Syria

I'm suggesting that they were desperately throwing anything at the wall hoping something would stick.
I don't believe for a second Obama actually thinks it has anything to do with sending a message to Iran or North Korea or Papua New Guinea.
I think his administration began telling Republicans that, hoping to appeal to them. Because Republicans care about Iran and North Korea, since they are actual existential threats, unlike Syria or Libya.

The point is, Obama really wanted his war, for reasons we may never know now, but it looks like he won't get it.
If he does start a war anyways at this point, then the negative blow back on him at home and abroad will now be exponentially more severe.

I think Obama perhaps wanted to overthrow Assad, so Syria could be his Legacy.
I think Steve may have actually gone back in time to write The Legacy about Obama, but by going back in history he inadvertently changed it.
 
Meh, there's no logic in that. Just hollow accusations. Not even worth arguing over.
 
Cried - What I'm saying here is paramount to the situation. Syria is just a pawn in a game between the US, Russia, Iran, and the Saudis.
And as such, the international aspect to the crisis will return as soon as there is an opening.

And important to the humanitarian side of it -
This means the wholesale slaughter will continue unabated.
Wasn't this all about that from the start, not some sideshow about chemical weapons that is responsible for only several hundred of the over 100,000 dead?

Understand this - as it now stands, nothing was changed by this whole episode over the past week.
Things almost changed in unpredictable ways.
But instead, barring any new unforeseen developments, it will carry on exactly as it has for 2½ years, predictably.

Mosh - there is logic in what I said, unless you believe Obama never actually wanted to do anything about Syria.
 
King Of Twilight said:
Cried - What I'm saying here is paramount to the situation. Syria is just a pawn in a game between the US, Russia, Iran, and the Saudis.
Click to expand...
Mosh - there is logic in what I said, unless you believe Obama never actually wanted to do anything about Syria.
Click to expand...
I don't get it, you understand Syria's role in the grand scheme of things yet once Obama becomes involved it's not true anymore.
 
If Russia's movement has teeth, like the Russians are willing to accept UN inspectors an UN peacekeeping force to secure, remove, and then destroy Syria's chemical weapons, then let's do it. Of course, if the US and NATO hadn't threatened a strike, Russia would never have suggested such a move - it's still win/win for Putin and win/loss for Obama if that's the case, but as long as the chemical weapons are removed, who really cares?

For reference, Russia has been opposed to this move for a year, which is why strikes were on the table. Clear now that Russia knows there's nothing they can do about a US strike and wants to give Syria an out. I doubt Putin cares if they take it, of course. He wins no matter what. He's going to make the USA look bad internationally or convince Obama to do the politically unpopular thing and drop missiles on Syria.
 
The thing I keep coming back to is "who cares about chemical weapons?"
It is an arbitrary distinction. Hundreds have died in Syria because of them. Over one hundred thousand have died by conventional weapons.
The debate over chemical weapons is a sideshow. Taking a stand against them is a hollow feel-good measure.
Syria isn't even a signatory of the Geneva Protocol, so they are not violating any treaty. That's why Obama said they were going against "international norms" or some such. He couldn't say "international law" because there isn't one. There is just an agreement among some nations not to use chemical weapons against each other.

But again, this is just one of many ways to kill people, and if it is the killing you care about, then the recent events should not bring you any solace. Indeed, they only inoculate Assad. He now faces no threat of military retaliation for crossing the "Red Line." Instead he faces some UN inspectors.

This is what I was talking about earlier. Obama wanted a war, and he is apparently still going to try to get one, but he was checkmated by Putin because of his administrations' amateurism.

I happen to think going to war in Syria was a very bad idea, but obviously Obama doesn't. He didn't when he was lobbying Congress for the authority, and one can only assume he hasn't changed his mind just because Kerry flubbed big-time.

