The mess in Syria

[weso1]

I partially made this thread for sturg, but I actually had a conspiracy thought about this whole chemical gas thing.

Assad get let out of prison and then maybe a couple of days later this chemical attack occurs. It just seems like interesting timing here. I don't get the benefit from Assad's point of view of gassing the rebels. Assad has to have a little bit of sense. He has to know that US, France, etc. will probably get involved now. Either someone else wants the US to get involved here, Assad wants the US to get involved or there is just no control over the situation at all right now from anyone.

[thethe]

US cannot go into Syria alone. This is either a total world effort or none at all. We do not need another Iraq.

[sturg33]

We are going to Syria because they are threatening to break away from the dollar in oil trading. Much like we do in all of our wars.

This will likely start a world war. US, France, and Britan are all lining up against Russia, China, Syria, and Iran. It is going to be a mess.

[zitothebrave]

US cannot go into Syria alone. This is either a total world effort or none at all. We do not need another Iraq.

We can take care of Syria but do it the American way. Kick ass and leave. We're not the Chinese, Brits, or Russians, we don't have an occupying army. We're a run in mess everyone's **** up and they pay us back for recovery. If we kicked Syria's ass they acted up again and we kicked their ass again, eventually they'll learn their lesson.

[thethe]

We can take care of Syria but do it the American way. Kick ass and leave. We're not the Chinese, Brits, or Russians, we don't have an occupying army. We're a run in mess everyone's **** up and they pay us back for recovery. If we kicked Syria's ass they acted up again and we kicked their ass again, eventually they'll learn their lesson.

No thanks. YOu can't just destabilize a country and leave. Either the world commits to fixing it or just stay out.

[zitothebrave]

It's what America does best. Is it in the best human love story fashion? No but it's what we do best, kick ass and take names.

[Julio3000]

We are going to Syria because they are threatening to break away from the dollar in oil trading. Much like we do in all of our wars.

This will likely start a world war. US, France, and Britan are all lining up against Russia, China, Syria, and Iran. It is going to be a mess.

This word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[sturg33]

This word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Fine. This could start a world war.

[zitothebrave]

China will not start a war with the US they have too much riding on western money. If they go to war with us it will ruin them financially.

[thethe]

China will not start a war with the US they have too much riding on western money. If they go to war with us it will ruin them financially.

China will crumble eventually.

[zitothebrave]

China will crumble eventually.

At some point yes, because their people will revolt, but until then they're sitting pretty because their government essentially manipulates both it's people and their currency to make China the most attractive place to manufacture goods.

[Julio3000]

China will crumble eventually.

You'd be amazed at how long ceramics will last.

[sturg33]

Yahoo Article from 1/31/2013 states "US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt'"

http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html

London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.

A new report, that contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme 'approved by Washington'.

As per the scheme 'Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons,' the Daily Mail reports.

Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.

According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.

The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.

According to the paper, the U.S. State Department has declined to comment on the matter.

[Julio3000]

I hope nobody in White House would give green signal to such a harebrained scheme.

[weso1]

I hope nobody in White House would give green signal to such a harebrained scheme.

Don't underestimate the potential of Bo as the evil mastermind behind this whole thing. Although he prefers that you call it a furbrained scheme... or maybe that should be a dogbrained scheme now that I think about it. But either way what a son of a bitch.

[CK86]

If the U.S. does go to war with Syria, will the Democrats finally admit that Obama is just Bush's third and fourth term? Seriously, dude is doing everything he can to advance the Bush agenda, it sucks.

[yeezus]

If the U.S. does go to war with Syria, will the Democrats finally admit that Obama is just Bush's third and fourth term? Seriously, dude is doing everything he can to advance the Bush agenda, it sucks.

I think it's already proven it doesn't matter what party we elect, they all have similar overall goals - extend government power and become more wealthy. There is a company line in Washington and the POTUS isn't exempt from it. Sure, they differ on some things, but they are basically the same at the core. Until we somehow get a 3rd party candidate in there that will attemot (and likely fail) to totally turn things, it won't matter.

I don't believe we have as much choice and power as people as politicians like to say. Something drastic will need to happen in the next 30-40 years.

[sturg33]

Yahoo Article from 1/31/2013 states "US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt'"

http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html

London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.

A new report, that contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme 'approved by Washington'.

As per the scheme 'Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons,' the Daily Mail reports.

Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.

According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.

The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.

According to the paper, the U.S. State Department has declined to comment on the matter.


Nobody else thinks it's odd that this was written about in January and it has played out exactly so?

[CK86]

The problem with the article is simply because of the source - infowars. It's hard to take anything sourced by them seriously.

[bravesnumberone]

So basically we're going to be fighting on Al Qaeda's side on this. Cool....

[sturg33]

The problem with the article is simply because of the source - infowars. It's hard to take anything sourced by them seriously.

Haha. But it was sourced 9 months ago. And what they said would happen has happened!

[CK86]

Haha. But it was sourced 9 months ago. And what they said would happen has happened!

Some of what they report has legitimacy to it don't get me wrong. It's just more often than not, everything they report upon is part of some vast conspiracy.

[Julio3000]

So basically we're going to be fighting on Al Qaeda's side on this. Cool....

Against Hezbollah. Foreign policying is hard, innit?

[weso1]

Haha. But it was sourced 9 months ago. And what they said would happen has happened!

There's zero evidence that is true. If they just said that "Syria will use chemical weapons" then it would be true. But they said that the US would be behind its use. There's no evidence of that.

[thethe]

There's zero evidence that is true. If they just said that "Syria will use chemical weapons" then it would be true. But they said that the US would be behind its use. There's no evidence of that.

I mean it would have been impossible to forsee a dictator doing everything possible to hold onto power right?

Infowars knew it from the beginning! If they print it...it has to be right!

[CK86]

Supposedly there's a poll from Reuters saying 91% of those polled were against another war. So glad we're going to attack!

[CK86]

I mean it would have been impossible to forsee a dictator doing everything possible to hold onto power right?

To be fair, it makes absolutely zero sense for Assad to use chemical weapons given he knows that it'll likely bring about US military involvement. If he uses the weapons, he's guaranteed to be gone from power. It makes no sense for him or his administration to use them.

[thethe]

To be fair, it makes absolutely zero sense for Assad to use chemical weapons given he knows that it'll likely bring about US military involvement. If he uses the weapons, he's guaranteed to be gone from power. It makes no sense for him or his administration to use them.

While that might be true, dictators in power don't always make rationale decisions. Maybe he feels the backing of China/Russia is enough to avoid conflict with other powers. Maybe he was instructed to do it from other powers in the region to draw the Western Powers in. We have no clue what is going on and for infowars to assume they do is foolish. Of course, tin foil guys are going to believe WHATEVER INFOWARS SAYS!

[weso1]

To be fair, it makes absolutely zero sense for Assad to use chemical weapons given he knows that it'll likely bring about US military involvement. If he uses the weapons, he's guaranteed to be gone from power. It makes no sense for him or his administration to use them.

I agree with that, but you can't go from that to... well Obama and the US must be behind it.

[CK86]

I agree with that, but you can't go from that to... well Obama and the US must be behind it.

I agree it's quite the leap. With that said, I do find it unusual though with how quick they're reacting to it. It seems like they're approaching it as if this is their window of opportunity and they have to take it or they won't get a chance again. That part makes me feel a bit uneasy aside from the fact I just hate going to war in general.

[goldfly]

https://sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/995991_616489251728518_545349874_n.jpg

[The Chosen One]

Kind of hilarious that this violence has been going on in Syria for roughly 2 years and every few months we're "closer" to stepping in, and now it seems like now is the time.

[Metaphysicist]

This will likely start a world war. US, France, and Britan are all lining up against Russia, China, Syria, and Iran. It is going to be a mess.

I think we should start a Chopcountry wiki just to track all the predictions people make.

[thethe]

I agree it's quite the leap. With that said, I do find it unusual though with how quick they're reacting to it. It seems like they're approaching it as if this is their window of opportunity and they have to take it or they won't get a chance again. That part makes me feel a bit uneasy aside from the fact I just hate going to war in general.

I don't want any part of a war but most of the Western Powers have been consistent in saying that if Assad used chemical weapons they would step in.

[57Brave]

Hans Blix said yesterday there is not indisputable proof Assad used chemical weapons. There are still tissue samples that have not been verified. According to him attacking Syria based on these reports would be premature and unwise.

Hans Blix nailed Iraq by pleading for patience and verification

Even more alarming are the cyber attacks that the Syrian Intelligence Army (Anonymous) have executed the past few days shutting down NYT and Twitter at will.
This is how Syria will retaliate if attacked and we apparently have no answer for that. Certainly not bombs

[Krgrecw]

I don't see it starting a war, I see this leading to a cluster****. I imagine Syria will play out like Egypt: The evil regime will be replaced by a radical element of Islam, the people will then be worse off and a few years from now the people will have to rise up with foreign military help to be as free as they were in 2010.

Makes one wonder. What if the US had bit the bullet and helped the people of Iran overthrow Thier gov't, when the people rallied a few years back. Would that in turn made the Mideast safer knowing that Iran runs and trains a lot of the bad guys and those scenarios would had been thrown out of the window a few years back? Would current Egypt, Lebanon, iraq and Syria be safer if Iran was out if the picture? I think so

[thethe]

The real mistake was invading Iraq. The US should have went into Iran instead.

