Obama walks back 'red line' stance on Syrian government

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Most definitely. That's why he needs to watch his mouth.

See? We're twins.

Heaven help us

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

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".

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by WCH

Sorta, kinda, like "read my lips, no new taxes".

Yeah. Think how many lives were lost because Bush was forced to raise taxes.

[Remington Raidr]

He's constantly "evolving".

[GreenSalsa]

Originally Posted by afchic

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]

Originally Posted by GreenSalsa

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.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by GreenSalsa

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.

Originally Posted by Dusty

Yeah. Think how many lives were lost because Bush was forced to raise taxes.

How many lives will be lost by jumping into another country's civil war?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by WCH

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]

Originally Posted by afchic

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.

[AF Doc]

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?

Originally Posted by Dusty

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]

Originally Posted by WCH

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]

Originally Posted by WCH

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.