If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Congress, who have been harping on Obama to do something about Syria for the past year, are now all worried he's going to do something about Syria   (politico.com) divider line 123
    More: Stupid, Obama, congresses, CFR, California Republicans, boots on the ground, house intelligence committee, House Armed Services Committee  
•       •       •

790 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Aug 2013 at 8:51 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-27 08:33:54 AM
We will do nothing in Syria until the Russians step up to the plate. No more than we would intervene in Georgia or Kazastan or the Ukraine. It isn't our backyard. It isn't our concern. Does that suck? And for all the saber rattling, and calls to "action" even Congresscritters understand this. There's the narrative to be served, and then there's the harsh reality.
 
2013-08-27 08:38:05 AM
The problem here is that we're seeing much of the same pattern as Libya in Syria, and so it's possible to use basic extrapolation to determine the future course of events here. And they are, let me tell, you, worrying. For example, here's the basic, established event line in Libya:

Rebels begin to rise up against Khadafi > Khadafi begins to kick their asses > Obama launches air strikes against Khadafi > Rebels win > US ambassador killed in Benghazi > Administration cover-up creates single greatest scandal since Watergate and almost brings down Obama presidency.

Now, Syria is, as I said, following a similar pattern. However, everything is much more dangerous, because it's a bigger country and there are more people and, you know, chemical weapons. So, a simple extrapolative formula yields causes an event line that looks like this (* = future event).

Rebels begin to rise up against Bashar al-Assad > ls-Assad begins to kick their asses using chemical weapons > *Obama launches air strikes against al-Assad that accidentally strike a chemical weapons stockpile and release massive amounts of nerve gas across the country, killing millions of people including al-Assad > *Rebels and government troops join together in shock at Obama's chemical weapons strike and declare war on the US; a horrified world joins in > *US embassies are attacked around the globe, dozens of ambassadors are killed > *Administration tries to cover up attacks but the scale is too big and they declare martial law > *Constitution is revoked > *UN army invades to bring order, American armies cannot mount effective defense because of sequester-related budget cuts > *Obama signs International Treaty of the Caliphate, declaring America to be a province of Saudia Arabia and implementing Sharia Law in all 50 states.

I think most lawmakers just want to go into this with eyes wide open and prevent this sort of scenario.
 
2013-08-27 08:49:16 AM

Pocket Ninja: The problem here is that we're seeing much of the same pattern as Libya in Syria, and so it's possible to use basic extrapolation to determine the future course of events here. And they are, let me tell, you, worrying. For example, here's the basic, established event line in Libya:

Rebels begin to rise up against Khadafi > Khadafi begins to kick their asses > Obama launches air strikes against Khadafi > Rebels win > US ambassador killed in Benghazi > Administration cover-up creates single greatest scandal since Watergate and almost brings down Obama presidency.

Now, Syria is, as I said, following a similar pattern. However, everything is much more dangerous, because it's a bigger country and there are more people and, you know, chemical weapons. So, a simple extrapolative formula yields causes an event line that looks like this (* = future event).

Rebels begin to rise up against Bashar al-Assad > ls-Assad begins to kick their asses using chemical weapons > *Obama launches air strikes against al-Assad that accidentally strike a chemical weapons stockpile and release massive amounts of nerve gas across the country, killing millions of people including al-Assad > *Rebels and government troops join together in shock at Obama's chemical weapons strike and declare war on the US; a horrified world joins in > *US embassies are attacked around the globe, dozens of ambassadors are killed > *Administration tries to cover up attacks but the scale is too big and they declare martial law > *Constitution is revoked > *UN army invades to bring order, American armies cannot mount effective defense because of sequester-related budget cuts > *Obama signs International Treaty of the Caliphate, declaring America to be a province of Saudia Arabia and implementing Sharia Law in all 50 states.

I think most lawmakers just want to go into this with eyes wide open and prevent this sort of scenario.


That seems entirely possible.  Today was suppose to be happy and carefree.  Way to screw that up, PN.
 
