USA Politics

If the fighting were confined to Assad Loyalists and more radical Islamists on the other side, I would not be opposed to let them keep fighting it out. My concern is for the civilians and at this point, the options seem limited to letting them get killed or some action to at least reduce that
 
I am not saying that nothing should be done. I am only saying that a military strike is the worst possible option. Especially if it is for some stupid motive like "showing Russia the middle finger".

There must be an alternative to a military strike. Must.
 
That was not a motive. It was a consequence. By refusing to listen to them, a middle finger is given.
Perun said:
I am not saying that nothing should be done. I am only saying that a military strike is the worst possible option. Especially if it is for some stupid motive like "showing Russia the middle finger".

There must be an alternative to a military strike. Must.
Click to expand...
I haven't given up either, but the chances are so slim.
 
I just think it's cynical and inhuman to say things like giving middle fingers when we're talking about human life and death.
 
The must is what the UN is doing now; which is very little. The inspectors are in, a few shots have been fired --& they're on the back foot. If they can't establish the method of delivery of the chemical weapons used, then they can't say who was responsible; & if they can't esablish that, then military intervention doesn't seem that likely, I'd say.
 
Russia has acted very inhuman by blocking all kinds of measurements. That's inhuman.
LooseCannon said:
There you go. Right there. How many western interventions in the Middle East have gone right?
Click to expand...
Right in the sense of absolute peace.... ? None. So there's a lot to learn then.
 
Forostar said:
Right in the sense of absolute peace.... ? None. So there's a lot to learn then.
Click to expand...

No, right as in the sense of the West went in, did what they intended to do, and got out leaving behind whatever was intended. Libya - maybe.
 
I wish I hadn't made that finger comment. Sorry, no idea that this could have led to so much anger.
Meanwhile breaking news:


Damascus, Syria (CNN) -- [Breaking news update, posted at 3:06 p.m. ET]

(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that evidence "strongly indicates" that chemical weapons were used in Syria, adding that "we know the Syrian regime maintains custody" of such weapons and has the rockets to use them.

He said President Obama "will be making an informed decision about how to respond" and "believes there must be accountability" for those who use them.

 
Well, that video says it all. And now, the finger is only pointed in the direction of Assad's regime.

After such a speech, I can't imagine that there will not be a military reaction. And bearfan: the USA is in front, organizing support.

CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
If they can't establish the method of delivery of the chemical weapons used, then they can't say who was responsible; & if they can't esablish that, then military intervention doesn't seem that likely, I'd say.
Click to expand...
As said in the video, there is other information. And also:

"Attacking the area, shelling and systematically destroying evidence is not the behaviour of a government that has nothing to hide. The regime's belated decision to allow access is too late... to be credible," Mr Kerry said.
 
Forostar said:
Well, that video says it all. And now, the finger is only pointed in the direction of Assad's regime.

After such a speech, I can't imagine that there will not be a military reaction. And bearfan: the USA is in front, organizing support.


As said in the video, there is other information. And also: the Syrian regime blocked the investigation, which makes them highly suspected.
Click to expand...

Let's see what the actual response is
 
I just watched that video; pretty strong response. A couple of points...

I've heard several "experts" over that last few days (in the media) say that the window for collecting the kind of evidence that would point to who used the chemical weapons, is closing fast; or has probably closed. Surprisingly, Kerry says that window closed last week; when Ban Ki-moon said that this kind of evidence had either been destroyed or just wouldn't be found. Fair enough. What exactly are the UN inspectors doing then (--besides being shot at)? And what's the other evidence that points to the Syrian Government having done this? The evidence is going to have to be as credible, as the Assad's Government's isn't (credible), to justify (some sort of) a military response i.e. better than Powell's WMD "evidence".

Another thing that gets you thinking. It's quite smart, in a way (just plain sensible, as he says), to lay criticism & blame squarely at the feet of the custodians of these weapons; a kind of "you either used them, or it's your fault someone else used them" response. What's the world been doing about the Governments they know hold stockpiles of chemical weapons? Anyone who has them has the potential to use them. This is very much a crisis response; one wonders how much effort is being made, when there's not a crisis, to ensure these weapons are destroyed or put beyond use.

It just seems like the world has/had no plan as to how to deal with this kind of situation (look how chaotic the response has been); as if we never imagined this would happen (in this crisis or any other).
 
Last edited:
The lack of a plan is disturbing ... you would think then the red line declaration was given .. and that was some time ago, there would be something ready to put into action by now .. no a "we will come up with an appropriate response"
 
Of course I'm gone all day and miss this discussion, I'm pretty tired so I'll just respond to these two posts for now:

Forostar said:
So, Mosh and bearfan: Obama can't do right anymore in your eyes?
Click to expand...
I don't know what prompted this, but I think over the course of his presidency he's lost any credibility that he might've had. I won't expect much out of the remainder of his presidency. The lesson here, in my opinion, is to remember that no matter how convincing these people are, they're still politicians. The majority of them are more interested in having power and being "right" as opposed to doing good for the people who elected them. One guy isn't going to change everything. It's a broken system that doesn't end with the president. I wouldn't be surprised if the next one runs on a similar platform as Obama and we end up with similar results.

Forostar said:
It's so tragic to see that a man who can tell visions like Martin Luther King has realized so little in the last years.
Click to expand...
The comparison to Martin Luther King has always irked me. He's a good speaker, sure, but he's nothing like MLK. King was a force for social justice, an advocate for peace and a strong willed man who fought (peacefully) for his rights all the way up to his death. Obama is none of these things. To even compare the two is almost insulting.
 
That's the biggest difference for me. If MLK gave up as easily as Obama has, we wouldn't be talking about him today.
 
Guys, of course there are differences between these people. Obama is not an activist. He is a politician who is constantly compromising. So much that there's hardly much left of his ideals when you look at his results, but this is inherently connected to politics trying to get something done; still it is tragic, compared to what voters have expected. It's a very difficult thing and I think it's way too easy to say he gives up.

In election time, Obama had this convincing power to tell about his vision. That's the only comparison I made. And I stated it to show the painful contrast.
 
But he does give up. Compromise is one thing, but he's trying to compromise with an immature congress that won't budge. There are members of congress who are determined to shoot down everything Obama proposes. Every single thing. He shouldn't even be trying with these people. But he's spineless, he should be actively pushing to achieve what he promised to do and he isn't doing that. He did it with Healthcare though, and look what happened; he got his way. It isn't too easy to say he gives up, it's the truth. Yes it's a difficult thing, but we didn't elect this guy to give him a pat on the back in the end and say "well at least you tried". He made all these bold declarations and these great promises and hardly delivered. He deserves to be held up to the standard that he created and be criticized for being all talk.
 
Do you want a strong President or are you honestly disappointed that some (any?) of his plans did not come through? Or a bit of both?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top