[57Brave]

you make good points but I'm not sure that short of overthrowing the Ayatollahs we could have helped.
We are not overthrowing the Ayatollahs.

That, is an historical fact

[57Brave]

The real mistake was invading Iraq. The US should have went into Iran instead.

The real mistake goes back to WWI where we sided with the British Middle Eastern policy of taking over so they could have free/cheap oil to run their Navy vs Germany.


But of course Britain has a long-long history of trying to conquer the ME

[zitothebrave]

I don't see it starting a war, I see this leading to a cluster****. I imagine Syria will play out like Egypt: The evil regime will be replaced by a radical element of Islam, the people will then be worse off and a few years from now the people will have to rise up with foreign military help to be as free as they were in 2010.

Makes one wonder. What if the US had bit the bullet and helped the people of Iran overthrow Thier gov't, when the people rallied a few years back. Would that in turn made the Mideast safer knowing that Iran runs and trains a lot of the bad guys and those scenarios would had been thrown out of the window a few years back? Would current Egypt, Lebanon, iraq and Syria be safer if Iran was out if the picture? I think so

Doing that in the 50s really made the ME a better place #Thosewhocannotrememberthepastarecondemnedtorepeat it

[sturg33]

I mean it would have been impossible to forsee a dictator doing everything possible to hold onto power right?

Infowars knew it from the beginning! If they print it...it has to be right!

You're right... Just another coincidence.

If you watch that first video I pm'd you a few weeks back, it explains why Syria is a trigger point for us.

[goldfly]

The real mistake was invading Iraq. The US should have went into Iran instead.

http://www.panicfreaks.org/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[goldfly]

I don't see it starting a war, I see this leading to a cluster****. I imagine Syria will play out like Egypt: The evil regime will be replaced by a radical element of Islam, the people will then be worse off and a few years from now the people will have to rise up with foreign military help to be as free as they were in 2010.

Makes one wonder. What if the US had bit the bullet and helped the people of Iran overthrow Thier gov't, when the people rallied a few years back. Would that in turn made the Mideast safer knowing that Iran runs and trains a lot of the bad guys and those scenarios would had been thrown out of the window a few years back? Would current Egypt, Lebanon, iraq and Syria be safer if Iran was out if the picture? I think so

It worked soo well last time

LET'S DO IT AGAIN!!!!!

no way any blow back could happen

[Julio3000]

The real mistake was invading Iraq. The US should have went into Iran instead.

Yeah, occupying Iraq was too easy. We should've invaded a bigger, stronger, better developed country with more influence over global oil supply.

[thethe]

Yeah, occupying Iraq was too easy. We should've invaded a bigger, stronger, better developed country with more influence over global oil supply.

It was a **** show with Iraq either way. Neither was easy. The invasion and overthrow of the government is the easy part. Iran was basically the resistance anyway in Iraq. MIght as well have fought that was in Iran.

[thethe]

You're right... Just another coincidence.

If you watch that first video I pm'd you a few weeks back, it explains why Syria is a trigger point for us.

I did watch the video and you could argue that any country is a possible trigger. You believe that all of these video's prove something. It is again just other peoples opinion. You know where I stand. I believe the government is just a puppet for the wealthy of the world. They are not going to distrub the status quo that much. They are making money hand over fist.

[sturg33]

I did watch the video and you could argue that any country is a possible trigger. You believe that all of these video's prove something. It is again just other peoples opinion. You know where I stand. I believe the government is just a puppet for the wealthy of the world. They are not going to distrub the status quo that much. They are making money hand over fist.

You're right. But Syria and Iran are disturbing the status quo by threatening to to not trade oil in US dollars. We aren't going to have that, so we will go fight them (just like all of our wars). This one is a big deal though because China and Russia have made it clear that they will get involved if we strike.

Our economy won't be able to sustain and global war and the oil supply being choked off

[thethe]

You're right. But Syria and Iran are disturbing the status quo by threatening to to not trade oil in US dollars. We aren't going to have that, so we will go fight them (just like all of our wars). This one is a big deal though because China and Russia have made it clear that they will get involved if we strike.

Our economy won't be able to sustain and global war and the oil supply being choked off

I'm not saying that I don't believe a war is going to happen. I am just saying that I don't want it if its just the US. If this is a global effort with ACTUAL dedication from other countries then I wouldn't hate it as much. What we can't have is another US only invasion and occupation. That would be disastrous. The other western powers of the world can't just rely on America to fix all of their issues. Its ridiculous already. I wish that people weren't dying by the thousands in Syria but that is not our problem.

[50PoundHead]

Great discussion.

(1) I agree with Krgrecw that this is a clusterf*ck and it is pretty much any way you look at it. When Al Queda is fighting Hezbollah, you get into all this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" dynamic and it's extremely difficult to build a consistent foreign policy based on that.

(2) Winston Churchill supposedly bragged that he "created the Middle East with the stroke of a pen" or something to that effect. Thanks England. America has had imperial traits since the mid-19th century (perhaps even earlier given the words of the War Hawks prior to and during the War of 1812), but it looks like we took our Masters' level courses from the British. zito is right. When the CIA overthrew Mossadegh and replaced him with the Shah, the US pretty much lost any legitimacy in dealing with Iran. What I get a kick out of more than anything else when modern political problems are discussed, Americans tend (often with great validity) to invoke a 220-year-old document and at the same time forget what other earth-shattering events have happened in other countries since that time.

(3) I have been disappointed with Obama regarding the Middle East, but I frankly don't know what he could have done differently. Straddling the fence and trying to be consistent are often mutually exclusive and it has resulted in dithering that has created a being that is neither fish nor fowl. I wish we would just stay out of the whole mess, but power abhors a vacuum and with Russia seemingly wanting to assume the role of a major player here, I suppose the brain wizards at State and NSA believe that something (anything) must be done. Paging Otto von Bismarck.

[yeezus]

I don't want any part of a war but most of the Western Powers have been consistent in saying that if Assad used chemical weapons they would step in.

No evidence so far that it was Assad.

[sturg33]

No evidence so far that it was Assad.

thethe will tell you that the evidence is that the government told us he did.

[thethe]

thethe will tell you that the evidence is that the government told us he did.

And you'll say infowars told you. But, as I have told you numerous times I don't even believe the government has any power.

[sturg33]

And you'll say infowars told you. But, as I have told you numerous times I don't even believe the government has any power.

No. The government and the media told me.

Infowars reported 8 months ago that leaked documents said the government will back a scheme to blame the Syrian government on a chemical weapons attack. It's not my fault (or Infowars) that is how it played out.

[thethe]

No. The government and the media told me.

Infowars reported 8 months ago that leaked documents said the government will back a scheme to blame the Syrian government on a chemical weapons attack. It's not my fault (or Infowars) that is how it played out.

So you have proof that the government backed a scheme or just speculation?

[sturg33]

So you have proof that the government backed a scheme or just speculation?

Of course there is no proof. But isn't it at least a little odd that it was reported 8 months ago that they would, and then the events unfolded? No of course not!!!

But there is certainly no proof that Assad did it, and a country who didn't have an underlying agenda would probably exhaust all efforts to prove that he did before starting another war, wouldn't you think?

[thethe]

Of course there is no proof. But isn't it at least a little odd that it was reported 8 months ago that they would, and then the events unfolded? No of course not!!!

But there is certainly no proof that Assad did it, and a country who didn't have an underlying agenda would probably exhaust all efforts to prove that he did before starting another war, wouldn't you think?

So its ok for you to believe something if there is no proof but if I do I'm a sheep?

[CK86]

I just don't understand why we're in such a hurry to begin another war. Obama the presidential candidate said in 2007 there's no excuse for not getting congressional approval prior to war. Yet now President Obama is doing the exact same thing as Bush did in the lead up to Iraq. Why???

[thethe]

I just don't understand why we're in such a hurry to begin another war. Obama the presidential candidate said in 2007 there's no excuse for not getting congressional approval prior to war. Yet now President Obama is doing the exact same thing as Bush did in the lead up to Iraq. Why???

Its madness. Last thing this country needs is a war where we do all teh work. Let the rest of the world worry about that. All out war is a thing of the past. Everything should be small skirmishes now.

[sturg33]

So its ok for you to believe something if there is no proof but if I do I'm a sheep?

No. I'm saying it's not ok for a country to rush into a war based on evidence-less claims. And I'm also saying that it should be alarming at potential evidence that this is a scheme to justify starting another war.

[thethe]

No. I'm saying it's not ok for a country to rush into a war based on evidence-less claims. And I'm also saying that it should be alarming at potential evidence that this is a scheme to justify starting another war.

I agree but you didn't say it like it was potential evidence. You said it as if it were a fact. And thats fine, you are obviously allowed to believe whatever you want.

I think it looks highly suspect as well. I could see reasons why Assad would and wouldn't do it. I think everything that goes on is way above anything that we can understand or anyone from inforwars can understand. We will never know the truth. Some will believe what they want.

[Metaphysicist]

Of course there is no proof.

Hey, can you just make this your signature?

[sturg33]

Hey, can you just make this your signature?

I love being one of your targets... It's fun.

[Runnin]

Presidential advisor, "But Mr. President, if we don't continue on this path of aggressive geopolitical world domination our entire foreign policy for the last 100 years would have been all for nothing."

[50PoundHead]

Presidential advisor, "But Mr. President, if we don't continue on this path of aggressive geopolitical world domination our entire foreign policy for the last 100 years would have been all for nothing."

Woodrow Wilson would roll in his grave at the prospects!