2013-08-27 08:55:04 AM

Pocket Ninja: The problem here is that we're seeing much of the same pattern as Libya in Syria, and so it's possible to use basic extrapolation to determine the future course of events here. And they are, let me tell, you, worrying. For example, here's the basic, established event line in Libya:

Rebels begin to rise up against Khadafi > Khadafi begins to kick their asses > Obama launches air strikes against Khadafi > Rebels win > US ambassador killed in Benghazi > Administration cover-up creates single greatest scandal since Watergate and almost brings down Obama presidency.

Now, Syria is, as I said, following a similar pattern. However, everything is much more dangerous, because it's a bigger country and there are more people and, you know, chemical weapons. So, a simple extrapolative formula yields causes an event line that looks like this (* = future event).

Rebels begin to rise up against Bashar al-Assad > ls-Assad begins to kick their asses using chemical weapons > *Obama launches air strikes against al-Assad that accidentally strike a chemical weapons stockpile and release massive amounts of nerve gas across the country, killing millions of people including al-Assad > *Rebels and government troops join together in shock at Obama's chemical weapons strike and declare war on the US; a horrified world joins in > *US embassies are attacked around the globe, dozens of ambassadors are killed > *Administration tries to cover up attacks but the scale is too big and they declare martial law > *Constitution is revoked > *UN army invades to bring order, American armies cannot mount effective defense because of sequester-related budget cuts > *Obama signs International Treaty of the Caliphate, declaring America to be a province of Saudia Arabia and implementing Sharia Law in all 50 states.

I think most lawmakers just want to go into this with eyes wide open and prevent this sort of scenario.


you magnificent bastard.
 
2013-08-27 08:57:41 AM
God forbid he add yet another terrible dude to his already impressive trophy cabinet.
 
2013-08-27 08:57:56 AM
So, just like Libya then. Biatch at him for 'dithering' (or whatever the hell word they used), until he sends the military to help NATO, at which point he's BREAKING THE LAW WURST PRESIDENT EVAR IMPEEEEEEEEEACH
 
2013-08-27 08:58:41 AM
Will the peace prize winner carry us to war?  Will his doting followers ramp up the doublethink to justify the actions, like they've done with all his other Bushisms?

There's a damn good chance of it.
 
2013-08-27 08:59:43 AM
Sure makes that Egypt coup and funding question disappear from the news so not such a bad thing?
 
2013-08-27 09:01:44 AM
Because Obama opened his big yap and said we would do something if chemical weapons were used, we have to.

Bombing the shiat out of countries, while fun, ain't cheap.  I think it would be something we could cut down on.  When it comes to belt tightening entertainment should be the first thing cut.
 
2013-08-27 09:02:19 AM
He just following Bill Clinton model of shooting off a few cruise missiles and going back to bed.

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/khartoumbomb.html

Back when BC bombed an innocent aspirin factory in the Sudan.

Obama doesn't know what to do with Syria. (McCain is just plain nuts at this stage of his life.)

Fark it it's their Civil War or tribal /religious conflict . Let the Arab world be Arab until they get sick of it and finally change.
 
2013-08-27 09:02:33 AM
Great, now the price of Syrian bread is going to skyrocket.
 
2013-08-27 09:02:39 AM
That NSA stuff has gotten old, a new war is just the thing to help us move on.
 
2013-08-27 09:02:49 AM

LordJiro: So, just like Libya then. Biatch at him for 'dithering' (or whatever the hell word they used), until he sends the military to help NATO, at which point he's BREAKING THE LAW WURST PRESIDENT EVAR IMPEEEEEEEEEACH


I still giggle when I look back on that.  Thursday, Newt on Fox complaining about the President not doing enough for those poor Libyan rebels...

And Friday morning, complaining on Fox news about the President inserting us into another ME quagmire and supporting AQ affiliated rebels in Libya.

They will literally complain about whatever he decides to do, or not do, so it's best just to ignore the GOP and their shills.
 
2013-08-27 09:03:33 AM
There needs to be a Nobel War Prize.....we would dominate.....USA!USA! USA!
 
