View Full Version : Obama walks back 'red line' stance on Syrian government
Team Sergeant
04-30-2013, 12:30
LOL, spineless. The damage Barry is doing to this nation will take 100 years to undo. He should be impeached and sent back to Chicago to flip hamburgers.
Obama walks back 'red line' stance on Syrian government using chemical weapons
Published April 30, 2013
FoxNews.com
President Obama, who earlier said use of chemical weapons by Syria on its people would be a “red line” requiring action by the U.S., walked the stance back on Tuesday, saying he needs more information on the reported attacks before responding.
Administration officials recently said intelligence analysts had "varying degrees of confidence" the embattled government of Syrian President Bashar Assad has gassed civilians with sarin. However, Obama said the administration is using all its resources to determine the facts about a weapon that he has said would be a "game changer" for U.S. policy in the war.
"If we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence ... we can find ourselves in a position where we can't marshal the international community in support of what we do," Obama said. "It's important for us to do this in a prudent way."
The administration long ago called for Assad to step down and pave the way for a new government. But Obama has resisted calls from some Republicans in Congress to send U.S. military aid to the rebels and perhaps commit U.S. military resources directly.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/30/obama-walks-back-red-line-stance-on-syrian-government-using-chemical-weapons/#ixzz2RyMsLjgc
Trapper John
04-30-2013, 12:34
And let me show you my "surprised" face :eek: Typical pattern for appeasers.
No Bam fan but I'd let them finish their civil war by themselves....the only 'intervention' I'd agree with would be to destroy (prob not feasible without huge collateral damage) or secure his Gas stocks.
There is no real alternative element to support.
lol Ballsy move.
You're so subtle... :D
Badger52
04-30-2013, 13:19
Sarin <---> Pressure cooker
One of these is a WMD.
Trapper John
04-30-2013, 13:19
We have no business there. Let them kill each other without our input either way.
Disagree on that one. Syria is Iran's surrogate, with its strategic location, we can't let this one go bad! Resurrecting the Domino Theory here. JMO
Disagree on that one. Syria is Iran's surrogate, with its strategic location, we can't let this one go bad! Resurrecting the Domino Theory here. JMO
Are you willing to commit US lives for it? I'm not. Let them take care of their own problems.
Disagree on that one. Syria is Iran's surrogate, with its strategic location, we can't let this one go bad! Resurrecting the Domino Theory here. JMO
I think it will go bad regardless of outcome....he is an Iranian surrogate/player for political reasons only, not ideological ones...big dif. Syria is pred Sunni....playing with Shias is only expediancy ... the vacuum filler will be sunni rads not shia Iranians, no power base.
Trapper John
04-30-2013, 14:49
Are you willing to commit US lives for it? I'm not. Let them take care of their own problems.
It's only to get worse and more costly in every aspect. JMO It is not just "their" problem. I wish it were that simple. This can and will IMO, spill over to Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, not to mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya (already in process). Do you really think that we will not be drawn in when Turkey (NATO ally) or Israel are directly and overtly threatened? How are we going to respond with a Navy <300 warships? A gutted AF? A depleted Army? This is shaping up to look like a pre-WWII scenario IMO just a different time, different place, and different actors. Outcomes are predictable given the current course we are on.
Our only options there are bad and worse. I don't see one reason to spill American blood there. They will hate us no matter what who is in power.
Then he shouldn't have stuck his ass out over the cliff with the "red line" BS.
That guy's so embarassing, he makes my butt muscles scrunch up. He treats other countries like Eddie Haskell treated June Cleaver.
It's only to get worse and more costly in every aspect. JMO It is not just "their" problem. I wish it were that simple. This can and will IMO, spill over to Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, not to mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya (already in process). Do you really think that we will not be drawn in when Turkey (NATO ally) or Israel are directly and overtly threatened? How are we going to respond with a Navy <300 warships? A gutted AF? A depleted Army? This is shaping up to look like a pre-WWII scenario IMO just a different time, different place, and different actors. Outcomes are predictable given the current course we are on.
So what is your COA? We have a DoD that has been at war non-stop for 12 years. We have no hope of resetting our equipment anytime in the near future due to sequestration. We are cutting soldiers, airmen, seamen and marines from the ranks. So who do we send? How long will they be there, with what equipment. And oh by the way, with a citizenship who shows their support by putting magnetic ribbons on their cars. And oh by the way we are headed into another recession.
Trapper John
04-30-2013, 15:05
Then he shouldn't have stuck his ass out over the cliff with the "red line" BS.
That guy's so embarassing, he makes my butt muscles scrunch up. He treats other countries like Eddie Haskell treated June Cleaver.
