Syria

[rene]

Obama just said, "I have approved military action" then he said "This decision is better if approved by the American people, through their representatives in Congress, so I'll seek authorization before launching."

 

For those here who may not be familiar with US gov/pol maneuverings - this is a first. That aside, this is all so convoluted and crazy now - I don't know wtf is going to happen next, and I would really like to hear all of your thoughts.

 

Mine so far are this.

 

1. Obama blinked. He drew a red-line with no idea what to do if it were crossed.

 

2. If both houses of Congress (one held by Obama's party, the other by his opposition) fail to give authorization, does he launch the strike anyway? Or does he not launch, only to try to give (his party) political cover for 2014 elections?

 

3. If the US launches - what is the outcome of a tiny slap on the wrist? (Which is what it would be to Assad, all the deaths notwithstanding)

 

4. What happens post-launch? Syria attacks Israel, Israel launches, Iran jumps in...how long does Russia sit on the sidelines?

 

Those are just a few of everyone's many questions so far...

 

Any thoughts from anyone here would be more than appreciated.

 

Thanks.

Edited August 31, 2013 by rene

[Marblehead]

It is my opinion that this is another mistake being made. The same mistake as with Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

 

There is only one other country giving us public support to get involved in Syria, and that is, ironically, France.

 

Yes, the president has the power and authority to direct military action without congress' approval. But any extended action must then be funded and for this the president needs congress' approval.

 

Syria is a protectorate of Russia. Russia has war ships in the area. I would doubt they would intentionally get involved but accidents happen.

 

What is going on in Syria is a civil war. We have no business getting involved in it.

[Chang]

I have no idea what may happen but if past experience is anything to go by it will probably be something that makes matters worse.

 

I must say that I am pleased that the U.K. Parliament has voted to keep out of it at the moment. As Marblehead says the French are sabre rattling and are right behind the U.S. That will be interesting.

[Thunder_Gooch]

[Thunder_Gooch]

 

4. What happens post-launch?

We get to figure out which religion was right.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2013 by More_Pie_Guy

[Aetherous]

I can see both points of view here...I think it's a huge mess if we get involved, but I also think we'd be wrong (as the world's military superpower) to sit aside and watch a chemical weapon genocide of innocent civilians occur. I hope the decision is a very strategic one.

[Thunder_Gooch]

We aren't there to help the people, if that were the case we'd be in Africa, and North Korea.

 

Strange we only get to help "liberate" these countries which have oil. If it wasn't for Syria's oil or pipelines we wouldn't be interested in "liberating" them.

[Thunder_Gooch]

[Thunder_Gooch]

General Wesley Clark reveals the US plan to invade and take over 7 countries, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran, before we even invaded Afghanistan. The first part of the plan was revealed 10 days after 9/11 and was expanded to included the other nations. Clark is quoted as saying the invasion wasn't based on links to Al-Queda or any other intelligence reports but just because the US has an army that is great at taking over other nations.

[Aetherous]

We are in Africa.

[Apech]

I have no idea what may happen but if past experience is anything to go by it will probably be something that makes matters worse.

 

I must say that I am pleased that the U.K. Parliament has voted to keep out of it at the moment. As Marblehead says the French are sabre rattling and are right behind the U.S. That will be interesting.

 

 

What's even more pleasing is that the UK GOVt. wanted to take military action and was voted down by Parliament .. I know you say that but I wanted to make the distinction.

[Thunder_Gooch]

We are in Africa.

 

LOLWUT?

 

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

 

Edited August 31, 2013 by More_Pie_Guy

[rene]

What's even more pleasing is that the UK GOVt. wanted to take military action and was voted down by Parliament .. I know you say that but I wanted to make the distinction.

 

I wonder if their initial delays re ww2 (hitler) factor into this at all for them now. I know the wmd issue is playing into it over here.

[rene]

I can see both points of view here...I think it's a huge mess if we get involved, but I also think we'd be wrong (as the world's military superpower) to sit aside and watch a chemical weapon genocide of innocent civilians occur. I hope the decision is a very strategic one.

 

Can you even create/imagine what a good decision might be? I cant, and that's whats got me tossed in this. All outcomes are horrid, imo. Even the cleanest (assad assassination) would leave the region shattered. This one will be hard to watch, from anywhere.

[Apech]

I wonder if their initial delays re ww2 (hitler) factor into this at all for them now. I know the wmd issue is playing into it over here.

 

Whose delays? the americans? they were late for both world wars (but still glad they arrived ). I think the UK reaction is because of the Iraq war and the lies told about wmds and so on ... people don't want to be conned twice .. also Libya was a mess ... there is no enthusiasm for intervention at all whereas once it was thought sometimes a good thing (eg. Kosovo).

[rene]

It is my opinion that this is another mistake being made. The same mistake as with Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

 

There is only one other country giving us public support to get involved in Syria, and that is, ironically, France.

 

Yes, the president has the power and authority to direct military action without congress' approval. But any extended action must then be funded and for this the president needs congress' approval.

 

Syria is a protectorate of Russia. Russia has war ships in the area. I would doubt they would intentionally get involved but accidents happen.

 

What is going on in Syria is a civil war. We have no business getting involved in it.

 

Pres doesn't have the authority unless threat to US is imminent. What those terms mean specifically vary - but that he's delayed launch for two weeks seeking approval - neutralizes the legal "imminent" argument, regardless of terms. You're right re extended action funding.

