinions of some of his senior advisors.

 

[OmCheeto]

Precisely. I'm all for his decision, and am glad that he ignored the opinions of some of his senior advisors.

His senior advisors wanted him to violate the constitution? What news channel are you watching? Not that I watch TV. It rots your brain, or so I've heard.

 

[jim hardy]

His senior advisors wanted him to violate the constitution? What news channel are you watching? Not that I watch TV. It rots your brain, or so I've heard.

CFR
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139457/andrew-j-tabler/syrias-collapse

To stop Syria’s meltdown and contain its mushrooming threats, the United States needs a new approach, one that starts with a partial military intervention aimed at pushing all sides to the negotiating table...

The United States should start by deterring the regime from using its most lethal tools, namely surface-to-surface missiles and chemical weapons. Such deterrence will require taking out the bombs filled with sarin gas that, according to The New York Times, were placed last year “near or on” Syrian air bases...

Second, to protect Syrians in opposition-controlled territory from attacks by the regime’s Scud missiles and fixed-wing aircraft, the United States should establish 50- to 80-mile-deep safe areas within Syria along its borders...


Third, Washington needs to work directly with opposition forces on the ground in Syria ...

sure 'nuff, that's been the mantra.