The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-08-2013, 05:22 PM   #16
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
Only a wacko would advocate an American intervention in Syria's civil war.
Which is exactly what Obama did until, as I stated, virtually EVERYONE, pushed back and fought him on it. Another huge stumbling block for his desired intervention was the decision against his buddy in England.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2013, 05:24 PM   #17
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
"Obama showed he wasn't going to intervene in Syria."

Bullshit - the overwhelming pushback from ... well everybody ... is what convinced him.
When most of the people around him were pushing for intervention? Biden, Clinton, etc.? They were all pushing intervention. The non-intervention crowd wasn't as loud as they thought there were.

Obama had AT LEAST four chances to intervene in Syria and he never took them. The only time he seriously mentioned intervention is after Assad was accused and "convicted" of using chemical weapons. That was Obama's red line and he felt obligated. Yet, Obama never went through with any of them. The second Russia offered a chemical weapon deal he jumped on it with no hesitation.

Quote:
Which is exactly what Obama did until, as I stated, virtually EVERYONE, pushed back and fought him on it. Another huge stumbling block for his desired intervention was the decision against his buddy in England.
There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Obama has not been hawkish with Syria.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2013, 05:28 PM   #18
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw View Post
Enough must die in Syria to finally make obvious what really matters. That civil war will only end when enough pain makes obvious how dumb their extremists really are. When extremists are replaced by people who know by using education, logic, and basic intelligence rather than hate, religion, and child-like reasoning.
Outside intervention will not stop the civil war in Syria. Iran and Saudi Arabia are going to keep pouring money into the fight until their side wins.

The situation will only stop when the people in Syria get sick of killing eachother.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2013, 05:31 PM   #19
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Wow really? Did I imagine his whole impassioned speech about it?
Guess some only see what they want to see. Obama advocated strikes in Syria. Kerry did as well. Once the tide turned in Britain, and the public backlash was ENORMOUS, they sang a different tune.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2013, 05:39 PM   #20
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
Guess some only see what they want to see.
You, too, need to look further. Up until the second chemical weapons attack, he was refusing to get involved militarily. Then he decided he had to maintain his "red line", and made the impassioned speech. Luckily for everyone (except the moderate rebels in Syria), an out appeared, and he jumped at it.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2013, 05:43 PM   #21
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
But the story didn't start after Syria used chemical weapons the second time. Obama was very resistant to get involved prior to that. He made absolutely no attempt. The first time he mentioned to get involved was in March or so when the first set of chemical weapon accusations were made. Obama said he would send in small arms. Did he actually go through with it? No. Also, there was very little pushback against intervention at that time.

Then, when Assad used chemical weapons the second time, it took Obama a long time before deciding to attack. Also, I remember a lot of articles calling Obama weak because he did not respond quickly to his "red line".

So I ask you the question. Did Obama delay attacking Assad because he secretly wanted to get involved but couldn't think of an excuse or because he didn't want to get involved but felt he had to because Assad crossed his red line?

Yes there was pushback after he decided to attack but then also you have to assume that Obama was suddenly influenced by the media when his past history does not always line up with that. Also, I read sources from all sides and while there was a strong non-interventionist push, there was definitely interventionist voices as well. So it wasn't "everyone" or even close to "everyone". The 90% of American against intervening in Syria poll was a skewed question that was not representative. The true poll was more like 60%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
You, too, need to look further. Up until the second chemical weapons attack, he was refusing to get involved militarily. Then he decided he had to maintain his "red line", and made the impassioned speech. Luckily for everyone (except the moderate rebels in Syria), an out appeared, and he jumped at it.
Yes.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2013, 07:03 PM   #22
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 View Post
I disagree. While ugly, Obama showed he wasn't going to intervene in Syria. With Iran, Obama hasn't militarily intervened but has relied on cyberattacks and economic sanctions (look at Iran's economy). Obama does use more than one tool in his foreign policy.
The CIA under Obama has been training and arming Syrian rebel fighters right along so that intervention is well under way just not acknowledged.

Iran has been a source of hope that, you know, HopeŽ still lives.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2013, 07:17 PM   #23
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
Guess some only see what they want to see.
So why did you hear hype and myths presented for public consumption? Obama's strategy did not change. It included a staged play with the Russians where Kerry 'accidentally' dropped a suggestion that Russia took seriously. This was apparently scripted. Not entirely sure how much of the script was held by the Russians in advance. But while some had such poor sources as to be deceived into an ENORMOUS backlash, Obama's strategy to end Assad's entire chemical weapon stockpile and production facilities worked - 100%.

Not scripted was Parliament's rejection of military participation. But then Britain was there mostly for political justification. Britain's military contribution would have been minor. A few submarines launching cruise missiles were easily replaced a few more American destroyers and/or submarines.

Of course, you cannot blame Britain (or any other NATO country) for not wanting involvement. Since even in the Cellar in 2003, you can read how often and how egregiously the American administration openly lied to them - again and again.