2013-08-27 09:03:58 AM

Pocket Ninja: The problem here is that we're seeing much of the same pattern as Libya in Syria, and so it's possible to use basic extrapolation to determine the future course of events here. And they are, let me tell, you, worrying. For example, here's the basic, established event line in Libya:

Rebels begin to rise up against Khadafi > Khadafi begins to kick their asses > Obama launches air strikes against Khadafi > Rebels win > US ambassador killed in Benghazi > Administration cover-up creates single greatest scandal since Watergate and almost brings down Obama presidency.

Now, Syria is, as I said, following a similar pattern. However, everything is much more dangerous, because it's a bigger country and there are more people and, you know, chemical weapons. So, a simple extrapolative formula yields causes an event line that looks like this (* = future event).

Rebels begin to rise up against Bashar al-Assad > ls-Assad begins to kick their asses using chemical weapons > *Obama launches air strikes against al-Assad that accidentally strike a chemical weapons stockpile and release massive amounts of nerve gas across the country, killing millions of people including al-Assad > *Rebels and government troops join together in shock at Obama's chemical weapons strike and declare war on the US; a horrified world joins in > *US embassies are attacked around the globe, dozens of ambassadors are killed > *Administration tries to cover up attacks but the scale is too big and they declare martial law > *Constitution is revoked > *UN army invades to bring order, American armies cannot mount effective defense because of sequester-related budget cuts > *Obama signs International Treaty of the Caliphate, declaring America to be a province of Saudia Arabia and implementing Sharia Law in all 50 states.

I think most lawmakers just want to go into this with eyes wide open and prevent this sort of scenario.


Stop being brilliant. You're giving me an inferiority complex.
 
2013-08-27 09:04:51 AM
Whatever Obama does, the GOP is against doing it.
 
2013-08-27 09:06:05 AM
Well duh. They're supposed to be AGAINST Obama. Regardless if he shares the same stance as they do.
 
2013-08-27 09:08:49 AM

Pocket Ninja: Obama signs International Treaty of the Caliphate, declaring America to be a province of Saudia Arabia and implementing Sharia Law in all 50 states


You're forgetting about the ban on Sharia in Oklahoma.  Sure it may have been struck down by the Federal courts, but the visionaries in OK are fast on track to implement a law to ignore Federal law when it suits their interest.
 
2013-08-27 09:15:44 AM
Invading Iraq on the pretext of fictional chemical weapons was AOK.

Military involvement in Syria due to the actual use of chemical weapons would be an outrage.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 09:15:51 AM
Does Obama suffer from multiple personalities?

Sometimes he seems to be George W. Bush with a different skin tone.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 09:16:31 AM

Wyalt Derp: Invading Iraq on the pretext of fictional chemical weapons was AOK.

Military involvement in Syria due to the actual use of chemical weapons would be an outrage.


"He's not my president" syndrome.

Anyway, are you asking the GOP to be philosophically consistent?  That doesn't happen.
 
2013-08-27 09:17:07 AM
So if Obama makes Congress vote on military action in Syria, this will create a black hole of unpopularity so dense, even light cannot escape?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 09:18:38 AM

Arkanaut: So if Obama makes Congress vote on military action in Syria, this will create a black hole of unpopularity so dense, even light cannot escape?


If it is possible for a group of people to have a negative approval rating we are going to see it in this Congress.
 
2013-08-27 09:20:38 AM

hubiestubert: We will do nothing in Syria until the Russians step up to the plate. No more than we would intervene in Georgia or Kazastan or the Ukraine. It isn't our backyard. It isn't our concern. Does that suck? And for all the saber rattling, and calls to "action" even Congresscritters understand this. There's the narrative to be served, and then there's the harsh reality.



http://gawker.com/obama-orders-release-of-report-justifying-air-strik e -in-1205362037

Sometime in the next day or two, the Obama administration will release a declassified report justifying a U.S. military strike in Syria, according to CBS News. The news comes just hours after Secretary of State John Kerry held a press conference in which he described last week's chemical attacks in Syria as an "obscenity" that "defy any code of morality."

