Middle East/North Africa 12 - Armageddon Anyone?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Whatever the US decides to do. The same way Iran has been threatened with military consequences for their nuclear program. That have been taken seriously.

You really think so? I think this actually undercuts your own point, because we've been making threats for years, having done jack shit about it, and everyone knows we're not going to do anything about it.

First if we dont back up what our president says is a "red line" we are in serious deep shit in world politics. No matter how much we might not want it to be this way this is a world where real politik rules. Our word needs to not only be good, it needs to be fucking scary. When we say we will bomb your camel humping ass back in to the stone age they need to be scared shitless.

As I've mentioned above, we've basically been uttering threats against Iran for years, and everyone has pretty much figured out not to take us seriously. We made statements that North Korea would not be permitted to have a bomb. That didn't work out so well either. I mean, do you really think the U.S. is going to mount an intensive bombing campaign against Iran to prevent them from getting the bomb?

I don't, and I don't think many other people do either. But should we do it anyway -- even though it likely wouldn't work -- just to maintain credibiliy?

[Suttree]

Did he offer any actual evidence?

Here is what I have seen on the topic.

NY Times

American intelligence agencies in the three days before the Aug. 21 attack detected signs of activities by the Syrian authorities “associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack,” the assessment said. Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the suburb of Adra from Aug. 18 until early on the morning of Aug. 21. On that date, it added, a “Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack,” including the use of gas masks.

Spy satellites detected rocket launchings from government-controlled territory 90 minutes before the first reports of a chemical weapons attack. The intelligence agencies said they had identified more than 100 videos related to the attack, many showing large numbers of bodies with physical signs consistent with nerve agents, and they added that the Syrian opposition “does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos.”

The agencies also said they had intercepted the communications of a senior Syrian official who “confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on Aug. 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence,” the assessment said. It added that on the afternoon of that day, Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations.

[Shryke]

You really think so? I think this actually undercuts your own point, because we've been making threats for years, having done jack shit about it, and everyone knows we're not going to do anything about it.

Actually Iran has been brutally crippled by economic sanctions and forced to do some insane shit to safeguard their nuclear programs because of the threats.

As I've mentioned above, we've basically been uttering threats against Iran for years, and everyone has pretty much figured out not to take us seriously. We made statements that North Korea would not be permitted to have a bomb. That didn't work out so well either. I mean, do you really think the U.S. is going to mount an intensive bombing campaign against Iran to prevent them from getting the bomb?

North Korea is a much bigger problem because they have the Chinese watching their backs, sorta.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Actually Iran has been brutally crippled by economic sanctions and forced to do some insane shit to safeguard their nuclear programs because of the threats.

But the threat is that they won't be permitted to produce them, and they're still going ahead with it.

North Korea is a much bigger problem because they have the Chinese watching their backs, sorta.

But it was still a blown credibility issue, right?

[Free Northman]

Well call me gullible but I'm fully convinced by Kerry's speech and am now firmly on the let's go get 'em bandwagon.

[Shryke]

But the threat is that they won't be permitted to produce them, and they're still going ahead with it.

As far as we know they are still limping along, but they've still been made a rather abject lesson. No one wants to end up like Iran.

But it was still a blown credibility issue, right?

Not really. There was no credible threat before that.

The North Korea issue more made Bush's Axis of Evil a joke and encouraged Iranian nuclear efforts.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well call me gullible but I'm fully convinced by Kerry's speech and am now firmly on the let's go get 'em bandwagon.

I believe the evidence. I just don't think bombing is in our national interest.

Look, at this point, everyone is well-aware of Obama's "red-line" statement, and how he's boxed in by it. When we engage in some very limited bombing that does little damage, it's going to at least appear to many people -- and be repeated as a mantra by our opponents -- that the only reason Obama did this was to back up his boasts, and prove his manhood.

Now, God help us if there are some innocent civilians injured in this, or if they can put forth even a half-assed claim that some were. Because then, the narrative is going to be "Obama decided to bomb Syrian and kill these little children not for peace, but simply for the selfish reasons of backing up his own boasts. His very own CIA was telling him that President Assad never ordered this attack. Obama knew this. Yet, to prove he was a man, he killed these children. Death to America!"

I'm really, really tired of hearing the same story over and over, with us being the punchline.

[Shryke]

I believe the evidence. I just don't think bombing is in our national interest.

Look, at this point, everyone is well-aware of Obama's "red-line" statement, and how he's boxed in by it. When we engage in some very limited bombing that does little damage, it's going to at least appear to many people -- and be repeated as a mantra by our opponents -- that the only reason Obama did this was to back up his boasts, and prove his manhood.

