Comments on: Obama’s flawed case for a Syria strike http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/03/obamas-flawed-case-for-a-syria-strike/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: mmcg http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/03/obamas-flawed-case-for-a-syria-strike/#comment-75660 Sun, 08 Sep 2013 20:05:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=23638#comment-75660 Came in a Dove, no molded into a Hawk. Pummeled with the Lobby from every direction, every day. He’s not speaking with conviction. (reminds me of Powell with his charts).
How’s that Citizen United working out for ya America?

]]>
By: Bagehot http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/03/obamas-flawed-case-for-a-syria-strike/#comment-75531 Thu, 05 Sep 2013 23:56:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=23638#comment-75531 @JFalmog
There are rape houses all over the world, including apparently Cleveland O. As for tinpots stealing from their own people, again, there are a lot of places to shoot at. National policy is simply the safety and prosperity of Americans. No more. No less. Is Syria threatening the sea lanes? Any nukes aimed at the West? Nope. Clinton concluded the same thing about E.Timor & Rwanda and wisely sat them out. Like Melber said, Obama can’t guarantee a limited war, because no one knows how.

]]>
By: bald1 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/03/obamas-flawed-case-for-a-syria-strike/#comment-75468 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 17:37:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=23638#comment-75468 Our Middle Easter foreign policy is in disarray. We disengaged from Iraq before that country was prepared to govern and defend itself. We assumed that responsibility for governing and securing Iraq) when G.W. Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Today, in Iraq, the country is near civil war, with bombs killing dozens of personnel on a daily basis. We continue our military drawdown from Afghanistan, and the Afghan government and people are not nearly prepared to govern themselves. Afghanistan will sink into another civil war. We ousted Ghadaffi from Libya, and today, Libya is dysfunctional and in civil war. We backed the overthrow of Egypt’s Mubarak and stood by idly as the Egyptian military conducted a coup against a democratically elected government. So much for supporting democracy. Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons and has more regional influence than before G.W. Bush declared it to be part of the Axis of Evil and launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. We remain intertwined in the Israeli-Palestinian issue and simply lack the political resolve to either force an accomodation between these states or disengage and allow them to settle their issues once and for all. And, now, we are boxed in a corner in Syria and are about to undertake military strikes which will destroy much of Assad’s air force and command and control and tip the balance of power in favor of the rebels; we’ll then layer a “no fly” zone over rebel held territory and extend that zone as the rebels capture additional ground. Assad’s purported (but unproven) use of chemical weapons is our excuse to use force and support a regime change; the use of force has nothing to do with punishing Assad for his purported use of chemicals. And the end state of our upcoming war with Syria? Another failed state (likely in civil war) that increases instability in the Middle East and increases the threats to our national security interests. Taken together, we have over a decade of failed policy in the Middle East, and our planned actions against Syria will only serve to make worse that failed policy and heighten (not lessen) the threats to our national security interests. It’s a monumental mess.

]]>
By: bald1 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/03/obamas-flawed-case-for-a-syria-strike/#comment-75467 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 17:36:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=23638#comment-75467 Our Middle Easter foreign policy is in disarray. We disengaged from Iraq before that country was prepared to govern and defend itself. We assumed that responsibility for governing and securing Iraq) when G.W. Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Today, in Iraq, the country is near civil war, with bombs killing dozens of personnel on a daily basis. We continue our military drawdown from Afghanistan, and the Afghan government and people are not nearly prepared to govern themselves. Afghanistan will sink into another civil war. We ousted Ghadaffi from Libya, and today, Libya is dysfunctional and in civil war. We backed the overthrow of Egypt’s Mubarak and stood by idly as the Egyptian military conducted a coup against a democratically elected government. So much for supporting democracy. Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons and has more regional influence than before G.W. Bush declared it to be part of the Axis of Evil and launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. We remain intertwined in the Israeli-Palestinian issue and simply lack the political resolve to either force an accomodation between these states or disengage and allow them to settle their issues once and for all. And, now, we are boxed in a corner in Syria and are about to undertake military strikes which will destroy much of Assad’s air force and command and control and tip the balance of power in favor of the rebels; we’ll then layer a “no fly” zone over rebel held territory and extend that zone as the rebels capture additional ground. Assad’s purported (but unproven) use of chemical weapons is our excuse to use force and support a regime change; the use of force has nothing to do with punishing Assad for his purported use of chemicals. And the end state of our upcoming war with Syria? Another failed state (likely in civil war) that increases instability in the Middle East and increases the threats to our national security interests. Taken together, we have over a decade of failed policy in the Middle East, and our planned actions against Syria will only serve to make worse that failed policy and heighten (not lessen) the threats to our national security interests. It’s a monumental mess.