The CBS News report describes a meeting of Obama's national security team that took place on Saturday. The meeting reportedly included "detailed analysis" of evidence about the chemical attacks that provides "a near air-tight circumstantial case that the Syrian regime was behind it."

From CBS News:

There was no debate at the Saturday meeting that a military response is necessary. Obama ordered up legal justifications for a military strike, should he order one, outside of the United Nations Security Council. That process is well underway, and particular emphasis is being placed on alleged violations of the Geneva Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.
And if/when Obama launches an attack, the U.S. is already well-positioned; there are four Navy warships stationed in the eastern Mediterranean, on-call to launch cruise missiles within hours of receiving Obama's orders, and a British submarine is reportedly stationed nearby. Any strike would likely be limited in scope, according to a report in the New York Times

Administration officials said that although President Obama had not made a final decision on military action, he was likely to order a limited military operation - cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea at military targets in Syria, for example - and not a sustained air campaign intended to topple Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, or to fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict on the ground
.
 
2013-08-27 09:21:49 AM

Wyalt Derp: Invading Iraq on the pretext of fictional chemical weapons was AOK.

Military involvement in Syria due to the actual use of chemical weapons would be an outrage.


The invited the UN Security Team in to investigate. Why jump the gun now?
 
2013-08-27 09:22:18 AM
There needs to be a cohesive and coherent anti-war movement.in this country.  "If he's fer, I'm agin it" isn't good enough.

Of course, it doesn't matter in the short run.  We're going to war.  UN inspectors be damned.  Political solutions be damned.  We have a viable excuse to kill people in the Middle East and take control of their oil, so that's what's going to happen.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 09:22:45 AM

phenn: Wyalt Derp: Invading Iraq on the pretext of fictional chemical weapons was AOK.

Military involvement in Syria due to the actual use of chemical weapons would be an outrage.

The invited the UN Security Team in to investigate. Why jump the gun now?


1.bp.blogspot.com

Good one!
 
2013-08-27 09:22:47 AM

d23: If it is possible for a group of people to have a negative approval rating we are going to see it in this Congress.


Wouldn't "negative approval" simply be called "opposition"?

//An Opposition Rating would be interesting.
 
2013-08-27 09:25:44 AM
I just want to live long enough to see a US president say "fark 'em, let someone else sort this shiat out."
 
2013-08-27 09:27:01 AM
You know, I'd be more inclined to agree with the whole "we're really really close to actually going to war again!" if we haven't been hearing that for over a year now.
 
2013-08-27 09:27:21 AM
Perhaps it's time for a walking nuclear barrage across several mid-eastern cities, just to let them know we're all sick of this endless shiat.
Get their attention and then tell them to calm the fark down or there will be more thermonuclear fun.
 
2013-08-27 09:31:03 AM
The neocons will have their war. Always.
 
2013-08-27 09:33:55 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Perhaps it's time for a walking nuclear barrage across several mid-eastern cities, just to let them know we're all sick of this endless shiat.
Get their attention and then tell them to calm the fark down or there will be more thermonuclear fun.


I'm sure that would go over well globally.
Let Obama go back on his word and let the ME sort out their own shiat.
 
2013-08-27 09:34:17 AM
Goddamnit. We do not need to start a war in Syria. We do not need to bomb Syria. We do not need to do anything in Syria. Everything there is completely FUBAR on both sides. Let the two sides commit mass atrocities on each other and figure their own shiat out.
 
2013-08-27 09:35:03 AM

d23: phenn: Wyalt Derp: Invading Iraq on the pretext of fictional chemical weapons was AOK.

Military involvement in Syria due to the actual use of chemical weapons would be an outrage.

The invited the UN Security Team in to investigate. Why jump the gun now?

[232x273 from http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UAzEooLfuI8/RpLjddsnEXI/AAAAAAAAAmM/7VFBPfff 0kU/s320/BushLaughing-Right.jpg image 232x273]

Good one!


My point exactly. It's wrong no matter who's doing it. Why are people so quiet?
 
