I'm glad we can agree that there was no immediate threat to our security. I'm also glad that the US-Russia deal was agreed to by Assad. But they must keep constant tabs on Syria because the UN is a joke. Their weapons inspectors will leave the country if even a rock is thrown at them or they stub their toe. But I'm less inclined to believe Obama going to Congress as an act of leadership versus not trying to be the fall guy if it didn't work. Thank God the Congress talked sense into him by saying this is not our war to fight.
Actually there was never a vote on the military action to strike Syria, it got postponed when Assad came to his senses and allowed international access to remove chemical weapons, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/11/congress_privately_thrilled_theres_no_syria_vote http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24419468 President Obama got exactly what he wanted in the end just by threatening force while reaching out for bi-partisanship support just in case. A master stroke of diplomacy. Also the disarming is a joint Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)/UN effort.
Just when Iran was about to exploit a hole in Iraqi defenses Saddam used sarin and mustard gas in large scale attacks killing 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediatley as well as 5,000 kurds, Finally compelling Iran to negotiate an end to the war. Unfortunatley the chemical attacks also caused tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers and civilians to have permanent respiratory illnesses related to chemical exposure that they still suffer through till this day. Meanwhile in north hollywood criminals used fully automatic ak-47s to fire over 1100 rounds injuring 12 cops and 8 civilians. Not one mutha fucker died other than the bank robbers. The ak-47! Redefining mass destruction! :smt023
Isreal and Saudi Arabia hate each other but they both are smart enough to know that Iran having WMD would be horrible for the region. I dont think the US is doing their dirty work, Iran is a threat to US interests in the region. Anyway, I understand what Saddam did against the Iranians was wrong in principle, but if you look at the big picture you see China, North Korea, Syria, and Libya supporting Iran While the US, Europe, and most of the Arab world supporting Iraq. What is not often mentioned is the fact that Iran was using chemical weapons too. Iraq just had better delivery systems. Although Saddam was never considered to be a friend, the US simply could not afford to let Iran win. Was it not a logical decision for the US to provide intel on Iranian troop movements to Iraq? What other options where there available considering the fact that Iraq was on the defensive for the last six years of the war? What if the US simply let Iran win? How would that be working for us and the rest of the world now? Would it have been better for the US to get physically involved in the war knowing that China and NorthKorea was pulling for Iran? Whats sad is what Saddam did to the kurds, by providing him intel on Iranian troop movements was not a green light for him to mass murder some of is civilian population. How was the UN going to solve the problem when the US and China were on two different sides? I am not justifing the US past decisions on Iraq. I am just saying the world is complicated and its much easier to judge from the sidelines.
My point is that Obama wanted to put it on Congress because he knew it wasn't a good idea, but couldn't look foolish on an international stage. It was within his power to use military force without the vote of Congress. Thankfully Assad agreed to hand over chemical weapons after his meeting with Putin. I certainly wouldn't call it "a master stroke of diplomacy". I almost wish that Russia didn't get involved just to see what Obama would have done.
You're missing the point completely. Sure, chemical weapons can take more lives at one time than other non-chemical weapons. But do you think it makes any difference if your son or daughter got killed by a bullet or Sarin gas? The answer is no. Kids were killed...so who the hell cares how they were killed. We would be at war every day if we get outraged at what foreign leaders do to its people. There was no threat to the United States and Obama had absolutely no end goal for an attack.
Assad took Obama seriously and thats all that matters. You refuse to recognize his diplomatic victory simply because he is of a different political ideology. Just sad really.
We are talking about world leaders and international politics. In order to attempt to fully access reality you must not look at it from a personal view point, but rather try to view it from a position of leadership on the world stage. Ok James?? rayer:
You fail to realize that the entire negotiation and deal was struck with Vladimir Putin. Russia opposed US-led strikes against the Assad regime, warning it could destabilize the whole Middle East, and Putin at the G20 vowed to help Syria if it was hit. So Putin convinced Assad to give up his stockpiles. Obama and Kerry had nothing to do with the eventual resolution with Syria.
OK, let's look at it from a position of leadership: 1) Obama says we need to do a strike on Syria. Then gets backlash and tries to put it on Congress to make the call. Last time I checked...he was the President. 2) Obama gives no timeline and no set of end goal objectives for what happens after this strike. Do we stay and stabilize the region? Help them elect another leader? Scour the country looking for its stockpiles? 3) Ignored military leaders urging that military strike was not in our best interest 4) Gets bailed out by Vladimir Putin getting Assad to give up his stockpiles :idea:
James you are grasping at straws here, are you seriously saying that it was just coincidental timing that Putin got serious about brokering a deal at the same time President Obama put our ships in position and made the threat? Plus, President Obama knew ahead of time that most in congress were against the idea of the missile strikes and that he would have to convince them that this was a needed military intervention. Assad and his personnel sat down with Kerry multiple times during the negotiation, so how can you say Obama and Kerry had nothing to do with it? Here, from a source you would trust http://www.myfoxny.com/story/23410904/kerry-in-geneva-to-broker-syria-deal
Once again, Assad was under duress, and would not have acted otherwise, funny how Putin did not decide to act until President Obama did.