Great comparison :D
Then he shouldn't have stuck his ass out over the cliff with the "red line" BS.
That guy's so embarassing, he makes my butt muscles scrunch up. He treats other countries like Eddie Haskell treated June Cleaver.
So you are willing to send US troops to another war, just because you think the POTUS is an idiot? Seeing as how it is me and my troops going, vs you who wouldn't be going, I am hoping we can come up with another solution than more American blood.
Then he shouldn't have stuck his ass out over the cliff with the "red line" BS.
That guy's so embarassing, he makes my butt muscles scrunch up. He treats other countries like Eddie Haskell treated June Cleaver.
Totally agree with that comment Dusty.......Here is what I and Henry Kissinger would do :)...I'd back channel info to Assad that we'd support him, his concession would be to drop Hezbollah/terrorism antics and cool it with Israel. He gets to be the grand high poobah and that is all he cares about...he is not a religious zealot.
He'd just as soon kill Jihadi's as not, I'd give him the chance.
I would have done exactly the same with Saddam and that would have kept Iran in their box.
I'm concerned with US interests, Nation building in the Mid East is akin to Gay conception....with the same outcome.
Trapper John
04-30-2013, 15:19
So what is your COA? We have a DoD that has been at war non-stop for 12 years. We have no hope of resetting our equipment anytime in the near future due to sequestration. We are cutting soldiers, airmen, seamen and marines from the ranks. So who do we send? How long will they be there, with what equipment. And oh by the way, with a citizenship who shows their support by putting magnetic ribbons on their cars. And oh by the way we are headed into another recession.
You are absolutely correct in that assessment. We do not have the capability let alone the will. This is, IMO, the assessment of the Iranians too. Let's hope that the sunni/shia rift is sufficient to prevent the Iranian expansionism as PRB seems to suggest. Maybe fomenting internal fighting might not be a bad idea. Keeps them preoccupied as we have been.
But drawing BS lines in the sand and backing down only emboldens our enemy. Somewhere down the line there is going to be a huge miscalculation on their part and we will be in it like or not.
Maybe the best plan is to withdraw, recover, rebuild, and rearm. Because there is no doubt in my mind there is going to be a come to Jesus moment.
First order of business - remove the Appeaser in Chief and make damn sure that "it doesn't matter anyway" HC can not replace him.
Trapper John
04-30-2013, 15:21
I agree with your statement it doesn't mean we should spill American blood because the current moron in charge opened his mouth. If anything it shows the world and his idiot followers what an idiot blow hard bullshitter he really is.
No it doesn't! They are going to drink the cool-aid regardless. The only people that convinces are the ones that knew it anyway.
Trapper John
04-30-2013, 15:23
Totally agree with that comment Dusty.......Here is what I and Henry Kissinger would do :)...I'd back channel info to Assad that we'd support him, his concession would be to drop Hezbollah/terrorism antics and cool it with Israel. He gets to be the grand high poobah and that is all he cares about...he is not a religious zealot.
He'd just as soon kill Jihadi's as not, I'd give him the chance.
I would have done exactly the same with Saddam and that would have kept Iran in their box.
I'm concerned with US interests, Nation building in the Mid East is akin to Gay conception....with the same outcome.
THAT is F'n BRILLIANT :lifter I say PRB for President :lifter No shit Brother, that really is a great idea!
So you are willing to send US troops to another war, just because you think the POTUS is an idiot? Seeing as how it is me and my troops going, vs you who wouldn't be going, I am hoping we can come up with another solution than more American blood.
WTF are you talking about? Why would we have to go to war if no "red line" was drawn in the sand?
Don't put words in my mouth, either. I didn't call Obama an idiot. He's at least as intelligent as Eddie Haskell.
So what is your COA? We have a DoD that has been at war non-stop for 12 years. We have no hope of resetting our equipment anytime in the near future due to sequestration. We are cutting soldiers, airmen, seamen and marines from the ranks. So who do we send? How long will they be there, with what equipment. And oh by the way, with a citizenship who shows their support by putting magnetic ribbons on their cars. And oh by the way we are headed into another recession.
lol "sequestration"? LMAO The only money that's been cut by sequestration is projected increases. The dems are cutting defense because they want to cut defense. They cut meals on wheels to make the Repubs look bad; same as the White House tours and the other BS.
Besides, sequestration was Obama's invention.
I'm concerned with US interests, Nation building in the Mid East is akin to Gay conception....with the same outcome.
Now, that's right on the money. ;)
lol "sequestration"? LMAO The only money that's been cut by sequestration is projected increases. The dems are cutting defense because they want to cut defense. They cut meals on wheels to make the Repubs look bad; same as the White House tours and the other BS.