[Runnin]

Woodrow Wilson would roll in his grave at the prospects!That's not the only thing that would have him rolling. He'd be best advised to stay where he is.

[57Brave]

Rep. Alan Grayson ‏@AlanGrayson 9m

When you actually delve into the evidence of deliberate chemical weapons use by the Syrian government, the evidence is genuinely ambiguous.

////////////////////////////

Rep. Alan Grayson ‏@AlanGrayson 7m

It seems the administration is only putting out info that would lead one to believe the Syrian gov't deliberately used chemical weapons.

[sturg33]

Of course they are. They need a quick excuse to get into war and the need the American people to buy it. The syrian issue goes much deeper than this chemical weapon story

[57Brave]

i read one report this morning suggesting the chem attacks were staged by the rebels for the obvious knee jerk response.
Of course, there is an awful lot of speculation but that doesn't sound too far fetched.

[yeezus]

i read one report this morning suggesting the chem attacks were staged by the rebels for the obvious knee jerk response.
Of course, there is an awful lot of speculation but that doesn't sound too far fetched.

It's certainly a possibility. And I won't buy whatever "proof" the gov't gives out that it was Assad (while still believing it's possible he did it).

[BedellBrave]

My people (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9006591/dont-expect-the-government-to-raise-its-voice-for-syrias-christians/)

[jpx7]

The real mistake was invading Iraq. The US should have went into Israel instead.

Fixed it for you.

[57Brave]

Rep. Alan Grayson ‏@AlanGrayson 5m

What is the source of this notion that every time we see something we don’t like, we should bomb it?

[sturg33]

Dr. Paul floor speech on Syria: 6/19/2012

As usual, well ahead of the curve and right on the money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rCvfwoRGMg&feature=youtu.be

[cajunrevenge]

It sure would be nice if people would just support Paul instead of continually voting for the status quo candidates and then bitching about the status quo. Common sense apparently makes you unelectable to the party establishment.

[sturg33]

It sure would be nice if people would just support Paul instead of continually voting for the status quo candidates and then bitching about the status quo. Common sense apparently makes you unelectable to the party establishment.

No. His foreign policy "is dangerous."

The one we have in place is working rather well, don't you think?

[weso1]

I know I'm obviously not an Obama supporter, but his Syria response has just seemed really awful to me. Would be interested to hear what the Obama supporters think about it. I think Krauthammer said it best. He boxed himself in a corner and now he's desperately trying to get himself out.

[mossy]

Why can't some other country in that region deal with it? We've already been to the middle east, and given how much they hate us, why go?

The blood is on Russia/China as they could do something if they wished to, but won't.

I just don't like us getting involved at all.

[BedellBrave]

Glad POTUS took his finger off the trigger and has decided to take this to Congress. Now, hopefully, there are enough in both parties to punt this thing. There are no good options here.

[50PoundHead]

I know I'm obviously not an Obama supporter, but his Syria response has just seemed really awful to me. Would be interested to hear what the Obama supporters think about it. I think Krauthammer said it best. He boxed himself in a corner and now he's desperately trying to get himself out.

He did box himself in. The best response would have been no response. I'm no fan of Krautammer who I find to be a bitter little contrarian on just about everything, but he's right here. Obama should have simply let events unfold without saying anything and monitor the situation. There is no good option here, unfortunately, presidents of either party can never say something like that.

I agree with Bedell that the best thing Obama has done here is put it before Congress.

See, I can agree with conservatives.

[weso1]

Glad POTUS took his finger off the trigger and has decided to take this to Congress. Now, hopefully, there are enough in both parties to punt this thing. There are no good options here.

The only reason he did it though was for political reasons and particularly because of the mid term elections. Imo, if the President knows without a doubt that he has authority to use military action (I believe he does) and he strongly believes that he should use military action, then he should just do it. He's essentially punting this one.

[sturg33]

The only reason he did it though was for political reasons and particularly because of the mid term elections. Imo, if the President knows without a doubt that he has authority to use military action (I believe he does) and he strongly believes that he should use military action, then he should just do it. He's essentially punting this one.

LOL

[weso1]

LOL

nice argument crumpfly.

[sturg33]

What is there to argue. You said you believe the President has the authority to unilaterally use military action.

That makes me laugh that you believe that

[weso1]

What is there to argue. You said you believe the President has the authority to unilaterally use military action.

That makes me laugh that you believe that

The President does not need authorization from congress for a short bombing campaign.

[50PoundHead]

The only reason he did it though was for political reasons and particularly because of the mid term elections. Imo, if the President knows without a doubt that he has authority to use military action (I believe he does) and he strongly believes that he should use military action, then he should just do it. He's essentially punting this one.

Here's where we start to disagree. I think the President can act unilaterally when American interests are clearly in play, but that's a slippery slope. I don't know if they are here, just like I didn't think the war in Iraq made that much sense from an interests standpoint. A case can be made the Saddam Hussein was a bad actor and was repressing his people to a horrifying extent, but I still don't think that adds up to "an American interest." We have propped up a ton of similar, though not as heinous, dictators (including Hussein early in his tenure). One can pull out St. Augustine's theory of just war all they want, but it still doesn't add up if the cause of action isn't clear and the war aims similarly so.

[sturg33]

The President does not need authorization from congress for a short bombing campaign.

LOL. ok.

So are you in favor of intervention?

[BedellBrave]

No matter how we get there, if we can keep out of this, I'm good.

Where's the anti-war crowd when you need them?

[weso1]

LOL. ok.

So are you in favor of intervention?

Only in extreme cases.

So you really don't think the President has authority to use unilateral military action in any instance?

[sturg33]

Only in extreme cases.

So you really don't think the President has authority to use unilateral military action in any instance?

I'm asking in the case of Syria.

And I believe the President has authority if there is an imminent attack - which of course, there isn't.

[sturg33]

No matter how we get there, if we can keep out of this, I'm good.

Where's the anti-war crowd when you need them?

Right here!!

Although I do wonder where the left is here

[jpx7]

Where's the anti-war crowd when you need them?

Hello.

[goldfly]

nice argument crumpfly.

what bitch?

[weso1]

what bitch?

sturg is using your material.

[weso1]

I'm asking in the case of Syria.

And I believe the President has authority if there is an imminent attack - which of course, there isn't.

It's not what you believe...it's what the law states. And unfortunately it's pretty broad.

[goldfly]

sturg is using your material.

i don't see any "haha" posts

[sturg33]

It's not what you believe...it's what the law states. And unfortunately it's pretty broad.

The President does not have the authority to declare war

[57Brave]

War and "military intervention" are two different things. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Historically the President has been granted authority in the role of commander in chief to utilize the military as he sees fit.

Like it or not. Agree with it or not

[weso1]

The President does not have the authority to declare war

He's not going to declare war.

[weso1]

The irony in all of this is that it could actually be better for the anti war crowd if Obama does a quick Syrian strike without approval from congress. Because if he is able to convince congress to give him an authorization of military force then he could possibly do whatever he wanted in Syria. If not then technically he's only allowed to do his thing for 60 days without Congress shutting it down.

The absolute worst case scenario here for the don't do anything in Syria crowd is that Obama actually convinces the congress to do what he wants.

[Metaphysicist]

Where's the anti-war crowd when you need them?

They are still out there protesting that thing our troops are already doing. If we actually invade Syria for some reason, I'm sure they'll make their way on over; that is, if they haven't died from Obama-broken hearts yet.

[BedellBrave]

I want marches, sit ins, camp-outs in front of the homes of the Obama-Kerry-McCain-Lindsey team, Code Pink disruptions of anything they can disrupt - and press coverage galore! Just like the good old days.

[Julio3000]

Well, for it to be the good old days, there would have to be a hail of accusations that those who oppose the war are un-American, commie, terrorist-sympathizing Frenchmen.

Also, I must have missed the part of the good old days when the media wasn't cheerleading us into war.

[BedellBrave]

Hurl away! I'll even go eat some French food, though I'd prefer a nice Lebanese cafe! :-)

Press likes to cover anti-war stuff and encourage lobbing bombs, no? It isn't an either/or with them is it?

[goldfly]

both sides can agree to go to a war and spend that money

but they can't spend the money for head start or our infrastructure

i wish the good things in this world had the lobbying power that the military industrial complex has

bedell, i finally replied to that private message. i never saw the notification for it till almost a week after your message

[50PoundHead]

both sides can agree to go to a war and spend that money

but they can't spend the money for head start or our infrastructure

i wish the good things in this world had the lobbying power that the military industrial complex has

bedell, i finally replied to that private message. i never saw the notification for it till almost a week after your message

Always a puzzler to me as well. Defense spending is just as Keynesian as any other government dollar that is spent. Sure, you don't want to throw money down a rat hole and we should demand accountability from government in the delivery of services, but as goldfly has pointed out, the defense industry has got pretty much everyone by the gonads.

[BedellBrave]

Yeah, I got it. Thanks gold. Did you get my reply?

[goldfly]

Yeah, I got it. Thanks gold. Did you get my reply?

no

cool, was just making sure you got it/saw it and it wasn't sitting there for a long time not being seen like what happened to me with your initial message.

[Julio3000]

Hurl away! I'll even go eat some French food, though I'd prefer a nice Lebanese cafe! :-)

Press likes to cover anti-war stuff and encourage lobbing bombs, no? It isn't an either/or with them is it?


