Obama walks back 'red line' stance on Syrian government

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by WCH

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?

[BOfH]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/redli...rvention-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

Originally Posted by Dusty

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

[MR2]

Originally Posted by WCH

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?

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?

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"?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by MR2

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".

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

It was WCH, wasn't it...not BofH???

I think so and i am waiting for answers too.

[ZonieDiver]

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.

[MR2]

We're good ZD, no worries.

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

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).

[PRB]

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.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

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]

Originally Posted by tonyz

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]

Originally Posted by PRB

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.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

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.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

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-wor...se-1593484.php

My .02

[PRB]

Originally Posted by BOfH

Apparently, that is what he told the FBI: http://www.chron.com/news/nation-wor...se-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.