Besides, sequestration was Obama's invention.
It doesn't matter whose frickin idea it was, it is the reality we are living. Within that reality we have constraints that make any scenario with Syria bad.
First order of business - remove the Appeaser in Chief
The only way that's gonna happen is if he openly disses Beyonce at a party.
WTF are you talking about? Why would we have to go to war if no "red line" was drawn in the sand?
Don't put words in my mouth, either. I didn't call Obama an idiot. He's at least as intelligent as Eddie Haskell.
By that rationale, a red line has been crossed and we need to act. Who pray tell do you think is going to be called upon to act? Whether it be the CIA, the DoD, or any other of the alphabet soup agencies, putting ANY US lives at risk for a civil war that has nothing to do with us is a bad idea. But YVMV
By that rationale, a red line has been crossed and we need to act. Who pray tell do you think is going to be called upon to act? But YVMV
Hopefully, nobody now that he's capitulated and the world once again has learned to call his bluff.
BTW, what's YVMV? :D
It doesn't matter whose frickin idea it was, it is the reality we are living.
It isn't reality at all. That's my point.
The politicians are playing you warriors like fish, along with the civilians.
Hopefully, nobody now that he's capitulated and the world once again has learned to call his bluff.
BTW, what's YVMV? :D
Your view may vary
Your view may vary
lol Thanks. ;)
I don't think my view varies much from yours at all.
Let me analog it. If you don't want to fistfight someone at the beach-don't scrape a line in the sand with your big toe and write a crocodile check with your mouth that your hummingbird ass can't back up.
lol Thanks. ;)
I don't think my view varies much from yours at all.
Let me analog it. If you don't want to fistfight someone at the beach-don't scrape a line in the sand with your big toe and write a crocodile check with your mouth that your hummingbird ass can't back up.
Agreed. But the flip side to that coin is maybe you are better off backing off instead of getting into a dick measuring contest that is going to leave you battered and bruised and unable to fight when it is REALLY in your best interest to do so.
Agreed. But the flip side to that coin is maybe you are better off backing off instead of getting into a dick measuring contest that is going to leave you battered and bruised and unable to fight when it is REALLY in your best interest to do so.
Most definitely. That's why he needs to watch his mouth.
See? We're twins. ;)
Most definitely. That's why he needs to watch his mouth.
See? We're twins. ;)
Heaven help us :)
Most definitely. That's why he needs to watch his mouth.
See? We're twins. ;)
Ok, who's Danny DeVito...I think I know who Arnold is
I agree with your statement it doesn't mean we should spill American blood because the current moron in charge opened his mouth. If anything it shows the world and his idiot followers what an idiot blow hard bullshitter he really is.
Sorta, kinda, like "read my lips, no new taxes". :boohoo
Sorta, kinda, like "read my lips, no new taxes". :boohoo
Yeah. Think how many lives were lost because Bush was forced to raise taxes. :rolleyes:
Remington Raidr
04-30-2013, 21:24
He's constantly "evolving".
GreenSalsa
05-01-2013, 04:18
So what is your COA? We have a DoD that has been at war non-stop for 12 years. We have no hope of resetting our equipment anytime in the near future due to sequestration. We are cutting soldiers, airmen, seamen and marines from the ranks. So who do we send? How long will they be there, with what equipment. And oh by the way, with a citizenship who shows their support by putting magnetic ribbons on their cars. And oh by the way we are headed into another recession.
I would argue we need to consider (really weird coming from a by, with, and through kind of guy) a short, direct, and combined operation to secure the ONLY thing that concerns us (and the world). I think we have sufficient forces, and allies to secure chemical stores, destroy them in place, and then LEAVE.
Trapper John
05-01-2013, 05:09
I would argue we need to consider (really weird coming from a by, with, and through kind of guy) a short, direct, and combined operation to secure the ONLY thing that concerns us (and the world). I think we have sufficient forces, and allies to secure chemical stores, destroy them in place, and then LEAVE.
The SEALs can do it. They can do anything. Or, so I've read. Besides, I need another book to read.:D
I would argue we need to consider (really weird coming from a by, with, and through kind of guy) a short, direct, and combined operation to secure the ONLY thing that concerns us (and the world). I think we have sufficient forces, and allies to secure chemical stores, destroy them in place, and then LEAVE.
That is a COA I would agree with. But toppling the regime and bringing in someone new is more than likely what would be the USG COA unfortunately.
Yeah. Think how many lives were lost because Bush was forced to raise taxes. :rolleyes:
How many lives will be lost by jumping into another country's civil war?