Now, God help us if there are some innocent civilians injured in this, or if they can put forth even a half-assed claim that some were. Because then, the narrative is going to be "Obama decided to bomb Syrian and kill these little children not for peace, but simply for the selfish reasons of backing up his own boasts. His very own CIA was telling him that President Assad never ordered this attack. Obama knew this. Yet, to prove he was a man, he killed these children. Death to America!"

I'm really, really tired of hearing the same story over and over, with us being the punchline.

I'm gonna remember your concern for the opinions of the international community for the future.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Is the part about the CIA just something you're saying could be part of the narrative? Or did you actually see that somewhere?

I've read in a couple of places leaks about the intercepts, that they couldn't trace it to Assad, and that it might have been a subordinate command taking authority it did not have. That has been printed in newspapers, so it is certainly something that can be alleged with some support. Whether it was actually the CIA as opposed to someone else, I don't know.

Actually, I think I remember reading that it was an Israeli intercept, which would enable themm to replace "CIA" with "Zionist pigs". Doesn't really change the point much, does it?

I don't mean to be snarky. But I'm old enough to be sick and tired of my country being blamed for everything even when we try to do the right thing.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm gonna remember your concern for the opinions of the international community for the future.

I don't give a shit about the opinions of the international community when it is our national security, or the security of an ally requesting assistance, that is at stake. But here, this is truly a "world policement" intervention if ever there was one. So yes, I do care about the potential for blowback when there isn't any real U.S. interest at stake.

Maybe you should just lobby your own government to do this.

[Shryke]

Actually you seem mostly concerned with your country "being blamed for everything".

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Well call me gullible but I'm fully convinced by Kerry's speech and am now firmly on the let's go get 'em bandwagon.

Go get who?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Maybe you should just lobby your own government to do this.

Nope, it's America's responsibility because reasons.

[DanteGabriel]

I don't give a shit about the opinions of the international community when it is our national security, or the security of an ally requesting assistance, that is at stake. But here, this is truly a "world policement" intervention if ever there was one. So yes, I do care about the potential for blowback when there isn't any real U.S. interest at stake.

This is pretty funny given your previous comments about what a good idea Iran-Contra was.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This is pretty funny given your previous comments about what a good idea Iran-Contra was.

Why? The purpose (whether valid/moral or not) of arming the contras was to prevent a communist foothold in Central America, which we believed would assist friendly non-communist governments down there as well. When we believe an action to be to our direct benefit, I see no reason to seek U.N. approval.

If we're just doing something to be "nice guys", without any particular interest greater than that of most other nations, why go out on a limb and catch a ration of shit?

[DanteGabriel]

Why? The purpose (whether valid/moral or not) of arming the contras was to prevent a communist foothold in Central America, which we believed would assist friendly non-communist governments down there as well. When we believe an action to be to our direct benefit, I see no reason to seek U.N. approval.

If we're just doing something to be "nice guys", without any particular interest greater than that of most other nations, why go out on a limb and catch a ration of shit?

Your previous comment was about our national security. Now it's about "our direct benefit."

And anyway, you were concerned about blowback in this case, but apparently the blowback from selling weapons to a state sponsor of terrorism or arming Central American rebels with their fingers int he drug trade wasn't so worrisome?

I won't belabor my vehement feelings about sponsoring right-wing monsters in the name of "fighting communism."

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Your previous comment was about our national security. Now it's about "our direct benefit."

Same thing. Back then, fighting against communism anywhere was perceived by some to be in our national interest. That is not the same as the main humanitarian argument being advanced in support of Syrian intervention.

Leaving that tangent aside, I just saw a report that the Syrians are moving prisoners to airfields, etc.. to use as human shields.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Obama told reporters he had yet to make a final decision, but hinted at a military strike that sources and experts say would entail cruise missiles fired from U.S. Navy ships at Syrian command targets -- but not at any chemical weapons stockpiles.

So we're going to do exactly jack shit, at great expense, for "credibility".

(no one has yet said in whose eyes we would lose credibility or what the consequences of such would actually be, it's apparently just being accepted as true that this credibility is extremely valuable and worth millions of my dollars and hundreds of Syrian lives)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It's kind of obvious, is it not? Per what Kouran said...we end up looking more toothless. The more toothless we look the less anyone will consider the US's response.

Who the hell is actually going to think we're toothless? In the last 10 years we've made war in like 6 different countries. Who is actually going to think "Well the didn't go after Syria so they're not going to come after me". No one is actually going to think that.

[DanteGabriel]

Speaking of toothless, I don't think we're going to see that long-awaited justification for "Obama is friends with the Muslim Brotherhood."