OT: looks like we fired on Libya.....

User Forum Topic
Submitted by flu on March 19, 2011 - 1:43pm

So much for not get involved....Well, at least we're not sending ground troops...And i guess it's a coalition force....
And the french fired first :)

Submitted by all on August 27, 2013 - 11:18am.

Is it the time to repeat the great success of Libya, this time in Syria?

Submitted by SD Realtor on August 27, 2013 - 9:39pm.

Yeah... here we go again just blundering right along. This could have far worse ramifications then what happened in Libya. This is a bad move.

Submitted by evolusd on August 29, 2013 - 10:13pm.

Not sure why using explosives to kill innocent people happens without response, but gassing them crosses some moral line.

Submitted by all on August 30, 2013 - 2:00pm.

evolusd wrote:
Not sure why using explosives to kill innocent people happens without response, but gassing them crosses some moral line.

If that is the problem then maybe a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression would help?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 2, 2013 - 9:33pm.

SD Realtor wrote:
Yeah... here we go again just blundering right along. This could have far worse ramifications then what happened in Libya. This is a bad move.

SDR: Whaaat? Whaddaya mean?

No plan.

No exit strategy.

No allies (save France, and does France ever really count in an actual shooting war?)

No clear cut objectives.

Involving ourselves in a sectarian civil war being used as a proxy conflict by Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

What could possibly go wrong?

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 3, 2013 - 9:50am.

+3 for Allan....

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 3, 2013 - 12:07pm.

I watched all the Sunday analysis.

Syria is not about regime change but a punishing strike for the use of chemical weapons. Kerry made the case that regime change is a goal through diplomatic and political means, not military.

Coming from Kerry, a long time anti war activist, I trust his judgement.

A strike could be something like destroying the presidential palace.

I think that Obama asking for congressional approval will turn out to be a master stoke. We will find out when congress gets back into town.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 3, 2013 - 1:11pm.

FIH: So, this administration has dithered for two years, nearly 100,000 people are dead, there is no workable plan in place for effective strikes and Obama, realizing that he's painted himself into a corner, is now attempting to proactively blame shift by involving Congress is crafting a master stroke?

That's your honest read of the situation? You think Assad gives a rat's ass if we take out a palace? Really? This dude is all about holding onto power. Period. There is no viable endgame for Assad, other than death or victory.

You notice who is remarkably quiet on all this? Hillary Clinton. Wonder why that is? I thought Dubya's foreign policy in the Middle East was too heavy handed, but he knew how to sound a message. This administration is starting to make Carter look actually competent. The US is a joke now.

Submitted by livinincali on September 3, 2013 - 1:42pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
I watched all the Sunday analysis.

Syria is not about regime change but a punishing strike for the use of chemical weapons. Kerry made the case that regime change is a goal through diplomatic and political means, not military.

Coming from Kerry, a long time anti war activist, I trust his judgement.

A strike could be something like destroying the presidential palace.

I think that Obama asking for congressional approval will turn out to be a master stoke. We will find out when congress gets back into town.

This post reminds me why it's important not to get too attached to the political party. Obama drew some red line and in order to maintain credibly he has to do something that only his strongest supporters want him to do. Most Obama supporters are anti war yet now they want war (aka "limited strikes" to make it look better on paper) because Obama looks weak if he doesn't follow through. Obama is indeed fallible, striking Syria with no international support is stupid. Just like it would be stupid to strike Syria if warmonger John McCain was president.

In the world of unintended consequences we probably get drawn in, topple Asad and the Al Qaida linked rebels get access to Syria's chemical weapons. Brilliant strategy that was executed because of some kind of political face saving. Democratic party strategist, "We'll poll better in 2014 midterm elections if we look strong. If something bad happens we can just put the blame elsewhere."

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 3, 2013 - 1:55pm.

yep...yep... and yep...as horrid as Assad is, I cringe to think what happens if he falls. Utter and complete chaos. Unless you have a plan to 100% occupy that country and cleanse it of all the weaponry I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Launching a strike to "prove a point" without any contingency plan in place is the stupidest thing in the world. What happens if Obama proves his point and other countries launch strikes on Isreal who then strikes back and the whole place flares up.

What the hell are we thinking?

Then what? What kind of genius is that?

Submitted by NotCranky on September 3, 2013 - 2:24pm.

Allan, Correct me if I am wrong but Hillary is a private citizen at this time? Taking a highly public role would be not so great for her and could be bad for the party.
Can't see why to call her out? She might endorse Obama publicly, but doesn't want to look too involved.