How many lives will be lost by jumping into another country's civil war?
I don't know. That has nothing to do with my point.
I'm not in the chain of command, so I won't venture a comment on how the problem in Syria should be handled. My observation deals solely with the fact that the POTUS has once again made the Country look weak by talking smack he's not prepared to back up.
Team Sergeant
05-01-2013, 07:43
By that rationale, a red line has been crossed and we need to act. Who pray tell do you think is going to be called upon to act? Whether it be the CIA, the DoD, or any other of the alphabet soup agencies, putting ANY US lives at risk for a civil war that has nothing to do with us is a bad idea. But YVMV
We don't have to put any American lives at risk to make a point with Syria. We have aircraft, missiles and drones that are very capable of sending a message without putting anyone at risk.
I agree with PRB's post, and we've been doing that very thing for decades now, keeping idiots in power to keep the area stable.
I wonder what the long term implications are of 1) stepping away from the "Red Line" in Syria, 2) moving to close Gitmo after the inmates invent the "Cuban Beach Diet", 3) pleading with the kooks north of lat 38 deg to come back to the table for "serious talks" and some more food-aid, and 4) creating the public impression that "sequestration" is gutting our military. Feels like the Carter era again, only with a bigger national debt. Any one move/policy may be inconsequential, but as a whole, our recent foreign policy seems to be closely aligned with that of Neville Chamberlain's approach to crises.
With current policy as background, how will our exits from Iraq and Afghanistan be seen or regionally spun? (Sure we'll declare 'victory' on the way out, but the players in the Middle East have longer perspectives. The Taliban will have their own spin.) Will Israel begin to perceive the US as being weak? Will they feel the need to act "unilaterally" more strongly? What are Iran and China learning about US?
As US credibility & influence declines in both the Middle East and Asia, China will be in a stronger position to offer aid and guidance to those strategic regions and gain more security & strength. Iran will draws it's own conclusions about how tough we are when it comes to countries with chemical or nuclear weapons.
I suspect our international position has been significantly weakened in recent years, maybe despite our successes. Have we won the battles, only to lose the war? Are we trading a little comfort now for bigger problems later? Anyone have a copy of Rosetta Stone Mandarin?
I don't know. That has nothing to do with my point.
I'm not in the chain of command, so I won't venture a comment on how the problem in Syria should be handled. My observation deals solely with the fact that the POTUS has once again made the Country look weak by talking smack he's not prepared to back up.
I rather look weak, than look like a horses ass by pulling the trigger before you confirm exactly what the situation is.
How about G W Bush's lies about WMDs in Iraq, how many lives did that presidential bullshit did that cost?
Sacamuelas
05-01-2013, 11:40
How about G W Bush's lies about WMDs in Iraq, how many lives did that presidential bullshit did that cost?
Iraq defied how many UN resolutions concerning inspections, no fly zones, embargos? Not to beat a dead horse, but the decision to intervene had numerous valid and verified justifications. The WMD program was suspected by NUMEROUS intelligence agencies around the world. Since the Iraq leadership chose to purposefully mislead the world that it possessed them and also denied inspections, the world was put in a corner. The UN security council had already approved the red line for IRaq, and our nation was simply the majority of the muscle used to enforce the UN sanctions/resolutions/demands.
I hope I am not the only one that is tired of the Iraq war/GW Bush blame game that ALWAYS comes out from this administration and it's supporters when they get caught with their political or policy pants down.
Like TS stated, our nation can teach a stern lesson without involving our troops safety via air/drone/tech/infrastructure. I don't support peace keeping in this one, but we have to protect our national security interests in the region.
Trapper John
05-01-2013, 11:59
How about G W Bush's lies about WMDs in Iraq, how many lives did that presidential bullshit did that cost?
Hold on just a galldarn minute there, Bro.
Why do you characterize it as "G W Bush's lies about WMDs"? Wasn't that the INT belief at the time , the best available information? Didn't the Clinton Admin also believe that Saddam was stockpiling WMDs? How do we know that the chemical weapons inventory was not simply moved to Syria? We know they had them and used them. Or aren't chemical weapons and SCUD missiles WMDs? Pressure cooker bombs are now characterized as WMDs?
This is the problem IMO: There is a tendency to any time someone or some group does or says something we do not agree with, it's a lie! and they're a liar! Why do we feel compelled to immediately assault the character of our opponent, i.e call them a liar, etc. Is there not such a thing as being sincerely wrong or is every mistake or misstatement a lie and the messenger a liar?
IMO: I am not convinced that it was a mistake or misstatement of the facts.
I rather look weak, than look like a horses ass by pulling the trigger before you confirm exactly what the situation is.