2013-08-27 09:35:42 AM

hubiestubert: We will do nothing in Syria until the Russians step up to the plate. No more than we would intervene in Georgia or Kazastan or the Ukraine. It isn't our backyard. It isn't our concern. Does that suck? And for all the saber rattling, and calls to "action" even Congresscritters understand this. There's the narrative to be served, and then there's the harsh reality.


Complicating factor is that it's Turkey's backyard.
 
2013-08-27 09:36:51 AM

Pocket Ninja: The problem here is that we're seeing much of the same pattern as Libya in Syria, and so it's possible to use basic extrapolation to determine the future course of events here. And they are, let me tell, you, worrying. For example, here's the basic, established event line in Libya:

Rebels begin to rise up against Khadafi > Khadafi begins to kick their asses > Obama launches air strikes against Khadafi > Rebels win > US ambassador killed in Benghazi > Administration cover-up creates single greatest scandal since Watergate and almost brings down Obama presidency.

Now, Syria is, as I said, following a similar pattern. However, everything is much more dangerous, because it's a bigger country and there are more people and, you know, chemical weapons. So, a simple extrapolative formula yields causes an event line that looks like this (* = future event).

Rebels begin to rise up against Bashar al-Assad > ls-Assad begins to kick their asses using chemical weapons > *Obama launches air strikes against al-Assad that accidentally strike a chemical weapons stockpile and release massive amounts of nerve gas across the country, killing millions of people including al-Assad > *Rebels and government troops join together in shock at Obama's chemical weapons strike and declare war on the US; a horrified world joins in > *US embassies are attacked around the globe, dozens of ambassadors are killed > *Administration tries to cover up attacks but the scale is too big and they declare martial law > *Constitution is revoked > *UN army invades to bring order, American armies cannot mount effective defense because of sequester-related budget cuts > *Obama signs International Treaty of the Caliphate, declaring America to be a province of Saudia Arabia and implementing Sharia Law in all 50 states.

I think most lawmakers just want to go into this with eyes wide open and prevent this sort of scenario.


If I left my wife would you gay-marry me?
 
2013-08-27 09:37:56 AM
Remember the good ol' days, when you could just bang the war drums by demonizing the despot of the moment and the country would rally around your military adventures?

I blams Buuuuuuuuush. He ruined war.
 
2013-08-27 09:38:36 AM

Satanic_Hamster: hubiestubert: We will do nothing in Syria until the Russians step up to the plate. No more than we would intervene in Georgia or Kazastan or the Ukraine. It isn't our backyard. It isn't our concern. Does that suck? And for all the saber rattling, and calls to "action" even Congresscritters understand this. There's the narrative to be served, and then there's the harsh reality.

Complicating factor is that it's Turkey's backyard.


Turkey's proximity is probably the thing that'll convince the Russians to step up to the plate.

Turkey is a member of the EU, as I understand it, as well as a member of NATO and 'that' puts a lot of pressure on Russia to rein in Syria, lest Turkey feels strongly enough about things to call upon NATO nations to support them in keeping their own nation stable.
 
2013-08-27 09:40:05 AM

Koaltrain: He just following Bill Clinton model of shooting off a few cruise missiles and going back to bed.

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/khartoumbomb.html

Back when BC bombed an innocent aspirin factory in the Sudan.

Obama doesn't know what to do with Syria. (McCain is just plain nuts at this stage of his life.)

Fark it it's their Civil War or tribal /religious conflict . Let the Arab world be Arab until they get sick of it and finally change.


Do you mean when BC started trying to go after Alqueada in Afghanistan by targeting their training camps, and the republicans went batshiat crazy, claimed he was trying to wag the dog and distract from the issues (there was even a movie made about it!), that terrorism wasn't a real threat, and promptly dismantled Bill's attempts at creating an anti-terrorism apparatus when they got the presidency?

You suuureeeeee you want to talk about that? 'Cause it's not like anything bad happened about 9 months later.
 
2013-08-27 09:42:42 AM

Infernalist: Turkey's proximity is probably the thing that'll convince the Russians to step up to the plate.