Hurl away! I'll even go eat some French food, though I'd prefer a nice Lebanese cafe! :-)

Press likes to cover anti-war stuff and encourage lobbing bombs, no? It isn't an either/or with them is it?

Maybe not, but coverage of the anti-war movement (as such) was always pretty spotty, condescending, and tending to marginalize. Once it became apparent that the Iraq war was more or less a **** sandwich, mainstream coverage shifted a good bit. Just like the sports media, they tend to be front-runners.

[BedellBrave]

Arseholes (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/03/boehner-cantor-support-bombing-syria/)

[BedellBrave]

Yay, Code Pink (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/3/kerry-no-doubt-assad-used-weapons-civilians/)! Boo Kerry-Obama-McCain-Boehner-Cantor!

[thethe]

This is very unsettling. America needs a sustained period of no military involvement overseas. We need to invest back into America. Fight the proxy wars but all out war is disastrous.

[Dalyn]

It is getting harder to ignore politics. We figured out a way to make war unprofitable and now we can't get enough of it. Looking at the past 13 years, is it really possible we've started believing our own bull****?

[weso1]

It is getting harder to ignore politics. We figured out a way to make war unprofitable and now we can't get enough of it. Looking at the past 13 years, is it really possible we've started believing our own bull****?

Most of America is against military action in Syria. So, I don't see how you can say that is the case. In fact the only reason this is going to congress is because of the poll numbers. Now if you mean do politicians believe their own bs, then that's a whole different thought.

[Dalyn]

Most of America is against military action in Syria. So, I don't see how you can say that is the case. In fact the only reason this is going to congress is because of the poll numbers. Now if you mean do politicians believe their own bs, then that's a whole different thought.


Yes. I am talking about politicians--the decision makers, in this case.

[weso1]

Well in that case... just know this... "It's not a lie if you believe it."

[sturg33]

My favorite part about this is we will go to war, and then folks will blame the people who complain by saying "you voted for these guys, vote them out"

As if we have a choice in what goes on in this world.

[sturg33]

Of course, there will always be idiots who believe everything they're told. That if we don't get involved then we will die from a terrorist attack.

[weso1]

Of course, there will always be idiots who believe everything they're told. That if we don't get involved then we will die from a terrorist attack.

Didn't you used to be one of those idiots back in the day? And does it really help to call those people idiots? Maybe we'd all get more folks on our side if we stopped calling those we disagreed with idiots? That's one thing I think I'm starting to learn in life. Penn Jillette ftw.

I've changed my mind since I started posting on any Braves political forum many times about several issues due to age and experience. But I find myself less willing to change my opinion due to my own pride. It's more difficult to change an opinion when the person whose opinion you want to change is being insulted.

[CK86]

My biggest issue with this situation is I just don't see how we benefit in any way, shape, or form from taking action. I feel awful that innocent people died but I just wonder why 1400 people dead is worse than the 100,000+ that died before them. Will our actions cause another 1400 innocent people to die by a wayward missile here or there? Why can't we at least wait until at least the U.N. inspectors have had time to do their job?

[BedellBrave]

Doesn't have to be a wayward missile. People will die with any strike in any populated area. Innocent people included.

[BedellBrave]

So will we also be mercenaries?

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3)

[BedellBrave]

While I am at it:

Link (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/syrias-christians-risk-eradication/)

[sturg33]

Didn't you used to be one of those idiots back in the day? And does it really help to call those people idiots? Maybe we'd all get more folks on our side if we stopped calling those we disagreed with idiots? That's one thing I think I'm starting to learn in life. Penn Jillette ftw.

I've changed my mind since I started posting on any Braves political forum many times about several issues due to age and experience. But I find myself less willing to change my opinion due to my own pride. It's more difficult to change an opinion when the person whose opinion you want to change is being insulted.

I don't feel the need to politically correct for people who blindly listen to what their government tells them. They are idiots.

I was one once, until I educated myself instead of the indoctrinated education I was force fed in public school system.

[goldfly]

https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1002526_682724658202_1490749821_n.jpg

[Julio3000]

So will we also be mercenaries?

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3)

I think the answer to this question depends on how one feels about America's interest in the conflict.

[BedellBrave]

Sounds like we want to be the paid gun of the Sunnis (and Israel) and continue this fool's game of lending support to the very Sunnis who advocate their Wahabist or Salafist brands throughout the world. This really is looking like our attempt to break the Shia-Alawist-Christian link from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea - a continuation of the tired old, quixotic Neo-con game.

Oh, and here's another "lovely" story:

Link (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/04/Syria-rebels-attack-regime-held-Christian-village)

[BedellBrave]

Here's a good chart:

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/where-lawmakers-stand-on-syria/)

[CK86]

I voted for Obama in 2008 because I believed he wouldn't send our troops into pointless wars and would protect our civil liberties. Whoops.

Bright side is McCain didn't get elected and have us in 5-6 wars at this point in time like he's wanted to do.

Still waiting for a true anti-war candidate rather than the bomb first, ask questions later mentality.

[Julio3000]

Here's a good chart:

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/where-lawmakers-stand-on-syria/)

That's useful. My head is spinning, what with all the strange bedfellows on this one.

[Julio3000]

I voted for Obama in 2008 because I believed he wouldn't send our troops into pointless wars and would protect our civil liberties. Whoops.

Bright side is McCain didn't get elected and have us in 5-6 wars at this point in time like he's wanted to do.

Still waiting for a true anti-war candidate rather than the bomb first, ask questions later mentality.

As long as we're doing this:
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff511/poinsett/military-spending_zpscdd22a38.jpg
there's no chance that an anti-war candidate would make it through the party gatekeeping process.

[57Brave]

If people actually listened to what Obama says and not the words people put in his mouth -- he has been very clear over the years on where he stands on using force.
I disagree with him -- but at the same time --- he is as close as we are going to get to an honest to goodness anti-war / progressive President.

The only serious anti-war / progressive candidate that has ever been - got assasinated . That was 45 years ago.
I repeat, 45 years ago
Often people make perfect the enemy of the good

[zitothebrave]

LMAO Obama is anti-war

Obama who's only progressed the military industrial complex loves peace haha.

[57Brave]

compared to the alternatives (McCain-Romney, Bachmann,Palin,Bush,Clintons, Perry...) or anyone even remotely capable (funded) of winning POTUS ---- yes, Obama is anti-war.
You are arguing for the perfect. After 1968 when Nixon -Humphrey beat back true anti-war candidates (RFK-McCarthy) that had a chance of winning -- Obama is as close as it gets.

First President I ever voted for was McGovern who advocated immediate pull out from Viet Nam and was lauded as an anti-war candidate.
He was labeled a coward (though he was a decorated WWI pilot) and suffered an historical loss. No one has been taken serious as a true peacenik since.

[BedellBrave]

WaPo Op-ed:

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-military-planners-dont-support-war-with-syria/2013/09/05/10a07114-15bb-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html)

[Runnin]

I would love to see his Nobel Prize recalled.

[CK86]

It's just sad that they're this hellbent on war when it makes no sense at all to go there. It sucks that all those people died, but it's their civil war, not ours. I don't see any benefits and all I see are a bunch of negatives when it comes to getting involved. It legitimately looks more like incompetence and arrogance (I can do what I want etc) than anything else.

[weso1]

As long as we're doing this:
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff511/poinsett/military-spending_zpscdd22a38.jpg
there's no chance that an anti-war candidate would make it through the party gatekeeping process.

I know that it's the popular thing to show pie charts about how much more we spend on spending then other countries, but it's really not that simple. And when you look at spending per GDP it's not as absurd. I feel like there's a great discussion about defense spending that we could get into, but not sure if I want to tackle it right now. I believe in cutting some, but not to the levels I'm guessing some of you want to cut.

[Julio3000]

Not to go completely OT, but how is it less absurd when viewed as a percentage of GDP? Viewed as such, we still spend significantly more than everybody else, except a small handful of countries that are fighting active insurgencies (Iraq, Afghanistan), the "security states" in the Persian Gulf (Oman, Saudi Arabia), and Israel (self-explanatory).

Look at the countries that are in the same ballpark and you notice a few things: states that are or recently have been involved in civil wars or insurgencies. Small states surrounded by hostile neighbors (Israel, Azerbaijan). Quite a few authoritarian states. Not really the company that you'd expect us—a liberal democracy without enemies in proximity—to be keeping.

[BedellBrave]

In our hour of need, where are they? Where are they? Code Pink hasn't abandoned the cause. Ron Paul hasn't. Where are the ones who are so important? Please share links if you find any of our stars and starlets speaking out! For their opinions matter. But, have the Sunnis gotten to them? Are they beholden to the Jewish lobby? Become War Pigs in their maturing years? Surely some of them haven't joined ranks with the military industrial complex. Some who are still principled.

Link (http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnekdahl/14-principled-anti-war-celebrities-we-fear-may-hav-a1x1)

[weso1]

Compare us to countries like Russia, UK and it's more like a factor of 1.5 difference and still only about a 3 times difference compared to China in military expenditures, rather than a factor of 7 or 8 or whatever it is. So yeah I'd say that's a bit less absurd. At least puts a bit more perspective on it.

We're not in a financial crisis due to our military spending. It's not that much higher than comparable countries when viewed as a percentage of GDP. And this is the #1 thing the US federal government should be spending money on. The country can clearly afford it, while affording to pursue its other endeavors if it so chooses. I mean the only reason we are in such a bind financially right now is because of recent economic collapse.