]]>
By: xcanada2 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/03/obamas-flawed-case-for-a-syria-strike/#comment-75463 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 16:39:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=23638#comment-75463 As Dr. Ron Paul says: It is ‘Reckless and immoral’ for US to intervene in Syria. Similarly his son, Senator Rand Paul:“At this point, I think it’s a bad idea”; paraphrasing, “it’s not known whether Assad would use chemical weapons”. Ron Paul: “I Smell Iraq All Over Again”

Progressive Change Campaign Committee: 1 million members, 73% to 18% respondents oppose U.S. military action in Syria.

Evidently, President Assad has had chemical weapons for a long time, and not used them. So do other countries, including US/Israel.

]]>
By: xcanada2 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/03/obamas-flawed-case-for-a-syria-strike/#comment-75459 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:59:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=23638#comment-75459 As has been explained many times now, the claim that Assad would invite US intervention by use of chemical weapons makes no tactical sense. Assad is clearly not a crazy person, and evidently enjoys broad support. This is Russia’s case, and just because Russia said it, does not change its logic.

On the other hand, the “rebels”, and their supporters, have been highly motivated by Obama’s “red line” to use CW and pin it on Assad. This is clearly the much more likely case.

No convincing case has been presented by the USgov that Assad used CW. The “proof” they have offered is in the form of various claimed communication interceptions. Voice and text can readily be doctored up by the interceptors, presumably mainly by Israel. The USgov and Isreal have previously manipulated the US into the Iraq war through lies and phony, and are very likely doing it again. Clearly the objective of the US/Israel is to take over control of the ME: Syria, Iran, and a few others to lesser extent, stand in their way.

Assad’s sin: Not to kowtow to the West. The Syrian people who are paying: 100,000 deaths, 2 million refugees, 2-3 million displaced people. These are naked war crimes of the highest degree.

As Mr. Melber says:
“We should not bomb Syria without a vital national security interest and a precise foreign policy objective. Right now, the Obama administration has not established either.”

While this is true, the issue of being lied into war (again), and the moral issue of killing many more Syrians, precedes this, and has not been settled.

]]>
By: ptiffany http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/03/obamas-flawed-case-for-a-syria-strike/#comment-75458 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:44:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=23638#comment-75458 Oh, yes, the media. Why is it that most of the media is banging the war drums as if they had all suddenly gone crazy? Who benefits from their extreme controversy-seeking fare?

]]>
By: ptiffany http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/03/obamas-flawed-case-for-a-syria-strike/#comment-75457 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:37:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=23638#comment-75457 Let’s get this straight. More than 110,000 Syrians – men, women and children – have been killed by bombs (all chemical weapons). Then, they use a different type of chemical bomb that kills 1,000+. Now, we’re upset?

What’s really going on is that the powers-that-be want the government to expend more resources to not only keep the conflict going, but to expand it! Think of the increase in profits they will make off of American weapons. Some conspiracy theory, huh?! Sometimes they’re true… The rich keep getting richer as the poor foot the bills.

The Syrian conflict is the ideal investment for arms manufacturers. We cannot possibly accomplish anything other than waste resources, antagonize more people and expand the conflict. Fantastic!

]]>
By: pharoah http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/03/obamas-flawed-case-for-a-syria-strike/#comment-75455 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:17:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=23638#comment-75455 Judging by Obama’a performance, at the press conference with the prime minister of Sweden, it is abundantly clear that he has failed to get Sweden on his side over the question of attacking Syria.
Despite widespread lack of support both domestic and international he persists.
In the face of such stubborness it can only be assumed that he has a personal agenda for insisting on playing policeman to the world.
He stands to harvest a storm beyond his capacity to control.
All in all he has been a great disappointment as president.
In effect he has accomplished nothing of note at home or abroad.
At home he did little re. the Gulf oil spill. His health act is in trouble. He saved GM and destroyed Detroit.
Abroad he killed Bin Laden – already a “has been” in the realm of terrorists. He made a humiliating shambles of Libya. Accomplished nothing on Iran and continues to lose the war in Afghanistan with as bad a defeat as suffered by the Russians.
A president is judged by his accomplishments.
He has none.
By his own mouth he is indeed “unworthy” of the Nobel Peaces prize.

]]>
By: BidnisMan http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/03/obamas-flawed-case-for-a-syria-strike/#comment-75452 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 14:25:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=23638#comment-75452 Few are mentioning the positive side to a war. It stimulates the economy, especially the defense industry. There might be an upswing in jobs. Of course these will be red dollars, not green ones, but in the end a dollar is a dollar.

/sarcasm font off.

]]>