Turkey is a member of the EU, as I understand it, as well as a member of NATO and 'that' puts a lot of pressure on Russia to rein in Syria, lest Turkey feels strongly enough about things to call upon NATO nations to support them in keeping their own nation stable.


Also Turkey is a big trading partner of Syria, has a LOT of f'ing Syrian refugees in their country now, and is getting tired of Syria's bullshiat.  They're also not happy about the occasional deaths occurring in their country due to the civil war or from Syria downing one of their jets.
 
2013-08-27 09:45:57 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Infernalist: Turkey's proximity is probably the thing that'll convince the Russians to step up to the plate.

Turkey is a member of the EU, as I understand it, as well as a member of NATO and 'that' puts a lot of pressure on Russia to rein in Syria, lest Turkey feels strongly enough about things to call upon NATO nations to support them in keeping their own nation stable.

Also Turkey is a big trading partner of Syria, has a LOT of f'ing Syrian refugees in their country now, and is getting tired of Syria's bullshiat.  They're also not happy about the occasional deaths occurring in their country due to the civil war or from Syria downing one of their jets.


It comes down to Russia, still.  We're not going to get involved.  I trust that Obama is sane enough to realize what that would do to the region, to his own Presidency and to the world at large.

Obama did a great job with Libya, but this is like the anti-Libya in terms of support and the players involved...
 
2013-08-27 09:46:10 AM

Infernalist: Satanic_Hamster: hubiestubert: We will do nothing in Syria until the Russians step up to the plate. No more than we would intervene in Georgia or Kazastan or the Ukraine. It isn't our backyard. It isn't our concern. Does that suck? And for all the saber rattling, and calls to "action" even Congresscritters understand this. There's the narrative to be served, and then there's the harsh reality.

Complicating factor is that it's Turkey's backyard.

Turkey's proximity is probably the thing that'll convince the Russians to step up to the plate.

Turkey is a member of the EU, as I understand it, as well as a member of NATO and 'that' puts a lot of pressure on Russia to rein in Syria, lest Turkey feels strongly enough about things to call upon NATO nations to support them in keeping their own nation stable.


The State Dept. has postponed tomorrow's scheduled peace talks with Russia indefinitely.  The warships are already in position.  They're not interested in having Russia rein in Syria.
 
2013-08-27 09:47:02 AM

Serious Black: Goddamnit. We do not need to start a war in Syria.


I think it's already started.


We do not need to bomb Syria. We do not need to do anything in Syria. Everything there is completely FUBAR on both sides. Let the two sides commit mass atrocities on each other and figure their own shiat out.

Counterpoint: would it not, in the long term, make the world a better place if we made it so that using chemical weapons on civilians incurs such a heavy military penalty from the civilised nations of the world that nobody who wants to remain in power would ever consider doing so again?
 
2013-08-27 09:47:41 AM

Infernalist: It comes down to Russia, still. We're not going to get involved. I trust that Obama is sane enough to realize what that would do to the region, to his own Presidency and to the world at large.

Obama did a great job with Libya, but this is like the anti-Libya in terms of support and the players involved...


More thinking it's a lot like Libya.  NATO opp with all member countries good to go, plus Arab League support.
 
2013-08-27 09:48:19 AM

imontheinternet: Infernalist: Satanic_Hamster: hubiestubert: We will do nothing in Syria until the Russians step up to the plate. No more than we would intervene in Georgia or Kazastan or the Ukraine. It isn't our backyard. It isn't our concern. Does that suck? And for all the saber rattling, and calls to "action" even Congresscritters understand this. There's the narrative to be served, and then there's the harsh reality.

Complicating factor is that it's Turkey's backyard.

Turkey's proximity is probably the thing that'll convince the Russians to step up to the plate.

Turkey is a member of the EU, as I understand it, as well as a member of NATO and 'that' puts a lot of pressure on Russia to rein in Syria, lest Turkey feels strongly enough about things to call upon NATO nations to support them in keeping their own nation stable.

The State Dept. has postponed tomorrow's scheduled peace talks with Russia indefinitely.  The warships are already in position.  They're not interested in having Russia rein in Syria.


