Middle East 14 - You know nothing ...

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Assad does come out the winner here doesn't he?? No way they can secure the CW during the war so he gets to keep those as a last resort. There's no bombing so he gets to keep his most effective weapons, fighter jets, attack helicopters, missiles, tanks, while his supporters will continue to funnel weapons to him. The rebels become demoralized and the islamists come more to the forefront in the fight, making it even less appealing for Western interests to get involved. Not too shabby.

No, its not.

We got played.

[The Progressive]

Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded, their governments overthrown and the countries occupied and administered by the occupying forces. Kosovo had a bombing campaign to force the Serbs back. Once achieved peacekeepers were sent in to try and keep both sides from re-engaging in hostilities and they for the most part succeeded. There were no combat missions. There was no administrative role for the peacekeepers. They just tried to facilitate peace. I think the differences are pretty self-evident.

I'm afraid that your stance is utterly confusing here snake. I really cannot fathom the cognitive dissonance of advocating for a more gungho "peacekeeping" and nation-building in Libya and Syria because Iraq and Afghanistan were "invaded and occupied". That does not make any freaking sense because any allied forces, be it the U.S. or NATO or the UN would be technically invading Lybia and Syria if the purpose is for nation-building like you argue.

The comparison to Kosovo is even worse because neither Libya nor Syria has invaded anybody to warrant your invasion. What justification are there for your to intervene militarily?

I really don't think that you've spent much time thinking about the lack of logical consistencies in your stance at all.

[awesome possum]

America has been desperately and repeatedly trying to avoid military intervention in Syria

What the deuce? And you have the nerve to say other people are living in a different reality?

Look dude, you can support Obama and still think he's fallible. I certainly do. To err is human.

Sorry to interrupt, please proceed with your insults and accusations of "partisan hackery" for everyone who disagrees with your version of reality.

[Clueless Northman]

Listen, I think clearly that we are not reading the same news sources (or even in the same reality) if you cannot see that America has been desperately and repeatedly trying to avoid military intervention in Syria and prodding the Russians in diplomatic endeavors to do something about assad's chemical weapons.

Didn't Obama pontify about red line?

Didn't he then argue that since the red line has been breached, intervention should follow on and military strikes would happen?

Didn't he and others in his administration argue that Bashar was an evil man and his regime was akin to Nazi Germany for using these weapons - clearly implying that the regime should be ousted, by force if necessary?

Didn't he intend to ask the Congress to allow the use of military weapons?

If Obama didn't want to intervene, he could just have stood quiet and not done any of these things, and then indeed, it would be obvious to everyone that he doesn't want to intervene at all.

I mean, sure, you can argue that he deserves a 2nd Peace Prize for his behaviour in the Syrian crisis. Don't just expect the Nobel Committee to give it to him again :)

[TheKitttenGuard]

btw, the CIA has been shipping weapons to the rebels for the last two weeks.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular

I suppose Putin is already is penning his follow-up op ed claiming that U.S. support for the rebels is making it impossible for chamical weapons to be accounted for and placed under international control.

The Administration thinks it has come up with this brilliant strategy of holding the Russians accountable for Syrian chemical weapons. They're ignoring the reality that the Russians will refuse to accept that accountability, and that they and Assad will blame the rebels and their supporters (including the U.S. and, uh, AQ) for making it impossible to account for those chemical munitions.

Then he could restart the authorization process with more democratic supporters in some role. He can authorize military and dare impeachment.

In the end if we have a stop in all fighting and starting an elimination process will be great and I do not care who looks weak or strong. Some part looks Obama getting shit for not being a dictator.

OTOH, he failed to build any diplomatic or political support in the time since the "Red Line" statement result in his current situtation.

Then again, I do not want the bombing so why should I feel some horrible wound occured?

If they are serious than some good can still come. What I think would acheive it is not part of any discussion and may not be, would not be easy at the current state but I am still an optimist on America likability even with it all.