Situation is getting worse either way. The propaganda machine has been turned up to 11. The "debate" is scandalous. Anything we do, or don't do is scandalous because that's how history has made it. We do what we shouldn't do or turn our backs on Allies who are used to us doing their fighting/nation building for them. Bad situation.

Putin is kicking O's ass and there is nothing "his girl"Oprah can do about it. If it weren't so serious it would be hilarious.

Going for popcorn now.

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 3, 2013 - 3:08pm.

Better to fold then to play out a losing hand.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 3, 2013 - 3:24pm.

Blogstar wrote:
Allan, Correct me if I am wrong but Hillary is a private citizen at this time? Taking a highly public role would be not so great for her and could be bad for the party.
Can't see why to call her out? She might endorse Obama publicly, but doesn't want to look too involved.

Situation is getting worse either way. The propaganda machine has been turned up to 11. The "debate" is scandalous. Anything we do, or don't do is scandalous because that's how history has made it. We do what we shouldn't do or turn our backs on Allies who are used to us doing their fighting/nation building for them. Bad situation.

Putin is kicking O's ass and there is nothing "his girl"Oprah can do about it. If it weren't so serious it would be hilarious.

Going for popcorn now.

Russ: Hillary is indeed a private citizen, and I wasn't calling her out as much as I was making an observation. If the political calculus favored it, Hillary would've issued a statement calling for a "measured response" and done so for the good of the party, as Obama is clearly floundering here.

Anyway you cut it, he's hosed. He opts out of the strike, he'll be castigated roundly for being weak and Assad and Putin and Iran will turn this into a major propaganda victory.

He decides to strike, he runs the risk of a widening conflict, potentially one spilling out and involving Israel, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, take your pick. Syria is pretty much right in the middle of everything there.

It's a godawful mess and our foreign policy is an absolute shambles right now.

Maybe he can give another speech in Cairo. Oh, wait...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 3, 2013 - 3:42pm.

I don't think Obama is painting himself in a corner at all.

Assad may not care about a palace but a strike would be of symbolic significance that that world will not countenance the use of chemical weapons.

Strike or not, Assad will remain power for a while yet. I don't think that there is anything for us to lose in a limited strike.

If Congress passes the resolution, Obama is stronger. If Congress rejects the resolution, Obama can still order a targeted strike (such as the destruction of a palace of military installation) and look presidential. He wins either way.

With a congressional resolution, he can do more.

I don't think there was dithering. The alternative would have been a McCain type involvement.

Submitted by spdrun on September 3, 2013 - 3:53pm.

We won't countenance use of chemical weapons except by ourselves. We used white phosphorus (which is a toxin as well as a incendiary) against civilians in Fallujah in 2004. How quickly we hypocrites forget.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 3, 2013 - 3:58pm.

FIH: So, uh, the last two years never happened? That first 90,000+ who were killed is okey doke, but we're really pissed off at this last 1,500 because Assad used chemical weapons?

Does taking out a palace count for more on the international stage, then, say, lobbing a cruise missile at an aspirin factory?

And you believe that Obama's planned destruction of Assad's pied a terre is gonna make him look "presidential"? To whom? He has bungled badly here and, yes, he has painted himself into a corner and is desperately seeking help from wherever he can find it. I mean, France? Seriously?

Dude, just because you voted for him (I'm guessing twice, based on your full-throated support of his obvious ineptitude) doesn't mean you have to suspend reality on his behalf.

Obama is being exposed for his lack of credentials and lack of experience and profound lack of understanding of the power dynamics that undergird the Middle East. Poor sap truly believed that his speech in Cairo would change a single thing there. And we have 3 and a half more years of this nonsense to look forward to.

Submitted by SK in CV on September 3, 2013 - 4:01pm.

SD Realtor wrote:
Better to fold then to play out a losing hand.

There is no winning hand here, and there never has been. Not two years ago, not a year ago, and not now. The only question is what degree of chaos will ensue.

Submitted by spdrun on September 3, 2013 - 4:07pm.

^^^

Exactly. And I'm not sure whether an intervention in Syria will make things there better or worse.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 3, 2013 - 4:17pm.

You are casting too wide a net, Allan.

I don't support regime change and getting involved in other countries' affairs.

This is about punishment for the use of chemical weapons, nothing more. Kerry said as much.

As far as the bigger picture in the Middle East, the current situation was decades in the making and we largely contributed to it. In my opinion, we should have stayed out of the middle easy altogether. We went in there to protect European oil interests (read Iran).