The facts are evolving here, and thus, so should our analysis. We have learned quite a bit by the administration's failed scramble to walk back Kerry's "offer" and Putin's quickness to accept before they were able to slam the door on it. We have also learned that rebels have been secretly giving the administration Assad Regime targets to be able to defeat the regime. Obama made statements about "shifting the momentum " in Syria before papering over them with statements about the strikes being "unbelievably small" and ineffective. So you can be sure that while Obama will put on the best public face to act as though he accomplished something, behind the scenes they are fuming about getting boxed in by Putin.

One of the common mistakes people make when something happens in the world they don't like is to say "something needs to be done about that!"
In other words, THE GOVERNMENT should step in and write a law or throw some money at it, or sometimes, send men with guns to shoot at it.
But government rarely solves problems. Government usually just adds to them.
That is the case here. Unfortunately, there is no good solution. The worst possible outcome would be what we've seen every time since the start of the so called "Arab Spring" - it quickly turns into the "Jihadist Winter."

There was an opportunity, two years ago or more, to cultivate the early protest movement. Before it was co-opted by armed terrorists. But that moment passed long ago. The Obama administration apparently thinks that the rebels they have now are worth backing. But this administration also has a very hard time distinguishing the good guys from the bad guys. They've shunned our allies and reached out to our enemies time and time again, so it should be no surprise that this lack of judgement - or perhaps lack of basic longstanding American principles - extends to the battlefield as well. It is a big reason why so few in congress were willing to give Obama a greenlight to go to war yet again.
 
Last edited:
Btw, it's been reported that the chemical weapons "out of use" suggestion was discussed prior to Kerry blurting that out the other day. That aside, the long & the short of it is: putting the Syrian chemical weapons beyond use (or destroying them) is going to be incredibly difficult. All the experts, so far, have confirmed it would be possible, but difficult during peace times; but hard to imagine being possible while a civil war is being fought. They'll need a ceasefire or something. And, I can't see that happening, to be honest. I agree Twilight --there is little consistency in one highlighting a few hundred dead (having said very little up until now), when the civil war death toll is 100,000+ through bullets, bombs, torture, etc. The diplomatic machines should have been in overdrive when this all started...
 
Yeah, it was reported... by Obama. So it's a question of whether you believe that, or if you recognize what's going on here. The Obama administration has lost control of the situation completely. Russia is now in control, after Obama and Kerry got outclassed by Putin. The best Obama can do now is try to make it look like it was deliberate. Putin knows Obama is lying about that. He doesn't care. He'll let Obama take the credit. That only entangles the administration further. Now Obama's hands are tied as long as Syria makes a minimal effort to appear cooperative.

Of course it will be incredibly difficult, bordering on impossible. That's why Putin jumped at the chance. It is just a stalling tactic. Saddam Hussein stalled like that for 12 years.
 
King Of Twilight said:
Of course it will be incredibly difficult, bordering on impossible. That's why Putin jumped at the chance. It is just a stalling tactic. Saddam Hussein stalled like that for 12 years.
Click to expand...

So true. Except that Saddam was telling the truth when he said he had no WMDs. So maybe it wasn't stalling.

In fact, Iraq allowed their WMDs to be destroyed in 1996. By 1998 the UN group responsible for this claimed 90-95% destruction with an assurance that 100% was impossible because Iraq had destroyed some of their own weapons then claimed they never existed. We found out, starting in 2003, that Iraq had no further WMDs. Sure, Saddam didn't allow weapon inspectors back, but you know, that wasn't really the reason for the attack.

If Obama hadn't threatened force this never would have happened. And honestly, who cares if it's a process, as long as it happens. If it passes the UN (and with Russian support, it will) then we enter into a new legal process which may include RTP, and which will require UN peacekeeping. Once authorization is given then whoever wants to can push as hard as they can to get this done. I don't think Obama did this intelligently and I don't think he did it elegantly but hey, if it gets the weapons out of Syrian control and destroyed, then I'm happy.