Use of chemical weapons was a red line for the same reason first strike use of nuclear weapons must also result in world wide condemnation.

America's tiny military threat was so major to Syria that even no aircraft carrier groups were needed. That and the scripted cooperation with Russia completely defanged Assad's chemical weapons. The ENORMOUS backlash was lots of phooey and little substance. Russia got great political cover while cooperating in defanging an ally (Assad).

We have not seen such a military triumph since Holbrooke all but kidnapped Milosevic in Dayton and got him to surrender. Again without a military invasion. That's what great leaders do. Win military victories (put the dispute on a negotiation table) without deploying soldiers.

Your news sources need fixing if you really bought an enormous backlash myth.

BTW there was, apparently, more than two chemical attacks. Actual number remains vague and unconfirmed. Assad may have used chemical weapons seven times.

Meanwhile, any American intervention in Syria's civil war is obviously as bogus as Mission Accomplished. But so many extremists want it. That extremist solution is a 'classic' example of contempt for the American soldier.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 11:14 AM   #24
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff View Post
The CIA under Obama has been training and arming Syrian rebel fighters right along so that intervention is well under way just not acknowledged.
The number of rebel fighters we have trained is almost negligible though...

Quote:
The agency has trained fewer than 1,000 rebel fighters this year, current and former U.S. officials said. By contrast, U.S. intelligence analysts estimate that more than 20,000 have been trained to fight for government-backed militias by Assad’s ally Iran and the Hezbollah militant network it sponsors.

....

But the limited scope also reflects a deeper tension in the Obama administration’s strategy on Syria, one that has sought to advance U.S. interests but avoid being drawn more deeply into a conflict that the United Nations estimates has killed more than 100,000 people since it began in 2011.

The constraints have become a source of frustration within the CIA and drawn criticism from senior lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee meets regularly with senior officials from the CIA and other agencies, said there is a “high degree of frustration in the executive branch” with the Syria strategy.

“The situation in Syria is changing faster than the administration can keep up,” Rogers said. He declined to discuss CIA operations, which are classified, but said that U.S. support for moderate opposition groups is “less than robust” and has been hobbled by “inconsistent resource allocation with stated goals.”

CIA veterans expressed skepticism that the training and weapons deliveries will have any meaningful effect. In Jordan, operatives involved in training and arming rebels lament that “we’re being asked to do something with nothing,” a former senior U.S. intelligence official said. The former official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of agency operations overseas.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...-program-rebel

Even though we do have a presence, it is very small compared to the Gulf States, Iran, Al-Qaeda, etc. Also, there are definite tensions between the CIA and White House about this strategy. This scale of this "intervention" is very small compared to past interventions.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 11:38 AM   #25
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
I thought that was an interesting tone, minimizing the effect of hundreds of armed and trained fighters.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 12:48 PM   #26
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
You have a point. To my defense, my tone is reactionary to the more vocal anti-interventionists who tend to use "intervention" as an umbrella term and make no attempt to separate the difference between the current intervention in Syria with the intervention in Afghanistan in the 80's or the Bush wars. I find that very deceiving. While there are obvious similarities, the differences are too great to be direct analogies.


But yes, we are arming and training Syrian rebels (I actually thought it was less before you pointed that out). However, when compared to other countries who are involved, the scale is much less and it is absolutely clear that changing the balance of the civil war in not one of our objectives. This is a big difference from Afghanistan in the 80's where we were one of if not the main supplier of weapons and training and had the objective of overthrowing the Soviet regime in Kabul. It is clear that the US does not want to "own" the civil war and is making a strong attempt to minimize blowback. These two points are often ignored by anti-interventionists who want to argue against the current Syrian intervention by making it into the next Afghanistan intervention.


I understand and agree that intervening in Syria is a bad idea. The situation is too complex and we will have no control over what happens. Personally, I think we should stay out of the Syrian Civil War but still keep a close eye and be prepared for unexpected events (chemical weapons, Jordan collapsing, Israel getting involved). I am not completely against the current amount intervention because it is pretty much the minimal amount of intervention we can have. We should not be a main supplier of weapons and we should not try to change the balance of powers. That is just asking for blowback.

I am just strongly against the idea of using "intervention" as an umbrella term since it can mean so many different things. I am not accusing you are anyone on here of doing that but I see it all the time in articles I read so I tend to be jumpy against it.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 03:01 PM   #27
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
I wasn't precise enough. I thought the Post article was minimizing the "intervention" not you. I don't want this exchange to turn personal to the detriment of the discussion.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 06:44 PM   #28
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
Agreed.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 11:17 PM   #29
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Quote:
an out appeared, and he jumped at it.
Bullshit. He was all ready to go until the last moment when he realized that EVERYONE was against him.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2013, 12:30 AM   #30
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
He was all ready to go until the last moment when he realized that EVERYONE was against him.
There exists a simple word. Bluffing. Apparently having you in a poker game is quite profitable.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.