Do you think Putin or Assad took Obama's threats seriously?? Obama tried playing the tough guy, but they knew America was not going to strike. Obama sent U.S. battle ships into the region, armed with cruise missiles, then went before the UN to say he would punish Assad by bombing his military facilities. He also said he'd seek the support of European leaders at the G-20 summit and a vote of approval from Congress to show national solidarity. But he came home with no support for his war plans. Then he woke up the next day to a pile of polls showing most Americans opposed getting involved in Syria's bloody civil war. That was followed by the ultimate humiliation: Advisers told him he couldn't win a vote of approval in the GOP-run House, where a number of Democrats planned to vote no, and the Democratic Senate also looked like an impossible sell. Obama was in a foreign policy stew of his own making, looking weak, confused and incompetent as ever, and not knowing what to do next. That's when Vladimir Putin threw Obama a political lifeline to get out of the foreign policy disaster he had created. But only on Putin's terms that served his own sinister interests as well as those of Bashar al-Assad. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry grabbed the Russian leader's plan and eagerly swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The deal calls for Assad to turn over his chemical weapons to full international control and to insure that none of them have been hidden for later use. That's a process that will take months if not years to conduct and complete. Meanwhile, Assad & Putin and their Iranian accomplices got exactly what they wanted: unending delays to buy time for their deceitful plans to keep Assad in power. Putin becomes a power player in the Middle East where he has been merely an arms dealer for every country who will play his game. Assad now has a free hand to crush the Syrian opposition. Go Obama!!
James, you are so blinded by your dislike of the President that you make claims that are just plain false or easily refuted. Earlier in this thread you claimed that there was not one other country supporting the strikes, I provided a link that proved you false. You also claimed it would be an "invasion" when it was always about missile strikes, false again. You claimed the President had no plan, when in fact the President submitted a written plan of attack to Congress, false again. You claimed Obama and Kerry had nothing to do with the negotiations, I provided a link to refute that claim. You claim he had no support in Congress, I provided a link to refute that claim, hell even Boehner supported Obama on the strikes, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ith-missile-test-as-obama-works-congress.html You claim that the Russians came up with the plan, when Obama and Kerry were integral in the negotiations and ensuring the enforcement. http://www.voanews.com/content/putin-kerry-set-for-crucial-syria-meeting/1748215.html James your bias is showing loud and clear, just accept the fact that President Obama did a great job on this issue, and keep in mind that our warships are STILL in the region should Assad try to back out of the deal.
Loki, you're so blinded by your love for him that you can't admit that he got this one wrong. 1) The only members of the G-20 nations that supported Obama’s plan were Canada, France, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all of which were on Obama’s side before he arrived at the Summit. None of these countries would have provided adequate support to attack Syria in what could have resulted in chemical warfare. Those opposing a military strike independent of the United Nations, included the leaders of China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Germany and South Africa. 2) Missile strikes constitute an invasion. Military invasion is not limited to "boots on the ground" 3) The Obama/Kerry strike plan could have been written on a napkin. It had the most broad set of guidelines. All it said was that they would do missile launches from navy ships. There was no definitive timeline and no plan b after the missiles were launched. 4) If Putin did not step in, Obama & Kerry would have been up shits creek without a paddle. 5) It doesn't matter if we have ships ready to fire. We have nobody over there to verify where all of the stockpiles are located and the UN is a joke. UN inspectors will leave the country if a rock is thrown at them.
LOL! Earlier I said Assad should be removed from power on principle, but I am a pragmatic type of guy that understands that there are not many options in that respect, thats why I agree with Obamas way of handling the situation as I expressed to Brian Cali. So the question is: Do we really care if Assad stays in power? All we want is for WMD to not be used because it can further complicate an already unstable region. Most of the countries over there are already ran by certified nut jobs, in that respect Assad fits in quite well. He and all the other dictators need to understand there are limits on tyranny set by the international community, and if the UN does not enforce international law then the US WILL!! Based on his actions, Assad is getting the message. So we get a country thats willing to give up their chemical weapons and it did not cost us the millions that we were going to spend bombing their asses! what more can you ask for?? Go Obama!!
So why did you agree with Medulla when he said the UN should be handling it. If you consider the UN to be a joke then why would you prefer they handle it in the first place? *pops popcorn*
Once again it is not only the UN, the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is also there on the ground working to secure, verify and remove the chemical weapons. Look James, we can go back and forth until the cows come home, it is clear you are stuck on your position, but only one of us (me) in this debate has brought facts backed up by links. You have made reckless claims that have been proven false, and now you are just being stubborn. In all of our debates over multiple threads, you have NEVER had anything positive to say about President Obama, and have leveled numerous proven falsehoods on multiple issues. I on the other hand have had both agreed and disagreed with various decisions and policies of President Obama, in fact even in this thread I started it by saying I disagreed with the strikes. You would have more credibility if your bias was not so blatant and you could admit to something where you agree with the current administration.