I agree that we can cut defense back some, but the US being the overwhelming military force is good for the world as a whole. It brings a sense of security to those more democratic countries and allows the world economy (The 2nd most important issue right behind defense) to prosper. And you never know what the future may hold. Also, a lot of money is spent on making this country the most advanced technological military. That costs a ton of money to stay on top of that, but it also saves a lot of lives. I agree that there is a lot of fat to be cut, but I think we need to be careful when we throw these graphs out there and say... zomg we can halve our military spending and still be Team America.

[zitothebrave]

Why do we need to spend as much on military per GDP as countries who make less?

Wouldn't it make more since if we made more money and spent less on the military? Why do we have to spend so much? Especially considering that China and Russia have more troops.

[Julio3000]

Compare us to countries like Russia, UK and it's more like a factor of 1.5 difference and still only about a 3 times difference compared to China in military expenditures, rather than a factor of 7 or 8 or whatever it is. So yeah I'd say that's a bit less absurd. At least puts a bit more perspective on it.

We're not in a financial crisis due to our military spending. It's not that much higher than comparable countries when viewed as a percentage of GDP. And this is the #1 thing the US federal government should be spending money on. The country can clearly afford it, while affording to pursue its other endeavors if it so chooses. I mean the only reason we are in such a bind financially right now is because of recent economic collapse.

I agree that we can cut defense back some, but the US being the overwhelming military force is good for the world as a whole. It brings a sense of security to those more democratic countries and allows the world economy (The 2nd most important issue right behind defense) to prosper. And you never know what the future may hold. Also, a lot of money is spent on making this country the most advanced technological military. That costs a ton of money to stay on top of that, but it also saves a lot of lives. I agree that there is a lot of fat to be cut, but I think we need to be careful when we throw these graphs out there and say... zomg we can halve our military spending and still be Team America.

So 2 and 3 times what other developed countries are spending is not a lot? It's not out of proportion—particularly when most of the countries spending at that level are allies?

So, for example, spending $600+ billion over the next decade on our nuclear arsenal isn't contributing to our economic woes?

And you never know what the future may hold

True. Which is why it's dumb to keep spending billions on weapons designed to win the Cold War.

[BedellBrave]

Come on Ed, don't give me that crap. You Hollywood types need to move faster in this new, fast-paced, society. And race card? Please.

Link (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/syria-why-hollywoods-anti-war-623326)

[goldfly]

"And you never know what the future may hold"

isn't this the reason why we should be doubling, tripling etc the NASA budget?

instead of cutting it to fund a worthless plane like the F22 etc etc

[zitothebrave]

Swiped from bedell's link

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j-kucinich/syria-war-questions_b_3870763.html

Good thing a few dems are actual liberals

[jpx7]

And this is the #1 thing the US federal government should be spending money on.

It's hard to express how strongly I disagree with this claim.

[57Brave]

Once the dust clears on this Syria thing -- going forward what is really needed is an updating and redefinition of the War Powers Act.
Which I am sure Obama will lean on in the next 48 hours

And an honest open discussion on how we go forward as the leading world economic power and armmer of the world.
Which to me is do we see ourselves as a humanitarian people or policeman of the world.

We began this process after the Viet Nam debacle but found it too - how you say - introspective ( ? ) - so we invaded Grenada.
Personally I don't think this country at this time is capable of such a conversation. Certainly hope I'm wrong

[acesfull86]

It's hard to express how strongly I disagree with this claim.

I don't. Not to say we should get involved with Syria (I don't think we should), and not to say that we shouldn't be looking to cut defense spending (we should), but I do think it is the #1 function of a government...to protect its citizens from abroad and within. If not, what should be our #1 expenditure?

[zitothebrave]

I don't. Not to say we should get involved with Syria (I don't think we should), and not to say that we shouldn't be looking to cut defense spending (we should), but I do think it is the #1 function of a government...to protect its citizens from abroad and within. If not, what should be our #1 expenditure?

I think a general social contract should be. Social Security is it's own monster I'm not talking about here. But investing in Americans is more where I'm going. If we invested an added 100 billion in alternate energy research since Obama took office don't you think we'd be preetty close to a viable alternative by now and could give the ME a big FU because their instability wouldn't effect our energy costs?

US should spend on defense, but no need to spend much more than the Russians or Chinese, much less much more than the Russians and Chinese together. I think as well with my limited research on the topic (fully admit it's limited) we could shave off billions with wise spending. Keep the armed forces at largely the same size, and still be strong. There's just too much wasted money going into the military.

[weso1]

So 2 and 3 times what other developed countries are spending is not a lot? It's not out of proportion—particularly when most of the countries spending at that level are allies?



You're changing my argument just so you can keep disagreeing with me on the issue. I never said that it wasn't a lot, but that it wasn't as absurd, which in no way implies that it's not a lot. I've proven that is the case with the numbers I've presented itt.

Our military spending is too high, but at only about 4.2% of GDP it's not a significant burden on our economic woes as it appears to be in the more shallow pie charts presented itt. The housing market and financial collapse was the reason for our economic woes. It's not like our military spending prevented us from bailing out banks and Obama's stimulus.

Again, the argument isn't that we don't need to cut, but that we don't need to cut as much as some of you think we should.

And I know some of you will disagree with me on this, but I'm not in a hurry to close down many of our overseas bases and take away the huge technological advantage we have. It saves American lives and perhaps even saves collateral damage as the US can more accurately hit their intended targets.

[zitothebrave]

You're changing my argument just so you can keep disagreeing with me on the issue. I never said that it wasn't a lot, but that it wasn't as absurd, which in no way implies that it's not a lot. I've proven that is the case with the numbers I've presented itt.

Our military spending is too high, but at only about 4.2% of GDP it's not a significant burden on our economic woes as it appears to be in the more shallow pie charts presented itt. The housing market and financial collapse was the reason for our economic woes. It's not like our military spending prevented us from bailing out banks and Obama's stimulus.

Well first can I just say it's a known 4.2%. And that doesn't include things like VA or retirement spending, just active spending. Veteran costs are high and with the continuous wars we keep having will keep getting higher. And that also doesn't include the interest that needs to be paid with the added debt. In Reality the estimated Military/defense budget is closer to 1 trillion. Which would make it close to about 6.6% not 4.2 We have to cut more spending. It's quite simple the military needs a steep paycut so we can pay off our debts and use that money at home.

Why do we have 1000 Admirals and Generals when we had only about 100 before 9/11? Our military size hasn't massively increased. All those generals have added costs that could be saved.

[weso1]

That's fine if you want to cut out the fat Zito, but how many bases do you want to close and how much of the technology do you want to take away? That's where your significant cuts are going to come from.

[zitothebrave]

I think a 25% cut in bases is a good start. I think a better start is selling off military money pits like the private golf courses and ski lodges. We have so much waste which is more or less sold as making life better for the soldier but in reality it's swaddling the nuts of the Generals and Admirals.

As far as technology we don't have to take away Tech, not funding moneypit projects is not a bad start. If we issue a contract to Boeing to build a plane for 100 million and then down the line they tell us it will cost 200 million tell them to go eff themselves and come up with serious projections next time. For example a massive moneypit was the the F-22 a plane no one really wanted that cost the US Government about 60 billion dollars. Stuff like that has to stop.

[weso1]

I think a general social contract should be. Social Security is it's own monster I'm not talking about here. But investing in Americans is more where I'm going. If we invested an added 100 billion in alternate energy research since Obama took office don't you think we'd be preetty close to a viable alternative by now and could give the ME a big FU because their instability wouldn't effect our energy costs?


The US already spends over 50% of its budget on social contracts and safety nets. More than double what is spent on defense.

[zitothebrave]

The US already spends over 50% of its budget on social contracts and safety nets. More than double what is spent on defense.

That includes social security which isn't the same. Payroll tax items that are largely self sufficient aren't the same as military spending.

[weso1]

Let's keep in mind that the defense numbers have been anomalously high over the last 10 years because of the two wars. When we're not at war the spending is typically between 400 to 500 billion which is where it should be, imo. So of course just ending the two wars will get the defense budget closer to where it should be.

[weso1]

That includes social security which isn't the same. Payroll tax items that are largely self sufficient aren't the same as military spending.

Unfortunately that lock box has been unlocked.

[57Brave]

Now we are at nut cutting time. Obama in Moscow him and Putin don't get along. But there is this.
Which seems to e the most logical outcome for everyone. Us,Syria and globally.
Everyone acted a peaceful solution was reached --
from twitter a few minutes ago:
BREAKING: Russian Foreign Minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control - @AP

Crisis averted ----- maybe.

[Tapate50]

You're changing my argument just so you can keep disagreeing with me on the issue. I never said that it wasn't a lot, but that it wasn't as absurd, which in no way implies that it's not a lot. I've proven that is the case with the numbers I've presented itt.

Our military spending is too high, but at only about 4.2% of GDP it's not a significant burden on our economic woes as it appears to be in the more shallow pie charts presented itt. The housing market and financial collapse was the reason for our economic woes. It's not like our military spending prevented us from bailing out banks and Obama's stimulus.

Again, the argument isn't that we don't need to cut, but that we don't need to cut as much as some of you think we should.

And I know some of you will disagree with me on this, but I'm not in a hurry to close down many of our overseas bases and take away the huge technological advantage we have. It saves American lives and perhaps even saves collateral damage as the US can more accurately hit their intended targets.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

[57Brave]

Ahummm - in the words of AdRock " let me clear my throat"

https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/status/377225859515822080

[50PoundHead]

Ahummm - in the words of AdRock " let me clear my throat"

https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/status/377225859515822080

I'd have liked to have been a fly on the wall when Vlad was meeting with Obama. Had to be some pretty bare-knuckled stuff going on.