How about G W Bush's lies about WMDs in Iraq, how many lives did that presidential bullshit did that cost?
If a pressure cooker can be called a WMD, how was he lying?
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/redlines-and-problems-intervention-syria
What the United States learned in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya is that it is relatively easy for a conventional force to destroy a government. It is much harder -- if not impossible -- to use the same force to impose a new type of government. The government that follows might be in some moral sense better than what preceded it -- it is difficult to imagine a more vile regime than Saddam Hussein's -- but the regime that replaces it will first be called chaos, followed by another regime that survives to the extent that it holds the United States at arm's length. Therefore, redline or not, few want to get involved in another intervention pivoting on weapons of mass destruction.
MOO: The questions that need to be answered are:
a. Do we know where all the labs and stockpiles are?
b. Can we destroy them from the air with minimal civilian/collateral damage? If not, can we do it with minimal boots on the ground in a short period of time?
c. If we strike strictly to protect our national security interests regarding the WMDs, will Russia respond if they feel that those actions threaten access to their warm water port?
The problem is the answer we have to all those is: We don't know. This is why our government is talking the talk, but cannot walk the walk, and CoA at the moment amounts to twirling the red pencil.
My .02
If a pressure cooker can be called a WMD, how was he lying?
I don't recall hearing/seeing that caches of pressure cookers were found/seized/destroyed in Iraq
I rather look weak, than look like a horses ass by pulling the trigger before you confirm exactly what the situation is.
I can go along with that - can you agree that it is better to not draw lines that you don't intend to keep? You do know that we have know about the use of chemical weapons for three weeks now?
How about G W Bush's lies about WMDs in Iraq, how many lives did that presidential bullshit did that cost?
Now hold on there Dozer, to follow up with horse shit like that is beyond the pale.
Lets start off with "what's YOUR definition of a lie" and please be very specific regarding President G.W. Bush's "lies"?
I can go along with that - can you agree that it is better to not draw lines that you don't intend to keep? You do know that we have know about the use of chemical weapons for three weeks now?
Now hold on there, to follow up with horse shit like that is beyond the pale.
Lets start off with "what's YOUR definition of a lie" and please be very specific regarding President G.W. Bush's "lies"?
But..he'd "rather look weak". :rolleyes:
Trapper John
05-01-2013, 18:26
It was WCH, wasn't it...not BofH???
I think so and i am waiting for answers too. ;)
ZonieDiver
05-01-2013, 18:29
While I think the war in Iraq was a mistake, and that Bush (the Younger) was anxious to find a reason to go after Saddam, I don't think he 'made up' the WMD issue - and the 'evidence' was there to form the opinion he did.
At the same time, I think 'we' are too quick to use the same kind of attacks against our current POTUS (for whom I have NO affection - and little to no respect) that others used against President Bush (43). That bothers me.
We're good ZD, no worries.
It was WCH, wasn't it...not BofH???
OOPS! Now I'm really in trouble! Headed out for PT (will shovel the entire block of snow using a Urbinousky e-tool (spork).
Saddam and his captured Generals admitted they 'fed' stories of their WMD programs to intimidate....those stories were actually aimed at Iran to keep them at bay during their lengthy period of weakness after the 1st Gulf War.
Thye were more concerned of an Iranian invasion than one from the West.
We, and every other intel service, bought their ruse.
While I think the war in Iraq was a mistake, and that Bush (the Younger) was anxious to find a reason to go after Saddam, I don't think he 'made up' the WMD issue - and the 'evidence' was there to form the opinion he did.
At the same time, I think 'we' are too quick to use the same kind of attacks against our current POTUS (for whom I have NO affection - and little to no respect) that others used against President Bush (43). That bothers me.
IMO, consistent with the observations stated above, Bush has been unfairly crucified in the press relative to this issue. While, by most any reasonable measure, BHO has enjoyed what amounts to free a pass by the press for his entire administration.
"It-is-what-it-is" but...the contrast in treatment of both men by the press inevitably leads to frustration levels that run, IMO, understandably high.
ZonieDiver
05-01-2013, 18:51
IMO, consistent with the observations stated above, Bush has been unfairly crucified in the press relative to this issue. While, by most any reasonable measure, BHO has enjoyed what amounts to free a pass by the press for his entire administration.
"It-is-what-it-is" but...the contrast inevitably leads to frustration levels that run, IMO, understandably high.
True... but I will NEVER lower myself to the levels of 'the press'!
Trapper John
05-01-2013, 19:03
Saddam and his captured Generals admitted they 'fed' stories of their WMD programs to intimidate....those stories were actually aimed at Iran to keep them at bay during their lengthy period of weakness after the 1st Gulf War.