We should have let Israel fend for itself back in the early days. That was a British problem. Had we let it play out then, the situation would have resolved itself by now.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 3, 2013 - 4:17pm.

spdrun wrote:
^^^

Exactly. And I'm not sure whether an intervention in Syria will make things there better or worse.

That's why we want targeted strike that won't affect the military outcome in Syria but is a moral stance against chemical weapons.

Kerry said military regime change is not the goal. McCain want to make it an American objective.

Submitted by spdrun on September 3, 2013 - 4:23pm.

"Targeted strike" -- meaning we kill a few hundred more civilians and give Assad a new scapegoat to blame his failures on. Color me skeptical.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 3, 2013 - 4:24pm.

spdrun wrote:
^^^

Exactly. And I'm not sure whether an intervention in Syria will make things there better or worse.

You're not sure, huh? Color me shocked.

Submitted by NotCranky on September 3, 2013 - 4:26pm.

McCain says that he will not help Obama unless Obama goes bigger. Now who is backed into a corner again? Unless McCain backs down from that we are stuck between a big mouthed face saver and a big mouthed war monger. This is all so stupid, especially if you haven't drank the WMD kool-aide.

I see bigger war no matter what. That is whether we sit on our hands or not. The only way it doesn't happen is if Russia and US are negotiating a mutually tolerable power structure in Syria. I don't know anything about that. Maybe Allan or others can speak to that.

Submitted by SK in CV on September 3, 2013 - 4:26pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
This is about punishment for the use of chemical weapons, nothing more. Kerry said as much.

Well shit, if a politician said so, it must be true.

Punishment? Seriously? Like giving a kindergartner a time out for teasing a classmate. Only with bombs. And dead people.

This is not about punishment. This is about promoting a particular policy. I have no idea what the endgame of that policy is, none whatsoever. If you listen to John McCain, it's putting AQ in charge in Syria. (that would be the rebels who are "definitely not terrorists.) I suspect that is not what Obama has in mind, nor the intelligence community.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 3, 2013 - 4:27pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
spdrun wrote:
^^^

Exactly. And I'm not sure whether an intervention in Syria will make things there better or worse.

That's why we want targeted strike that won't affect the military outcome in Syria but is a moral stance against chemical weapons.

Kerry said military regime change is not the goal. McCain want to make it an American objective.

FIH: So, the only country in history to have used atomic weapons is taking a moral stance against chemical weapons.

Cool. Let's see how this plays out.

Submitted by spdrun on September 3, 2013 - 4:29pm.

Not to mention chemical weapons. What do you think that Napalm and Agent Orange were in all but name?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 3, 2013 - 4:31pm.

Russ: All I know about McCain is that he loves to bomb shit (remember his little "Bomb Iran" ditty, set to The Beach Boys "Barbara Ann"?).

That dude would bomb a kitten factory if someone could make a case for it.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 3, 2013 - 5:11pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

FIH: So, the only country in history to have used atomic weapons is taking a moral stance against chemical weapons.

Cool. Let's see how this plays out.

We can correct our past mistakes of reckless imperial adventures and resources snatching.

We were the Saudi Arabia of the world and we are a continent full of resources.
We can develop new energy sources right here and should have done so much earlier. Don't need to intervene in the Middle East.

But we can and should intervene on humanitarian grounds, such as in Kosovo.

Btw, justice is not applied evenly in all situations. Just because we didn't do anything before doesn't mean we shouldn't do something now. Certain issues will call for intervention more than others

Local prosecutors don't go after all criminals equally, but, by and large, we feel there is a certain level of justice in this country. And certain cases will draw more public attention.

A consistent and fair application of our foreign policy would be good for us. It will improve our global image and be good for business.

Spd, maybe we should apologize and pay reparation for the use of napalm and agent orange. If the world cries out for that, we could be swayed. Feel free to keep on reminding us.

Submitted by spdrun on September 3, 2013 - 5:20pm.

FlyerInHI - mostly agreed. But in the former Yugoslavia, we had clearer goals (separate the combatants, arrest the ringleaders of ethnic violence). In Syria, we kind of really don't want Assad out but we want to give them a slap on the wrist.

And remember that former Yugoslavia required ground troops, not just missiles and a few bombs here and there.

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 3, 2013 - 7:29pm.

Yes SK there is no winning hand. There is no way that I can be convinced that bombing Syria in any way shape or form will help the situation. It doesn't matter if everyone in congress says Aye.

Very simply stated, it is a horrible decision and the variety of outcomes are quite negative.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.