[Julio3000]

If the pressure for a punitive US strike is taken off, there's room for either:

1) A negotiated settlement that is palatable to the big kids on the sidelines (Russia and the US, primarily) or
2) A continued stalemate.

The latter scenario is not great for the Syrian people, but since there does not seem to be any great appetite for "regime change" intervention among US leaders or people (myself included), it at least lessens the possibility of a wider conflict.

Obviously, there's no sense in counting chickens here, but it's a relief to see some daylight. And, in light of some of the political grenades that have been lobbed, it's also worth noting that Obama's language (there is no military solution to the conflict) is consistent with that of the other big non-belligerent player (Russia). For all of the crap that Obama has taken, he's been willing to sweat during peace to avoid our bleeding during war.

We can disagree about what—if any—action should have been taken when, but can we at least agree that perhaps we're not engaged in a grand conspiracy to fake a chemical weapon attack to take out the Assad regime, and that perhaps Obama's foreign policy team hasn't been abducted by rabid neocons?

[sturg33]

If the pressure for a punitive US strike is taken off, there's room for either:

1) A negotiated settlement that is palatable to the big kids on the sidelines (Russia and the US, primarily) or
2) A continued stalemate.

The latter scenario is not great for the Syrian people, but since there does not seem to be any great appetite for "regime change" intervention among US leaders or people (myself included), it at least lessens the possibility of a wider conflict.

Obviously, there's no sense in counting chickens here, but it's a relief to see some daylight. And, in light of some of the political grenades that have been lobbed, it's also worth noting that Obama's language (there is no military solution to the conflict) is consistent with that of the other big non-belligerent player (Russia). For all of the crap that Obama has taken, he's been willing to sweat during peace to avoid our bleeding during war.

We can disagree about what—if any—action should have been taken when, but can we at least agree that perhaps we're not engaged in a grand conspiracy to fake a chemical weapon attack to take out the Assad regime, and that perhaps Obama's foreign policy team hasn't been abducted by rabid neocons?

I personally think the public opposition to this war is what is stopping it.

[57Brave]

Saw a picture of Obama walking up to greet Putin and was surprised how much bigger Obama is than Putin. After reading Robert Caro interpretations of how physically intimidating LBJ could be I have always found the body language of Presidents interesting.

[Julio3000]

Saw a picture of Obama walking up to greet Putin and was surprised how much bigger Obama is than Putin. After reading Robert Caro interpretations of how physically intimidating LBJ could be I have always found the body language of Presidents interesting.

They probably played a winner-takes-all game of basketball.

[Julio3000]

I personally think the public opposition to this war is what is stopping it.

Yeah, that always works.

[57Brave]

They probably played a winner-takes-all game of basketball.

you're killin me!!

[Julio3000]

you're killin me!!

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff511/poinsett/blouses_zpse43aac58.jpg

[50PoundHead]

Saw a picture of Obama walking up to greet Putin and was surprised how much bigger Obama is than Putin. After reading Robert Caro interpretations of how physically intimidating LBJ could be I have always found the body language of Presidents interesting.

Putin's got the abs though, but if it's straight one-on-one, Obama would be doing 360s on Vlad all night long.

I still don't know what exactly to think. Just saw the headline that one Republican believes Obama "drew to an inside straight." True enough. My problem with the dithering here is that if this could happen now, why couldn't it happen six months ago? We've got all the cards on the Russians and we can win with either honey or vinegar if so disposed. I get that you probably don't want to try to kill a mosquito with a sledge hammer and settling easily only gives the Russians more incentive to misbehave, but I have a difficult time believing this whole episode couldn't have been avoided.

[57Brave]

and honestly 50 none of us will know what to think until the classified wraps are taken off of the whole issue.
there will be a book in a year or so explaining back channel adventures and create a time frame explaining why it took so long to come to a head.
Kinda like killing binLaden. We have a piece of the picture today while the whole picture will be shown down the road.

Geo-political history show plenty of times we think the issue is (A) when it really is (B). And often we were closer to a catastrophic brink than any of us imagined at the time.
That is why the Sturg suggestion that domestic opposition drove this so-called bargain is naive

[Julio3000]

Putin's got the abs though, but if it's straight one-on-one, Obama would be doing 360s on Vlad all night long.

I still don't know what exactly to think. Just saw the headline that one Republican believes Obama "drew to an inside straight." True enough. My problem with the dithering here is that if this could happen now, why couldn't it happen six months ago? We've got all the cards on the Russians and we can win with either honey or vinegar if so disposed. I get that you probably don't want to try to kill a mosquito with a sledge hammer and settling easily only gives the Russians more incentive to misbehave, but I have a difficult time believing this whole episode couldn't have been avoided.

Yeah, I don't disagree. It seems that we've been stuck in a situation without an obvious move, and O has definitely sent mixed signals. Now this. Not knowing what to think is par for the course.

is that if this could happen now, why couldn't it happen six months ago?

Right. I guess we're not privy to the diplomatic sausage-making, though.

The domestic politics of this are predictably nauseating, though. Some republicans urged him to strike Syria much sooner, or to decisively intervene on the side of the rebels. Some seemed to think that he could do something—wave his Nobel eastward, I guess—to stop the civil war. I dunno. But now, if we avoid engagement, shouldn't the republicans who've been attacking him from the isolationist side embrace him? Seems like instead of applauding the opportunity (and allowing for the possibility that it's the fruit of a diplomatic effort on our part), they're still taking shots at Obama.

[weso1]

They probably played a winner-takes-all game of basketball.

If it's a game to ten then the Syria conflict might be over before one of them gets there.

[Julio3000]

If it's a game to ten then the Syria conflict might be over before one of them gets there.

Putin would probably shank him when he posted up.

[Runnin]

After reading Robert Caro interpretations of how physically intimidating LBJ could be I have always found the body language of Presidents interesting.
Wasn't it LBJ who used to follow his enemies into the john and wave his junk at them saying stuff like "DOn't worry, in Texas everything is bigger."?

[weso1]

Any idea that Obama had some brilliant plan here is just as conspiratorial as the thought that the US was behind the chemical attack. Obama was begging for military action and it took an off the wall comment from Kerry to light a bulb above Putin's head. In the end Putin looks like a savior and Kerry and Obama look like hapless buffoons who stumbled over a solution to the problem. President Maxwell Smart and Secretary of State Frank Drebin. The only sad thing about this story is it's not only the good guys who win in the end, but also the bad guys.

[Julio3000]

Any idea that Obama had some brilliant plan here is just as conspiratorial as the thought that the US was behind the chemical attack. Obama was begging for military action and it took an off the wall comment from Kerry to light a bulb above Putin's head. In the end Putin looks like a savior and Kerry and Obama look like hapless buffoons who stumbled over a solution to the problem. President Maxwell Smart and Secretary of State Frank Drebin. The only sad thing about this story is it's not only the good guys who win in the end, but also the bad guys.

What outcome here encompasses a victory by the good guys?

[weso1]

What outcome here encompasses a victory by the good guys?

That's true... there really is no victory. Even not bombing them isn't really a victory isn't it?

[Julio3000]

Any idea that Obama had some brilliant plan here is just as conspiratorial as the thought that the US was behind the chemical attack. Obama was begging for military action and it took an off the wall comment from Kerry to light a bulb above Putin's head. In the end Putin looks like a savior and Kerry and Obama look like hapless buffoons who stumbled over a solution to the problem. President Maxwell Smart and Secretary of State Frank Drebin. The only sad thing about this story is it's not only the good guys who win in the end, but also the bad guys.

I'm sure that's exactly how it went down.

[Julio3000]

That's true... there really is no victory. Even not bombing them isn't really a victory isn't it?

It's a victory only in the narrowest sense. Hey, we didn't get embroiled in a war in the middle east! SCORE! But that's kind of where we are.

It reminds me of the way we're supposed to, according to some Republicans, judge the W years: HE PROTECTED THE HOMELAND. Like, the talismanic power of that statement invalidates every other argument. Every bit of context, every domestic and foreign misstep is washed away.

[weso1]

I'm sure that's exactly how it went down.

Get a gander at this crazy conspiracy theorist, sturg. Someone's partying too much with Chip.:snort:

[57Brave]

Secretaries of State do not make "off the wall " comments. Each word has been measured beyond any of our personal abilities to comprehend.

I'm reminded of the "gaffe" VP Biden made a year and a half ago regarding Gey Marriage.

[50PoundHead]

and honestly 50 none of us will know what to think until the classified wraps are taken off of the whole issue.
there will be a book in a year or so explaining back channel adventures and create a time frame explaining why it took so long to come to a head.
Kinda like killing binLaden. We have a piece of the picture today while the whole picture will be shown down the road.

Geo-political history show plenty of times we think the issue is (A) when it really is (B). And often we were closer to a catastrophic brink than any of us imagined at the time.
That is why the Sturg suggestion that domestic opposition drove this so-called bargain is naive

I somehow manage to agree with both you and weso1 here. I don't think domestic opposition had much to do with it although if Obama had bombed without congressional approval, he would have become the lamest of lame ducks.