Thye were more concerned of an Iranian invasion than one from the West.
We, and every other intel service, bought their ruse.
I've read similar reports and this makes the most sense to me.
To continuously malign the character of the POTUS (regardless of party) because we do not like his politics is a major distraction IMO. It often becomes an emotional diversion from an understanding of the thinking underlying a decision.
I am no fan of the current POTUS and have said that I think his motivations have been more egocentric, or at least politco-centric, than governance in the best interests of all Americans. But I don't think that I have ever attacked his personal character. If I have, then I apologize and will endeavor to not do so in the future - as tempting as it may be.
True... but I will NEVER lower myself to the levels of 'the press'!
ZD, given the current state of many in the national press today, that would be very, very difficult, if not downright impossible for you to do (lower yourself to their level).
IMO, a national press that aggressively reports on the actions and inactions of both major political parties - while respecting national security - and exhibiting a love for this country would serve the people better than the current crop of propagandists.
I've read similar reports and this makes the most sense to me.
Apparently, that is what he told the FBI: http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Saddam-WMD-was-only-a-ruse-1593484.php
My .02
Apparently, that is what he told the FBI: http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Saddam-WMD-was-only-a-ruse-1593484.php
My .02
That would have been the ideal time to 'turn' Saddam into our agent to control Iran....would have worked perfectly IMO.
If Iran cont. with their Nuke program we could have had a surrogate attack and destroy the leadership (with military assistance from us in the form of intel, co ordination and a few platforms) and we wouldn't be just about nuetered as we are now.
We have the same opportunity now in Syria.
While I think the war in Iraq was a mistake, and that Bush (the Younger) was anxious to find a reason to go after Saddam, I don't think he 'made up' the WMD issue - and the 'evidence' was there to form the opinion he did.
At the same time, I think 'we' are too quick to use the same kind of attacks against our current POTUS (for whom I have NO affection - and little to no respect) that others used against President Bush (43). That bothers me.
How can 'we' be using the same tactics on Obama that the libs used on Bush with regard to the OP when Obama hasn't invaded Syria?
These aren't the same attacks. This is an observation that Obama is talking tough with no intention backing it up, and it weakens our foreign policy stance.
Bush didn't "walk back a red line" in Iraq.
Nobody could possibly regret the loss of American lives in Iraq more than I do, but I'd love to know how anybody can arbitrarily state the the war was a 'mistake". How the hell can you possibly know that without a freaking time machine?
Who would you rather have running the Country; a guy who does what he says he's gonna do, even though he monumentally jacks it up due to faulty intelligence, or a guy who sets a serious ultimatum and then crawdads out of it?
That would have been the ideal time to 'turn' Saddam into our agent to control Iran....would have worked perfectly IMO.
If Iran cont. with their Nuke program we could have had a surrogate attack and destroy the leadership (with military assistance from us in the form of intel, co ordination and a few platforms) and we wouldn't be just about nuetered as we are now.
We have the same opportunity now in Syria.
There were huge geopolitical issues with that scenario - Iran-Contra (Iraq's use of WMDs against Iran and Kurds), GW1 and its unresolved aftermath, the directly-linked Iraqi support of suicide bombings in Israel, Iraq's WMD "bluff" (which was even kept secret from the majority of his senior political and military officials but, because they had been used previously and were a fear in GW1, remained a possibility), Iraq's growing internal political tensions and Caligula-like behaviors of the party in power, etc.
IMO - it couldn't have worked.
Overt supporting of a long-recognized dictatorship such as Assad's also presents major geopolitical issues for any country attempting to intercede there.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
That would have been the ideal time to 'turn' Saddam into our agent to control Iran....would have worked perfectly IMO.
If Iran cont. with their Nuke program we could have had a surrogate attack and destroy the leadership (with military assistance from us in the form of intel, co ordination and a few platforms) and we wouldn't be just about nuetered as we are now.
We have the same opportunity now in Syria.
Iran may have tried to play the same game (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/node/112191) with us regarding Iraq. What they didn't count on was Arab "Spring" in Syria.
My .02
Team Sergeant
05-02-2013, 13:54
There were huge geopolitical issues with that scenario - Iran-Contra (Iraq's use of WMDs against Iran and Kurds), GW1 and its unresolved aftermath, the directly-linked Iraqi support of suicide bombings in Israel, Iraq's WMD "bluff" (which was even kept secret from the majority of his senior political and military officials but, because they had been used previously and were a fear in GW1, remained a possibility), Iraq's growing internal political tensions and Caligula-like behaviors of the party in power, etc.