 

Agree re mistake, I think whatever is chosen to do or not do will be a mistake.

[rene]

Whose delays? the americans? they were late for both world wars (but still glad they arrived ). I think the UK reaction is because of the Iraq war and the lies told about wmds and so on ... people don't want to be conned twice .. also Libya was a mess ... there is no enthusiasm for intervention at all whereas once it was thought sometimes a good thing (eg. Kosovo).

 

no, sorry, i meant the brits hesitation re doing something about hitler in early days. doing "what" exactly, I dont know... but it feels like a similar kind of "what" now, with assad. agree re no enthusiasm; little sign of that over here, either.

[Aetherous]

Can you even create/imagine what a good decision might be? I cant, and that's whats got me tossed in this. All outcomes are horrid, imo. Even the cleanest (assad assassination) would leave the region shattered. This one will be hard to watch, from anywhere.

 

Sounds like Obama's plan is just to slap Assad on the wrist and disable him from using chemical weapons, with some targeted strikes. I guess that's the best option which could come to mind.

 

Taking out Assad would just create a vaccuum that Al Qaeda would easily fill.

 

I hope there is a better decision than any of this, though.

[Aetherous]

 

LOLWUT?

 

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

 

 

Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source; the graphic may also be confusing since Africa is a continent and not a country. Google it...the information is very easy to find. I mean for one thing, we have the AFRICOM webpage. Here's another source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/27/us-usa-africa-military-idUSBRE95Q1EZ20130627

 

From that website:

 

"Nevertheless, with some 4,000-5,000 personnel on the ground at any given time, the United States now has more troops in Africa than at any point since its Somalia intervention two decades ago."

 

Besides the fact that we always have special operations units literally everywhere, lol.

Edited August 31, 2013 by turtle shell

[Apech]

no, sorry, i meant the brits hesitation re doing something about hitler in early days. doing "what" exactly, I dont know... but it feels like a similar kind of "what" now, with assad. agree re no enthusiasm; little sign of that over here, either.

 

Well there was some hesitation over Czechoslovakia but we did not hesitate over Poland (1939)... but the US hesitated till 1943 ... I don't see the connection with this situation ... has Syria invaded neighbouring countries? No. So no the attitude in the UK has nothing to do with WWII ....

 

The issue is more about whether we are a) the worlds policeman and b ) even if we are what constitutes effective intervention. the lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya have to be learned sooner or later.

[rene]

We get to figure out which religion was right.

 

There's an old sentiment from back in the cold war days, 'Nuke em' all, let God sort them out.'

 

Folks thought those times were dangerous. Every generation thinks their times are dangerous.

 

With the dependance, now, on frail computerized methodology, and the technology to defeat it dispersed globally, traditional war craft is only part of what is dangerous.

 

I hope you're wrong, MPG. I truly do.

[Thunder_Gooch]

 

Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source. Google it...the information is very easy to find. I mean for one thing, we have the AFRICOM webpage. Here's another source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/27/us-usa-africa-military-idUSBRE95Q1EZ20130627

 

From that website:

 

 

Besides the fact that we always have special operations units literally everywhere, lol.

 

 

 

I think you lack perspective here:

 

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20120608/NEWS/206080317/3-000-soldiers-serve-Africa-next-year

 

3000 troops for the continent of Africa, 63,000 troops for the speck of dirt called Afghanistan.

 

We have more troops in Germany or Japan than we do the whole continent of Africa.

 

We have kept our nose out of North Korea's human rights abuses.

 

It's pretty easy to see what this is all about, it's about oil. If you think otherwise you are just being Naive.

 

We like to spin things as humanitarian missions, but really we never go to war unless it is in our own best interest to do so.

 

Don't kid yourself.

Edited August 31, 2013 by More_Pie_Guy

[Aetherous]

It's pretty easy to see what this is all about, it's about oil. If you think otherwise your just being Naive.

 

We like to spin things as humanitarian missions, but really we never go to war unless it is in our own best interest to do so.

 

Don't kid yourself.

 

What you say has merit sometimes.

[rene]

Well there was some hesitation over Czechoslovakia but we did not hesitate over Poland (1939)... but the US hesitated till 1943 ... I don't see the connection with this situation ... has Syria invaded neighbouring countries? No. So no the attitude in the UK has nothing to do with WWII ....

 

Right, right. The only connection I meant to make was past hesitations influencing today's timings - nothing more specific than that intended. Sorry I was so unclear.

 

The issue is more about whether we are a) the worlds policeman and b ) even if we are what constitutes effective intervention. the lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya have to be learned sooner or later.

 

How does one stop? It's so ingrained now....both the west's providing and the other's receiving.

 

There was a report on CNN? recently from inside one of the refugee camps just over the border..and they showed a 10-yr old Syrian girl saying through the translator "Where is Obama? We need help now!. We will grow up saying Obama refused to help us." I'm like..aw.. you gotta be kidding. Now there's a sense of entitlement?? The US is supposed to provide everything to everybody?? This is a hard pattern to break -but it will break, and it will be a complete break - because just in case nobody's noticed, the backs of the US taxpayers are just about broken.

Edited August 31, 2013 by rene

[rene]

HEY MPG - please put the name of who you are talking/replying to at the top of your post. Some of us old folks (me) gets confused. Thanks!

 

edit - like just now. I didn't see the quote from TS in your post. sigh...sorry

Edited August 31, 2013 by rene