The current muddle is also a result of just decimiation of diplomacy. The "Trust but Verify" view is strong on Republican and goes into some lamenent. It feeds the overall MIC by making non-intervension some fortress mentality. Threat of use of force is against international law and so you can not enforce what is an International Treaty with legitmacy. The manner that many supporters of the President point out that the threat of force is their shows our current state. A true diplomatic route should be done and be great if Rand Paul start a converstation of the anti-international conspiraction that perments in the Republican party. I have pessissnism of all that at this point.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Then he could restart the authorization process with more democratic supporters in some role. He can authorize military and dare impeachment.

In the end if we have a stop in all fighting and starting an elimination process will be great and I do not care who looks weak or strong. Some part looks Obama getting shit for not being a dictator.

OTOH, he failed to build any diplomatic or political support in the time since the "Red Line" statement result in his current situtation.

Then again, I do not want the bombing so why should I feel some horrible wound occured?

If they are serious than some good can still come. What I think would acheive it is not part of any discussion and may not be, would not be easy at the current state but I am still an optimist on America likability even with it all.

The current muddle is also a result of just decimiation of diplomacy. The "Trust but Verify" view is strong on Republican and goes into some lamenent. It feeds the overall MIC by making non-intervension some fortress mentality. Threat of use of force is against international law and so you can not enforce what is an International Treaty with legitmacy. The manner that many supporters of the President point out that the threat of force is their shows our current state. A true diplomatic route should be done and be great if Rand Paul start a converstation of the anti-international conspiraction that perments in the Republican party. I have pessissnism of all that at this point.

Os, is that you?

[The Progressive]

Listen, you two (awesomepossum/cluelessnorthman) need a reality check.

Do you even realize that the Syrian civil war has been raging since about March/April 2011. There has been people arguing for military intervention as early as April 2012, for example the former US ambassador to NATO:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0424/The-case-for-military-intervention-in-Syria

Some months ago, people on this board were openly criticizing Obama for not taking action sooner, after the first reported incident of chemical attack. Instead, we have more and more diplomatic missions and contacts and discussions with the Russians dragging on for more than a year. We have Obama using every excuse not to intervene after the first reported gas attack, with a redline drawn, and then redrawn, and then more inane talks that violence against civilians in unacceptable.

So what that translate to in reality is an administration trying desperately to avoid military conflict and to engage in diplomatic solutions with a hostile and unwavering opponent in Russia.

But please, don't allow yourselves to be confused by facts and carry on as usual. :)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I mean, sure, you can argue that he deserves a 2nd Peace Prize for his behaviour in the Syrian crisis. Don't just expect the Nobel Committee to give it to him again :)

What's happening on that front is that Putin just kicked sand in Obama's face, pushed him down, and is going to grab that Prize for himself right off Obama's mantel.

[The Progressive]

What's happening on that front is that Putin just kicked sand in Obama's face, pushed him down, and is going to grab that Prize for himself right off Obama's mantel.

:lmao:

Such personal animosity is very amusing. Keep the hits coming flow. ;)

[Shryke]

Except the Russians are claiming that it was the rebels who actually used them, and they'll simply say the same thing if there is another chemical attack. "Don't blame us or Assad -- it was those damn rebels again." And given that there does not seem to be international agreement as to who is clearly responsible, the Russians can do that with a straight face.

Except that means Assad forgot to tell everyone "Oh yeah, I misplaced a bunch of chemical weapons". And again Russia is left responsible.

But...retribution was the stated policy of the U.S.. That was the red-line, at least as understood by the entire world. That red-line has just morphed into "well, you can use them once without fear of retribution. But -- and we really mean it this time -- don't do it again."

Was it? Or was it "If you use chemical weapons, we'll make sure you never use them again"? You understand that even just bombing Assad to inflict damage on his regime says this too, yes?

When a child breaks the rules and you hit them for it, the whole point is sending the message "Don't do that again". Just like here. The red-line was always "Don't do it again" because that's what any punishment for breaking the rules is says.

In fact, the only time it would cross from discipline to retribution is when the child promises to never do it again and you hit them anyway saying "Well that was for doing it the first time!"