Richard :munchin
I'm sorry, you said "GW1 and its unresolved aftermath" please tell me what part of our mission did we fail to meet?
ddoering
05-02-2013, 18:23
GW1 was an operational victory at best. Strategically it failed because it set up the conditions that led to anti-American sentiment in the region thru continued stationing of forces there. That gave extremists ammunition for recruiting and also led to GW2. We should have resolved it all in GW1 and then gotten out.
And as it stands now, as we tuck our tail and run, my grandson will be fighting GW3.
And as it stands now, as we tuck our tail and run, my grandson will be fighting GW3.
What I wonder is will GW3 be fought over there or over here?
There were huge geopolitical issues with that scenario - Iran-Contra (Iraq's use of WMDs against Iran and Kurds), GW1 and its unresolved aftermath, the directly-linked Iraqi support of suicide bombings in Israel, Iraq's WMD "bluff" (which was even kept secret from the majority of his senior political and military officials but, because they had been used previously and were a fear in GW1, remained a possibility), Iraq's growing internal political tensions and Caligula-like behaviors of the party in power, etc.
IMO - it couldn't have worked.
Overt supporting of a long-recognized dictatorship such as Assad's also presents major geopolitical issues for any country attempting to intercede there.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
We agree to disagree then...geopolitical issues are only relevant to the loser...as will happen in Astan we moved from a position of weakness in a stupid endeavor to Nation build where no Nation existed...
We supported Saddam in his war with Iran and that worked extremely well...when he 'asked us' about what would happen if he invaded Kuwait the idiot Ambassador didn't even understand what he was asking...if she had articulated our real response he would not have invaded.
Israel had no issues with us supporting Saddam, they liked that better than invasion actually.
They'd have no issues with the same quiet approach in Syria either. There is no altruistic apporoach that will yield anything concrete...none...zip...it is a waste of time, too many years on the ground there.
You must approach Islamic regimes from an Islamic point of view....the 'western geopolitical' approach has been a disaster in lives and fortune and will yield next to nothing.
I'm sorry, you said "GW1 and its unresolved aftermath" please tell me what part of our mission did we fail to meet?
Militarily - none.
Richard :munchin
Team Sergeant
05-03-2013, 06:58
Militarily - none.
Richard :munchin
Unresolved issues of the middle east started in the year 1096, and it's been going downhill from there.
You do remember 19 of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, a country with "resolved" issues?
The spineless islamic cowards that placed the latest bombs were from Dagestan, and they attacked the United States because of "unresolved issues", no, they attacked us in the name of islam and allah. I'm willing to bet that the next 100 bombings in the United States, 98 will be placed by muslims. Should we target the muslims, no, that would not be politically correct.
We are currently at year 917 of middle eastern unresolved issues. I have no doubt that the next 500-1000 years will not see any issues resolved when it comes to the middle east or islam.
Unresolved issues of the middle east started in the year 1096, and it's been going downhill from there.
You do remember 19 of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, a country with "resolved" issues?
The spineless islamic cowards that placed the latest bombs were from Dagestan, and they attacked the United States because of "unresolved issues", no, they attacked us in the name of islam and allah. I'm willing to bet that the next 100 bombings in the United States, 98 will be placed by muslims. Should we target the muslims, no, that would not be politically correct.
We are currently at year 917 of middle eastern unresolved issues. I have no doubt that the next 500-1000 years will not see any issues resolved when it comes to the middle east or islam.
I think such "unresolved issues" in that part of the world began long before 1096, but I was only referring to Iraq and the specific political-economic issues related to its Tikriti leaderhip and our period of involvement, UN sanctioning, and EU engagement 1990-2003 as but one reason why the idea of using the Hussein regime as a proxy to reign in Iran would have been unworkable at that time.
Richard :munchin
Team Sergeant
05-03-2013, 08:46
I think such "unresolved issues" in that part of the world began long before 1096, but I was only referring to Iraq and the specific political-economic issues related to its Tikriti leaderhip and our period of involvement, UN sanctioning, and EU engagement 1990-2003 as but one reason why the idea of using the Hussein regime as a proxy to reign in Iran would have been unworkable at that time.
Richard :munchin
But Iraq did reign in Iran during that time in a passive manner. Iraq built up an army that was without question the largest in the Middle East. That in itself kept Iran in check. During the final days of the Iran Iraq war the Iranians were attacking Iraqi tanks in human waves and in such numbers that the tow missiles we supplied to Iran to destroy Iraq's tanks, the tow wires were getting tangled in the human waves. That said, Saddam's military buildup afterward kept every country in the Middle East in check.