[57Brave]

this from The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/article/176098/syria-alternative-war#

and
from Atlantic:

Things are falling into place for the Kerry/Putin Surprise Solution to U.S. Intervention in Syria. France will bring a proposal to the UN; Syria and Russia and the United States and China have endorsed it. Everyone is happy. Except that the actual collection of chemical weapons is enormously tricky. And everyone is happy — except for the Syrian rebels.

Early Monday morning, only a handful of people knew that a breakthrough was even this close. Secretary of State John Kerry, in a seemingly off-the-cuff response to a a question from a CBS reporter, suggested that if Syria gave up its chemical weapons, we could avoid inserting ourselves into the conflict. It wasn't that accidental — the idea had been raised in conversation between presidents Obama and Putin during the G20 summit last week, as Obama acknowledged on Monday and Putin did on Tuesday. Syria has formally agreed to the idea. Russia is hoping to flesh out a concrete plan, according to Reuters; France wants to bring one to the U.N., as The New York Times reports. (The paper's editorial board also endorsed the idea.) If a concrete plan is formalized, it appears that there will be no more vetoes at the U.N. Security Council from Russia or China.

From the standpoint of American politics, the shift is sudden and severe. A president facing the difficult task of convincing the nation of the need for war with a speech from the Oval Office now simply has to make the case for a brokered compromise. Those on Capitol Hill who backed the call for force — usually quietly — are broadly relieved not to have to take an increasingly unpopular vote to that effect.

But back to those caveats. The process of identifying, collecting, and verifying Syria's cache of chemical weapons is the hangover from Monday's intoxicated celebration of peace. In January, Wired reported on the complexity of ridding Syria of its chemical weapons. Would the resolution, for example, mandate the collection of all of the precursor agents to the weapons as well, like rubbing alcohol? At the time the article was written, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who joined Kerry to make the case for action last week, offered an estimate of what it would take for the U.S. to remove the regime's weapons.

U.S. military officials have previously speculated that an intervention to take hold of an estimated 500 tons of chemical precursors would require 75,000 troops, a force larger than the one currently in Afghanistan. Panetta said the international community needs to establish a “process and procedure” for keeping the stockpiles under control — but only after [president Bashar al-]Assad falls, which is an uncertain proposition.

The task is simpler for Assad, should he be willing to tackle it. But, as Michael Crowley writes at Time, the plan is predicated on the idea that the international community can trust Assad to act in good faith.

[T]he process of sending inspectors or security forces to accomplish that task will take time, and Assad will have opportunities to delay and complicate it — perhaps buying himself time in the hope that the world’s attention and indignation will fade. As Roger Cohen of the New York Times noted on Twitter Monday night, Bosnian Serb forces forestalled NATO air strikes in the 1990s by making false promises to hand over their heavy weapons. In the 1990s, Saddam mastered the art of delaying and deceiving U.N. weapons inspection teams.

Unlike in Iraq, peacekeepers tasked with collecting and verifying Assad's cache would be entering active war zones, in some cases almost certainly needing to transport unstable chemical elements through areas being actively contested by the rebels. This offers Assad an excuse for delay, should he seek it; it could necessitate delays of the UN's own creation.

The compromise isn't meant to address the conflict at all, of course. Last week, the Washington Post's Max Fisher wrote a thoughtful column seeking to distinguish between the debate in America, which centered around our country's tangential role in the conflict, and proposals to actually stem the conflict. Both Obama and his proxy, Hillary Clinton, prominently mentioned the need for a diplomatic resolution to the war itself as part of their endorsement of the compromise. But that is clearly another step down the line. The United States has been disinterested in resolving the Syria conflict. If we manage to largely extricate ourselves from our current involvement, those resolution efforts will likely slip down the priority list again. It's little surprise, then, that Syria's rebels are skeptical about the plan, as reported by BuzzFeed's Rosie Gray.

“If this was supposed to be a real proposal, it would include accountability for those who committed the crimes and killed 1400 people with chemical weapons, and that’s Assad,” [Syrian coalition representative Dr. Najib] Ghadbian said. “And it would include a comprehensive political solution along the lines of Geneva.”

Unfortunately for Ghadbian, Barack Obama isn't trying to placate the rebels of Syria — he's trying to placate the rebels in his party on Capitol Hill.

All sides are optimistic that an agreement might, at least, disarm the most deadly and criminal component of Assad's war machine. Even if there are delays and disputes over implementation, the creation of an agreement could offer one eventual benefit for both the rebels in Syria and members of Congress. It could establish a true global red line, one that the president doesn't need to refer to as a concept, but rather can point to and say: We all agreed. If Assad is tempted to slow the process of turning over his weapons or, worse, uses them again out of desperation, it's hard to believe that Obama would see similar roadblocks from politicians of any nation.

That too may be overly optimistic.

[jpx7]

And then, of course, there's this: (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/09/obama-rogue-state-tramples-every-law)


Looming over all this is the great unmentionable: the cover the US provides for Israel's weapons of mass destruction. It's not just that Israel – which refuses to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention – has used white phosphorus as a weapon in Gaza (when deployed against people, phosphorus meets the convention's definition of "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm").

It's also that, as the Washington Post points out: "Syria's chemical weapons stockpile results from a never-acknowledged gentleman's agreement in the Middle East that as long as Israel had nuclear weapons, Syria's pursuit of chemical weapons would not attract much public acknowledgement or criticism." Israel has developed its nuclear arsenal in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty, and the US supports it in defiance of its own law, which forbids the disbursement of aid to a country with unauthorised weapons of mass destruction.

[...]

None of this is to exonerate Bashar al-Assad's government – or its opponents – of a long series of hideous crimes, including the use of chemical weapons. Nor is it to suggest that there is an easy answer to the horrors in Syria.

But Obama's failure to be honest about his nation's record of destroying international norms and undermining international law, his myth-making about the role of the US in world affairs, and his one-sided interventions in the Middle East, all render the crisis in Syria even harder to resolve. Until there is some candour about past crimes and current injustices, until there is an effort to address the inequalities over which the US presides, everything it attempts – even if it doesn't involve guns and bombs – will stoke the cynicism and anger the president says he wants to quench.

[jpx7]

Wasn't it LBJ who used to follow his enemies into the john and wave his junk at them saying stuff like "DOn't worry, in Texas everything is bigger."?

Yea, LeBron James still does that, actually. It's very confusing, since he's from Ohio, plays for Miami, and they actually lost to Dallas.

[57Brave]

where'd that come from jpx?

[jpx7]

where'd that come from jpx?

I actually linked the article with my introductory sentence, but it's a Guardian editorial entitled, Obama's rogue state tramples over every law it demands others uphold, which I'll link again here (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/09/obama-rogue-state-tramples-every-law).

[Julio3000]

But Obama's failure to be honest about his nation's record of destroying international norms and undermining international law, his myth-making about the role of the US in world affairs, and his one-sided interventions in the Middle East, all render the crisis in Syria even harder to resolve. Until there is some candour about past crimes and current injustices, until there is an effort to address the inequalities over which the US presides, everything it attempts – even if it doesn't involve guns and bombs – will stoke the cynicism and anger the president says he wants to quench.

Agree.

[57Brave]

sorry i didnt scroll -appreciate the link.

I think when talking US foreign policy and the hypocrisy involved we have to stay aware (of the obvious) that in our national DNA is the enslavement of the Negro Race and the Genocide of Native Americans. In our recent history we invaded and decimated a non threatening country a reacted with a knee jerk leading to 12 years on occupying another country.

How you turn all those events on a dime seems to me like trying to turn the QEIII around in a stream.
While visiting Holland I learned it took Nazi Occupation for that country to finally come to grips with their empirical past .
Let's hope we can use them as a model with out going through what they did to bring us face to face with our violent past and present.

Having said that this Syria thing is really a wake up call on so many levels

Let's look at Obama's attempt to close Gitmo and how that went.

[57Brave]

But Obama's failure to be honest about his nation's record of destroying international norms and undermining international law, his myth-making about the role of the US in world affairs, and his one-sided interventions in the Middle East, all render the crisis in Syria even harder to resolve. Until there is some candour about past crimes and current injustices, until there is an effort to address the inequalities over which the US presides, everything it attempts – even if it doesn't involve guns and bombs – will stoke the cynicism and anger the president says he wants to quench.

Agree.


not sure what or why we expect him to be honest. How does a POTUS stay honest in a 24 hour news cycle while participating in high stakes international diplomacy.
History will tell us but as of today I am taking a wait and see attitude on whether Obama acted honorably through this. Last I read these talks with Russia have been going on for quite a while. Think back -- couple weeks ago Obama sent John McCain to Syria -- that told me something was up right there.

[sturg33]

not sure what or why we expect him to be honest. How does a POTUS stay honest in a 24 hour news cycle while participating in high stakes international diplomacy.
History will tell us but as of today I am taking a wait and see attitude on whether Obama acted honorably through this. Last I read these talks with Russia have been going on for quite a while. Think back -- couple weeks ago Obama sent John McCain to Syria -- that told me something was up right there.

I laugh at how much your tone has changed since the last President

[jpx7]

I laugh at how much your tone has changed since the last President

http://i.imgur.com/TDY6PHd.jpg

[57Brave]

My tone is the same. One was a knee jerk shoot first ask questions later President the other has proven to be a pragmatic President.

Maybe I should have said -- wait and see attitude on whether Obama acted honorably or not through this.
Because the jury is still out -- though I thought the invasion of Afghanistan was foolish in the first few days I took a wait see attitude and allowed I might have been wrong

And this Sturg -- there have been no air strikes or bombing in Syria. So I really dont get your point. On it's face 9/10/13 diplomacy won the day. But ...