As long as Assad agrees to hand over his weapons, the US has achieved it's goal of making sure Assad "doesn't do it again".

What you're really saying is that the U.S. would be drawing a new red-line forbidding him from using chemical weapons. And that we'd exact retribution if he crossed that new red line. But considering that the world and Congress wasn't willing to go along the first time, and that there was no retribution for use despite crossing the "red line" once, why should anyone believe there will be "retribution" if it happens again? After all, you've just argued that retribution for using chemical weapons "isn't just pointless, it's fucking terrible." Well, okay, that will be just as true if Assad uses them again as it is now.

Wrong. If Assad uses them again, now Russia is left responsible for not doing their job and Obama can claim intervention is required on a wide variety of fronts, from "Assad is lying and still using his weapons, they can't be trusted to seek a peaceful solution" to "Assad and Russia claim it's the rebels, we must stop Al-Queda from acquiring WMDs due to Russian and Syrian incompetence".

As long as Assad and Russia publicly agree to the plan, there's no way to keep using the CWs that doesn't undermine Russian authority in the situation and further justify action.

But I doubt there will be a deal emerge. Why should it? The Russians have effectively shown that Obama lacks support for a military strike, so even if there is no deal, it is going to be so long after the fact that there's no way in hell Congress will authorize a strike. Because as you said "retribution is pointless", which means there is no iron fist in the velvet glove. There's just...a glove. And if Obama decides to strike anyway, that's the exact retribution you claim is pointless, and it will cripple him politically.

Wrong. The Russians have shown that the fear Obama will strike because that's the only reason to blunt the US on the Syrian issue.

1) Assad doesn't accept responsibility for this attack, so I doubt he'll accept the blame for a subsequent attack. Nor will the Russians. They'll just blame the rebels. Again.

2) If the deal amounts to simply a promise from Assad not to use them again, without actual removal of chemicals, then that still leaves all those chemicals in place to be captured and used by anyone else. That's not a "win".

3) By not bombing after drawing a red line, after a process that showed a lack of support internationally, within the U.S. electorate, and within Congress, Obama has destroyed his credibility with respect to any alleged future violations by Assad. Given that the first "red line" was violated with impunity, why should it be any different a second time around?

4) There appear to be credible reports that this attack was not authorized personally by Assad, and that he'd repeatedly refused requests from his generals to use them in the past. If that is true, then he wasn't going to use them anyway, and we've gained nothing.

5) If things get to the point where Assad believes he really needs to use them to survive, he will.

1) Which justifies intervention. And on even stronger grounds then now.

2) Which is the same position as before, except now Assad won't use them.

3) Except this solution only exists because that threat was credible in the first place, so this is wrong.

4) No, we've gained Assad deciding against using them in the future as well.

5) And that will leave the Russians looking like useless and ineffectual and the US more justified in it's stance.

[Shryke]

:lmao:

Such personal animosity is very amusing. Keep the hits coming flow. ;)

FLOW's whole "Putin personally embarrassed Obama angle" started making alot more sense this morning after I watched Tuesday's The Daily Show and saw the segment on how Fox News' current stance is that this was Putin personally embarrassing Obama.

[awesome possum]

Listen, you two (awesomepossum/cluelessnorthman) need a reality check.

Oh goodie, this should be fun. And hey, this post actually is mostly readable instead of more rambling nonsense!

Do you even realize that the Syrian civil war has been raging since about March/April 2011. There has been people arguing for military intervention as early as April 2012, for example the former US ambassador to NATO:

http://www.csmonitor...ention-in-Syria

Well if the former US ambassador to NATO argued for military intervention, then what are we waiting for?

Some months ago, people on this board were openly criticizing Obama for not taking action sooner, after the first reported incident of chemical attack.

Go find it. You're just the type to thoroughly get off on rubbing something like that in someone's face, especially if they hold a different position now.