After that war Iran was depleted of men and resources, they had no air force left, no navy, very little armor at that point in time the Rhode Island national guard could have defeated them by themselves. While Saddam continued a military buildup, Iran began saber rattling (again) with the West and have continued ever since. Iran has a military that no one in the West fears, hence the reason Iran exports terrorism. And because of the common tie to islam Iran and Iraq could now look to the evil West to vent their anger.
As a side note, we did not completely destroy Saddam's military for a reason, to ensure a balance of power remained between Iraq and Iran.
The only mistake Saddam made was what all dictators eventually succumb to, is they want more. Saddam would still be alive today had he stayed out of Kuwait. And the United States would have continued to support his brutal dictatorship for the next 50 years.
UN sanctioning is nothing without American enforcement. Once he was defeated by us in 1991 his downfall was imminent as he now faced other islamic "tribes" emboldened by American military support. The USA put out the word that when Saddam was dead Iraq would be a much better place, we didn't realize Saddam's resolve would be so strong. His use of chemical weapons against his own people and the Kurds left no doubt that he did in fact still have WMD's. Had we not waited six months to attack we might have found those WMD's. I've little doubt most were shipped off to Syria for "safe keeping".
And wow, now Syria is employing chemical weapons against it's own population, I've love to see those munitions, I wonder if they have a "Made in Iraq" stamp on them.
View From the Middle East May 1, 2013, 5:13 am 4 Comments
Echoes of Saddam’s War in Dilemma Over Syria’s Chemical Weapons
By HARVEY MORRIS
ERBIL, Iraq — A team of United Nations experts was still waiting in Cyprus on Wednesday to hear whether Syria will grant it unfettered access to investigate reports that chemical weapons have been used in the country’s civil war.
The mission has been stalled by disagreements about the scope of the inquiry, which the Damascus government wants to limit to a single alleged incident in Aleppo.
The government and the rebels have each accused the other of using the banned weapons, and President Obama said proof of their systematic use by the Syrian military would be a “game changer” in U.S. involvement in the conflict.
The reports from Syria have a particular resonance in this Kurdish region of northern Iraq, which suffered the worst ever slaughter by chemical and nerve agents, 25 years ago at the town of Halabja, in which more than 5,000 people died.
At that time, a brutal 8-year war between Iraq and Iran was nearing its end and there was little appetite in the West for assigning blame to the perpetrator — the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
The U.S. and its allies proclaimed a neutral stance in the conflict, but by the end had effectively tilted toward Iraq, having acknowledged that Mr. Hussein’s invasion of his neighbor at least had the merit of curtailing Iran’s ability to export its Islamic revolution.
Throughout the war no international action was taken on Iraq’s chemical weapons, despite evidence they had been used long before Halabja.
cont:
http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/echoes-of-saddams-war-in-dilemma-over-syrias-chemical-weapons/
ddoering
05-03-2013, 14:33
"I've love to see those munitions, I wonder if they have a "Made in Iraq" stamp on them."
You and me both. It would be nice to see so we could tell the libs to shut the fuck up once and for all.
"I've love to see those munitions, I wonder if they have a "Made in Iraq" stamp on them."
You and me both. It would be nice to see so we could tell the libs to shut the fuck up once and for all.
I do that every day, my Brother.
Team Sergeant
05-05-2013, 09:07
If they were gassing kenyans would the current administration do anything? I love that headline, it's so 7th grade.....
Obama Aide On Syria's Assad: 'If He Drops Sarin On His Own People, What’s That Got Do Do With Us?'
10:12 AM, May 5, 2013• By DANIEL HALPER
President Barack Obama got ahead of himself and his advisers when he said that Syria using chemical weapons would cross a "red line," the New York Times reports.
“How can we attack another country unless it’s in self-defense and with no Security Council resolution?” an unnamed Obama administration official tells the paper. “If he drops sarin on his own people, what’s that got to do with us?”
But they concluded that drawing a firm line might deter Mr. Assad. In addition to secret messages relayed through Russia, Iran and other governments, they decided that the president would publicly address the matter.
Several officials said they recalled no discussion about the “red line” phrase but suspected that it came out of the election-year conversation about Iran and how far to allow its nuclear program to progress before being forced to take action. It was a concept that was “embedded in people’s prefrontal cortex,” one of the officials said.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-aide-syrias-assad-if-he-drops-sarin-his-own-people-what-s-got-do-do-us_720803.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-blasts-idUSBRE94400020130505
If they were gassing kenyans would the current administration do anything? I love that headline, it's so 7th grade.....
Obama Aide On Syria's Assad: 'If He Drops Sarin On His Own People, What Difference Does it Make'
Fixed
or "That happened a long time ago".