[jpx7]

Another bit of data favoring the fashion with which this whole imbroglio has progressed (http://themonkeycage.org/2013/08/27/do-military-interventions-reduce-killings-of-civilians-in-civil-wars/):


In fact, [Reed Wood, Jason Kathman, and Stephen Gent] find that military interventions in favor of the rebel faction (as opposed to pro-government or neutral interventions) tend to increase government killings of civilians by about 40% (see Figure 2 below from p. 656).

http://i1.wp.com/themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Screen-Shot-2013-08-27-at-8.58.11-AM.png?resize=356%2C316

Edit: Though I will caution that friends of mine in the social sciences tend to be wary of drawing especially strong conclusions from these types of studies, with one friend in particular noting that the data for these specific sorts of analyses are simply "just not good enough" to really be precisely and scientifically credible.

[57Brave]

Ballgame

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?hp&_r=0

not a shot fired. Now, who would like to tell me Obama and Bush = no difference?

[bravesnumberone]

Lol, beside the fact he pretty much said he was willing to fire a shot without any Congressional approval before changing his mind like he does on everything else?

[57Brave]

History will record Obama averted the Syrian Chemical Weapon Crisis without firing a shot.

Read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the accompanying domestic politics and criticisms
Bet you thought Kennedy handled that pretty well?

[bravesnumberone]

I wouldn't say it's necessarily over just yet.

[weso1]

50 and I disagree on many things, but I have to say that he really adds a lot to the political board. Really enjoy reading his opinions.

[57Brave]

In the 1960's on a Pacific Island they found 2 or 3 Japanese soldiers holding out thinking WWII wasn't over.
When Russia and the USA make bi-lateral decisions for Syria ---- it is over.

As far as future conflict with Russia you could blame that on the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The real and only victory her is diplomacy won the day.
I am trying to recall a Bush diplomatic victory. Matter of fact I am trying to recall any Bush victory after Bush v Gore.
My original and only point being it is ignorant making the blanket statement Obama is no better than Bush

[57Brave]

50 and I disagree on many things, but I have to say that he really adds a lot to the political board. Really enjoy reading his opinions.

Well put Wes.

[acesfull86]

Matter of fact I am trying to recall any Bush victory after Bush v Gore.


Bush v Kerry.

[bravesnumberone]

Why are you so obsessed with Bush? I didn't support his foreign policy, either.

Syria still has to meet the demands. I'm glad that we've worked something out for the time being. Anytime diplomacy prevails is a good thing.

[57Brave]

Why are you so obsessed with Bush? I didn't support his foreign policy, either.

Syria still has to meet the demands. I'm glad that we've worked something out for the time being. Anytime diplomacy prevails is a good thing.

Not at all obsessed with Bush. Just really tired of the right wing creation of conventional wisdom that Obama is no better than Bush and people lazily buying in when all one has to do is no more than scratch the surface .

If Russia tells Syria to meet the agreement. Syria will meet the agreement. They may be butchers and war criminals but they aren't stupid.
Trying to think of another case in history where a dictator pissed off both the US and Russia

[bravesnumberone]

A pretty honest assessment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/14/was-obamas-syria-strategy-brilliant-or-lucky/

[57Brave]

an equally on point assessment


Up w/ Steve Kornacki ‏@upwithsteve 22m
Rep. @AlanGrayson quotes Shakespeare on #Syria: "All's well that ends well."

[bravesnumberone]

Still can't be denied that Obama has done some major waffling on this for the last two weeks.

[goldfly]

America, where if you step back from going to war, it is a bad thing cause you ended it peacefully

even if the side that is angry at you for doing it, didn't want to go to war either and were hating you for trying to push us into a war

[bravesnumberone]

America, where you praise someone for something even though it contradicted everything he's been saying and wasn't even mainly his doing, as long as he has the right letter next to his name.

[goldfly]

America, where you praise someone for something even though it contradicted everything he's been saying and wasn't even mainly his doing, as long as he has the right letter next to his name.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg

[bravesnumberone]

Are you really that delusional?

[goldfly]

about what?

i mean, i am talking to someone who thinks i am a fan of Obama and my comment had something to do with this: "long as he has the right letter next to his name."

so, i am not sure what i am supposed to take serious with you

[bravesnumberone]

I have no idea what to make of your "America, where if you step back from going to war, it is a bad thing cause you ended it peacefully, even if the side that is angry at you for doing it, didn't want to go to war either and were hating you for trying to push us into a war" comment, so sorry for the misunderstanding.

I'm glad that for now, it's been avoided, but to suggest Obama is the main one responsible for avoiding it, as posts on here have insinuated ("He'll be remembered as the president that avoided military action in Syria.") is garbage. He's been beating the drums for two-three weeks. He said it would be a "red line" if Assad used the gas, and apparently, he did. Then he went on television, making his case for a military strike, using "American exceptionalism" in the argument, when he's argued against that concept in the past. He delayed taking it to Congress because he knew he didn't have the votes or public support. He got bailed out on this, but he'll get the credit.

[zitothebrave]

Ballgame

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?hp&_r=0

not a shot fired. Now, who would like to tell me Obama and Bush = no difference?

I guess Obama couldn't use Drones in Syria

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1239896_653234248033712_397900620_n.jpg

[57Brave]

Not disputing your above claim and agree with the sentiment but-- what does the drone program have to do with syria?

[bravesnumberone]

I wonder how many boots will be on the ground to round up the weapons. Not being a smartass, just want to know.

[57Brave]

with a civil war is going on around the rounder uppers. And, I thought I had a busy week coming up :)

[Metaphysicist]

Still can't be denied that Obama has done some major waffling on this for the last two weeks.

Whoopdee sh*t, who cares. The waffling worked.

[weso1]

President Frank Drebin.

http://timeentertainment.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fhd003sm3_leslie_nielsen_001.jpg?w=480&h=320&crop=1

[jpx7]

Still can't be denied that Obama has done some major waffling on this for the last two weeks.

He can do all the waffling he wants, as far as I'm concerned, as long as he ends up landing at the right place ultimately.

I'm not sure where this idea arose that obstinacy should be praised and that changing one's mind is the worst sin imaginable.

[goldfly]

Hey, new information has come to light/the situation has evolved

can't change your mind

that is bad


brilliant

[bravesnumberone]

He can do all the waffling he wants, as far as I'm concerned, as long as he ends up landing at the right place ultimately.

I'm not sure where this idea arose that obstinacy should be praised and that changing one's mind is the worst sin imaginable.

I'll hold you to that standard for every politician then.

[50PoundHead]

I'll hold you to that standard for every politician then.

I don't mind the waffling (and I'm admittedly an Obama supporter). I've been in politics/government a long time and I respect a deliberative approach. I wish Bush had waffled more before going into Iraq. Obama has dithered with Mideast policy. That cannot be denied. It's a complex issue and the leadership vacuum hasn't helped. That said, I don't how the US should proceed in the Mideast and I don't think anyone (from the neocons to the neoisolationists) has a solid plan on how to proceed. And yeah, Obama got lucky.

[mossy]

There isn't anything Obama could have done to avoid criticism. Can you guys really tell me that there is one magic thing he could have done with Syria that Fox/Rush/etc... conservatives wouldn't have found some way to spin against Obama in a negative light?

I'm glad it looks like the situation will hopefully resolve itself. Going there would be a disaster. It's not our war.

[CK86]

Bright side - war averted for now. Don't care how it happened but just glad another pointless war has been avoided.

[weso1]

I really want to eat waffles right now.

[weso1]

There isn't anything Obama could have done to avoid criticism. Can you guys really tell me that there is one magic thing he could have done with Syria that Fox/Rush/etc... conservatives wouldn't have found some way to spin against Obama in a negative light?

I'm glad it looks like the situation will hopefully resolve itself. Going there would be a disaster. It's not our war.

He could have offered to sell one of his dragons to Assad in exchange for all of his weapons, and then after making the exchange ordered his dragon to burn Assad into ash. I think everyone would have been impressed with that.

[acesfull86]

He could have offered to sell one of his dragons to Assad in exchange for all of his weapons, and then after making the exchange ordered his dragon to burn Assad into ash. I think everyone would have been impressed with that.

Show me where in the Constitution the federal government has the authority to buy and sell dragons.

[zitothebrave]

I really want to eat waffles right now.

I'm with you. I don't get why waffling is considered a bad thing. Gimme a nice waffle with some maple syrup and a side of sausage and I'd be in heaven. Same thing with flip flopping. Gimme that waffle out on the patio while wearing flip flops. Hot dayum you've got yourself a stew.

[Julio3000]

Show me where in the Constitution the federal government has the authority to buy and sell dragons.

Sound money now! Return our currency to the dragon standard! Audit the Iron Bank of Braavos!

[zitothebrave]

Sound money now! Return our currency to the dragon standard! Audit the Iron Bank of Braavos!

Sadly the safety of the dragon hoard is gone with the invention of modern warfare. Retuning to the dragon standard would just result in losing our money and our dragons. Double whammy.

[BedellBrave]

Did someone say, "Waffles and Chicken?"

[zitothebrave]

Did someone say, "Waffles and Chicken?"

Did I ever post the photo/recipe I did of the Chicken and Waffles with the maple apple topping? That one was a true mouthful.

[acesfull86]

I bought a waffle iron this weekend but haven't taken it for a spin yet. Dying for a waffle.