Instead, we have more and more diplomatic missions and contacts and discussions with the Russians dragging on for more than a year. We have Obama using every excuse not to intervene after the first reported gas attack, with a redline drawn, and then redrawn, and then more inane talks that violence against civilians in unacceptable.

Please explain how talking about how violence against civilians is unacceptable is without sense or substance? Also, please explain how Obama's red line comment has anything to do with Obama? After all, Obama himself said that the red line comment was for the world and not just himself.

So what that translate to in reality is an administration trying desperately to avoid military conflict and to engage in diplomatic solutions with a hostile and unwavering opponent in Russia.

Dude, if public support were there for attacking Syria we wouldn't be having this conversation because we already would have attacked Syria. There is no desperately trying to avoid military conflict. The administration has very clearly been all about military conflict but have been stymied by the will of the people.

You would recognize most of these things if you took off your blinders. It is okay to support Obama but question some of his moves/motives/actions. You won't have your liberal card taken away from you for it.

[Shryke]

What he's saying is that the White House has been desperately avoiding getting into this war till now. It's only with the latest attack that they've changed their minds from "Stay out" to "Intervene". They've clearly been avoiding military involvement till now.

This behaviour suggests that given a non-military solution to the current problem, they will take it. They administration has been trying to build up support for military action because there was no alternative course of action to achieve the goal in question.

[The Progressive]

Go find it.

Ask and you shall receive ;)

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/77815-syria-the-end-of-the-beginning/page__st__160

Kouran, on 23 January 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Not to doubt the Atlantic article, but Wired had an article last week about this that casts serious doubts on the subject.

http://www.wired.com...-weapons-syria/

Besides who wouldnt be surprised by Obama just ignoring this since he has a high propensity to look the other way on other things, such as the 4th amendment.

Inigima, on 23 January 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

Yeah, I read that or a similar one. More complete information from the cable is now available. It might be that the report is still wrong. Or it could be the administration attempting to avoid committing themselves to anything.

[The Progressive]

Sullivan thinks that this could be a Machiavellian way for Obama to get Putin to take ownership of a thing we don't want ownership of.

Very nice take from Sullivan on how Russian got played. The recognition is spreading.

Some choice quote:

And whatever the American president can do to keep Putin in this triumphant mood the better. Roger Ailes was right. If the end-result is that Putin effectively gains responsibility and control over the civil war in Syria, then we should be willing to praise him to the skies. Praise him, just as the far right praises him, for his mastery of power politics – compared with that ninny weakling Obama. Encourage him to think this is a personal and national triumph even more than he does today. Don’t just allow him to seize the limelight – keep that light focused directly on him. If that also requires dumping all over the American president, calling him weak and useless and incapable of matching the chess master from Russia, so be it. Obama can take it. He’s gotten used to being a pinata.

:lmao:

You could totally see that worship of power politics oozing from the flow et al here lol.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Sullivan thinks that this could be a Machiavellian way for Obama to get Putin to take ownership of a thing we don't want ownership of.

I think that's giving Obama way too much credit.

[Shryke]

I think that's giving Obama way too much credit.

I agree. I think the result is the same (ie - Russia is forced to take ownership of the situation) but I don't get any feeling this was a plan on Obama's part.

11-dimensional chess theories make me incredulous.

[TheKitttenGuard]

Os, is that you?

No

Take you heard some of the above before.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Except that means Assad forgot to tell everyone "Oh yeah, I misplaced a bunch of chemical weapons". And again Russia is left responsible.

Huh? He doesn't have to say he misplaced anything. All he'll have to say when it comes time for the accounting is that the rebels got some.

Was it? Or was it "If you use chemical weapons, we'll make sure you never use them again"?

First, we're not "making sure" of that, for all the reasons I pointed out previously. He can use them again.

Also, I advocated "turn over your weapons" as what our initial position should have been when the Administration first spoke on this, precisely so he could try to spin his way out of the "red line" trap. Unfortunately, neither he nor anyone in his Administration made a public demand or statement that Syria should turn them over. That wasn't their argument for the first two weeks.