If Obama had backed off the red line more than he did, I don't think any change would have occurred. So yeah, I'm willing to give him 50% on this one. Putin gets the other 50%.
 
I pretty much do think this is a stall on the part of Syria and Russia and it gives Obama an out, there is no way this is passing the house and I think it is iffy it will pass the Senate at this point... the old Cold War "trust but verify" saying comes to mind here.
 
@Perun (tagging because I am not sure how often you followed this thread ;-), I thought you but also others would find this interesting. It seems that Iranian soldiers are fighting with Assad's troops and they even have a leading role. This was suspected but until recently there weren't any images that support this in such a strong way.

I just saw a film in which you'll see and hear these people, filmed by an Iranian cameraman, who follows an Iranian commander.

At some point they are attacked by rebels, and the camera man dies. You see the camera fall on the ground. Then rebels have taken the camera and gave it to Al Jazeera, and it also got in the hands of a journalist of Nieuwsuur, a program I just watched. Apparently, the commander is also dead now, and was buried with honour in Iran. I just saw it on TV, and apart from a short version with constant voice over I haven't found it on internet. Hopefully tomorrow.
 
Are you still for a strike though Forostar? I thought you'd be dead against such an idea, but you seemed to be genuinely in support of it a week or so ago. Has anything changed much, in your own mind, or are you still in favour of military action?
 
Last edited:
Difficult. It's good to have diplomacy but if there's no solution, or too much delay I still think military action is what's needed. Let's say that I agree with military action described by Obama in his speech (especially 14:53-15:35).
 
Obama's speech was all over the place. The fact that you have to point to which slice you agree with proves that. He put a little something for everyone in there. By saying everything, he's saying nothing. He needs to pick a policy and stick with it. His administration hasn't even been able to do that for a whole day so far. Last night, Obama wasn't even able to do it for a whole speech.

LooseCannon - if Saddam had no more WMD by 1996, then what was Clinton bombing as Congress met to impeach him?
I still remember the split screens on TV that day...
We may never know if Saddam still had WMD. We know he had operational facilities still. We also know there was a lot of transport activity at his suspected facilities just before the invasion. If the cops stand at the door long enough threatening to bust in, the suspect is going to flush the evidence. Bush foolishly gave Saddam a year. A lot can be flushed in a year.

So now when Syria says "we have no chemical weapons," and Russia says "yup, it's true, we checked," then what?
Because that is what's coming next.
You bought that Saddam didn't. Will you buy that Assad doesn't, too?
Or will you say "he's lying, let's bomb!"? That's what Bush did, too.
And when the smoke clears, there won't be any more evidence in Syria than there was in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
The ongoing and continuously changing situation makes it difficult to exactly tell what and when to do. It isn't "OK, everything is OK now", and it isn't "we're going to a long war with boots on the ground a la Iraq".
King Of Twilight said:
So now when Syria says "we have no chemical weapons," and Russia says "yup, it's true, we checked," then what?
Because that is what's coming next.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Syria has officially admitted that they have chemical weapons.
 
Last edited:
Forostar said:
@Perun (tagging because I am not sure how often you followed this thread ;-),
Click to expand...

I do follow this thread, but I have said all I have to say on the topic. Also, I'm not fond of allies like King of Twilight.

I thought you but also others would find this interesting. It seems that Iranian soldiers are fighting with Assad's troops and they even have a leading role. This was suspected but until recently there weren't any images that support this in such a strong way.
Click to expand...

Are they regular soldiers, basijis or pasdaran? Not that it matters to the victims, but they stand for different levels of Iranian involvement.
 
Forostar said:
Not sure, the presenter says Iranian Republican Guard, but that might be Revolutionary Guard?
Click to expand...

Iran doesn't have a unit called "Republican Guard". That's a Ba'th thing - Saddam had those, and Assad has them. He probably means the Revolutionary Guard, which are the Pasdaran. They are not part of the regular army, but their involvement definitely means top level governmental interference from Iran. Whatever the consequence of that is, I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top