Just because 'you' don't see it happening doesn't mean it's not happening.  Russia really can't let themselves be seen as being dictated to by the West.  Any diplomacy going on right now is going on behind the scenes.  As should be expected by this point.
 
2013-08-27 09:54:41 AM

Infernalist: imontheinternet: Infernalist: Satanic_Hamster: hubiestubert: We will do nothing in Syria until the Russians step up to the plate. No more than we would intervene in Georgia or Kazastan or the Ukraine. It isn't our backyard. It isn't our concern. Does that suck? And for all the saber rattling, and calls to "action" even Congresscritters understand this. There's the narrative to be served, and then there's the harsh reality.

Complicating factor is that it's Turkey's backyard.

Turkey's proximity is probably the thing that'll convince the Russians to step up to the plate.

Turkey is a member of the EU, as I understand it, as well as a member of NATO and 'that' puts a lot of pressure on Russia to rein in Syria, lest Turkey feels strongly enough about things to call upon NATO nations to support them in keeping their own nation stable.

The State Dept. has postponed tomorrow's scheduled peace talks with Russia indefinitely.  The warships are already in position.  They're not interested in having Russia rein in Syria.

Just because 'you' don't see it happening doesn't mean it's not happening.  Russia really can't let themselves be seen as being dictated to by the West.  Any diplomacy going on right now is going on behind the scenes.  As should be expected by this point.


IDK.  US-Russian relations are as bad now as they have been since the end of the Cold War.  After Snowden, I don't think DC, specifically the MIC, is very interested in letting Putin resolve the situation and increase his influence in the region.  Attacking Syria gives access to oil of course, but also rattles Iran and slaps Russia in the face.
 
2013-08-27 09:55:55 AM
If the U.S. stayed away, I could easily see Russia and a few other nations deciding the winner of this conflict.
And I wonder if that is the real reason we are getting involved.

If our goal is to undermine Russia and its allies in the region then our actions seem a bit more rational.
 
2013-08-27 09:57:41 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Infernalist: It comes down to Russia, still. We're not going to get involved. I trust that Obama is sane enough to realize what that would do to the region, to his own Presidency and to the world at large.

Obama did a great job with Libya, but this is like the anti-Libya in terms of support and the players involved...

More thinking it's a lot like Libya.  NATO opp with all member countries good to go, plus Arab League support.


One problem: Syria has NO endgame.  The Libyans were rather unique in that they put genuine effort into the post-revolution well before it was over.  There was an interim government set-up and in the process of re-establishing basic institutions before Khaddafi went Kaput.

Syria not only has no endgame, it has negative endgame.  You have competing revolutionary groups that range from completely secular to far far right reactionary fundamentalist.  The one thing keeping them from full-scale war with one another is Assad's regime.  Once you have the common enemy reduced, or on the way out you have a very high likelihood of all the regional powers fighting it out to consolidate their own power or install themselves as Assad 2.0 in their little fiefdoms.

Syria is the definition of a lose-lose proposition.  Maybe I am too pessimistic, but there is no good end to that conflict.  The extent of US involvement should be destruction of the chemical weapons themselves, delivery systems, and some inner circle command control assets.  After that, get out, stay out.  There is no "victory" here.
 
2013-08-27 09:57:57 AM

Wyalt Derp: Serious Black: Goddamnit. We do not need to start a war in Syria.

I think it's already started.


Yeah, yeah, it's

We do not need to bomb Syria. We do not need to do anything in Syria. Everything there is completely FUBAR on both sides. Let the two sides commit mass atrocities on each other and figure their own shiat out.

Counterpoint: would it not, in the long term, make the world a better place if we made it so that using chemical weapons on civilians incurs such a heavy military penalty from the civilised nations of the world that nobody who wants to remain in power would ever consider doing so again?


What about the penalty for using conventional weapons on civilians? There have been many more people slaughtered in Syria by guns, missiles, bombs, and the like than have been killed using anything from the CBRNE domain. Are the lives of the few people whose instrument of murder was sarin more important and justificatory of military action than the many people whose instrument of murder was a more traditional weapon?
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report