The only option discussed, and pushed both abroad and in the U.S., was military intervention, which led to Cameron losing a vote, the clear erosion of support in Congress, and international condemnation. That's why the reporter asked the question at the conference in London "is there anything Syria could do...", precisely because we hadn't said there was anything they could do. This was a post-strike alternative proposed by someone else, not the U.S.. The public position of our government was "military strike". Nothing more or less.

When a child breaks the rules and you hit them for it, the whole point is sending the message "Don't do that again". Just like here. The red-line was always "Don't do it again" because that's what any punishment for breaking the rules is says.

There hasn't been any punishment for breaking the rules. And at the minimum, we'll have endorsed the "one free bite" rule in the context of chemical weapons use. "Use them once, and the penalty will be that you can't use them again." I hardly think that was the message the President really was trying to send when he mentioned his "red line".

As long as Assad agrees to hand over his weapons, the US has achieved it's goal of making sure Assad "doesn't do it again".

Well, that's where we differ. I think an Assad promise to turn over his weapons is worth nothing. You think it is everything.

Wrong. If Assad uses them again, now Russia is left responsible for not doing their job and Obama can claim intervention is required on a wide variety of fronts, from "Assad is lying and still using his weapons, they can't be trusted to seek a peaceful solution" to "Assad and Russia claim it's the rebels, we must stop Al-Queda from acquiring WMDs due to Russian and Syrian incompetence".

How is Russia left responsible? They can play it either way. They can say, "no, this really must be the responsibility of the U.N.", if they don't want to be involved. Or if they do want to be involved for reasons of their own, they'll just continually blame the rebels for making it impossible for them to do their job.

As long as Assad and Russia publicly agree to the plan, there's no way to keep using the CWs that doesn't undermine Russian authority in the situation and further justify action.

They won't agree to a plan that places the responsibility on them for any future use of chemical weapons, because there position is and will always be that it is the rebels.

And let's say that's what happens -- they come back (after a nice long delay/negotiation period) and say "the restrictions on which the Americans are insisting are unreasonable. We cannot safely catalogue and gather munitions while a civil war rages, yet the Americans refuse to endorse a ceasefire, and they and their allies continue to fund the rebels This was a good solution, but the Americans are making it impractical."

What then? Now there is no deal, which theoretically places us right back where we were on Sunday. Congress still won't approve military action (especially not after this fiasco), and the only option Obama will be left with to engage in military retribution, which you said is "fucking idiotic". And he'll have to do it without the support of the international community, the American people, or Congress.

This was their "master plan?"

Wrong. The Russians have shown that the fear Obama will strike because that's the only reason to blunt the US on the Syrian issue.

I think the Russians see this chemical weapons issue as a net plus for them. Look like the peacemaker, score some rhetorical points against Obama, make the U.S> delay and look indecisive, and then look like the aggrieved party when the U.S. insists on conditions that are unreasonable. You don't need a threat to take up that option -- it's a win on it's own merits.

1) Which justifies intervention. And on even stronger grounds then now.

You just argued above that the Administration has guaranteed that the use of chemical weapons won't happen again, not that Syria (allegedly) will be punished if it does. In any case, -- a second use of chemical weapons would have strengthened the U.S. hand regardless of the clusterfuck of the last 5 days. We didn't need the posturing, threats, and too-public loss of domestic and international support.

5) And that will leave the Russians looking like useless and ineffectual and the US more justified in it's stance.

I disagree, but that's not really relevant to the point. You stated that the Administration's goal was to prevent another use of chemical weapons -- to prevent him from using them again. The people killed by a second attack (assuming it can be cleanly pinned on Assad) aren't helped by the Russians (perhaps) looking bad after the fact. The victims would still be dead.

And overall, I think you greatly overestimate the possibility of Congress and the American people rallying around this cause, even if he uses him again. The vast majority of the country basically thinks this is not our business, and is hesitant to support either side in that conflict anyway.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Dude, if public support were there for attacking Syria we wouldn't be having this conversation because we already would have attacked Syria.

QFT.