Syria Operation Farce

[CharonY]

 

 

The current estimates are that over 100,000 people have died in a civil war that Assad could have easily avoided.

 

How? By starting yet another war that the US could not really afford? How else could he support the uprising? Also, similarly to the US those anti-Assad are not necessarily pro-US, which makes taking sides quite tricky.

 

That being said:

The Syrian government has accepted a Russian proposal to put its chemical weapons under international control to avoid a possible U.S. military strike, Interfax news agency quoted Syria's foreign minister as saying on Tuesday.

Edited September 10, 2013 by CharonY

[iNow]

I don't think a President should parade around like the leader of the free world and then act surprised when no other country follows. I find that embarrassing.

I'm not really taking a side here, but we might note that the president is not the leader of "the free world." He's hardly even the leader of the United States. I know that we no longer teach civics lessons to our kids, but it might be helpful once in a while to recall that the president is really just the leader of one coequal branch in the three branch government of just one country. Maybe if we could move away from the hyperbole we could potentially move ourselves toward more solution oriented and productive discussions.

[waitforufo]

 

How? By starting yet another war that the US could not really afford? How else could he support the uprising? Also, similarly to the US those anti-Assad are not necessarily pro-US, which makes taking sides quite tricky.

 

That being said:

The Syrian government has accepted a Russian proposal to put its chemical weapons under international control to avoid a possible U.S. military strike, Interfax news agency quoted Syria's foreign minister as saying on Tuesday.

Is Russia at war? They are supporting Assad. They are providing weapons and advisers. Had the president supported Assad's opponents we would likely not be in this place now.

 

I'm not really taking a side here, but we might note that the president is not the leader of "the free world." He's hardly even the leader of the United States. I know that we no longer teach civics lessons to our kids, but it might be helpful once in a while to recall that the president is really just the leader of one coequal branch in the three branch government of just one country. Maybe if we could move away from the hyperbole we could potentially move ourselves toward more solution oriented and productive discussions.

iNow, this is my point exactly. That is why I said he was parading around. You would think that a constitutional lawyer would know the place of a President. Especially that part about one equal branch of government.

 

So let me recap. Obama should have developed a plan on how to deal with Syria while peaceful protests were still underway. He should have, and continue to, set his foreign policy objectives in private with our allies and congress before he shoots his mouth off about red lines.

Edited September 10, 2013 by waitforufo

[overtone]

 

 

Obama should have developed a plan on how to deal with Syria while peaceful protests were still underway. He should have, and continue to, set his foreign policy objectives in private with our allies and congress

Do you recall what Obama was dealing with at that time, in the way of Congressional and Russian behaviors? A reminder: "Our goal is to make Obama a one term President".

 

This may well be the plan on how to deal with Syria, developed while peaceful protests were underway (that window was about a month long, iirc), after private consultation with Congress and our allies. When very powerful political factions in one's country have set out to destroy the Executive Branch's ability to function, it is possible they might have had some success, no?

[waitforufo]

Do you recall what Obama was dealing with at that time, in the way of Congressional and Russian behaviors? A reminder: "Our goal is to make Obama a one term President".

 

This may well be the plan on how to deal with Syria, developed while peaceful protests were underway (that window was about a month long, iirc), after private consultation with Congress and our allies. When very powerful political factions in one's country have set out to destroy the Executive Branch's ability to function, it is possible they might have had some success, no?

 

Has it been a month since the latest use of chemical weapons in Syria? Yet Obama is ready to bomb. A month is a long time in politics and foreign policy. Foreign policy is the President's job. What ever happened to contingency plans?

 

That powerful political faction you are talking about, could that be the Democratic Party? My guess is that you are correct in assuming that Democrats would have abandoned there "let’s quit our current wars" president if he would have started another one.

 

Second City however disagrees.

 

 

Obama has even lost Second City. Sad

[iNow]

I know lots of folks have fun doing nothing more than president bashing. What should we be doing right now instead is probably a more productive question, though.

[overtone]

A month is a long time in politics and foreign policy. Foreign policy is the President's job. What ever happened to contingency plans?

This looks like as good a contingency plan as one could reasonably expect, being soberly and carefully carried out.

 

As you have repeatedly emphasized, the President's foreign policies are supposed to be formulated in cooperation and consultation with Congress and allies.

 

So any new policy regarding Syria after the uprising, as formulated back during the few days when the demonstrations were "peaceful" (compared with the neighbors), would have to have been formulated in cooperation with the Congress present at the time. Do you remember what that situation was, with the US Congress at that time? ( the Republicans in Congress had just blocked an administration funding request for increased security at various US embassies in the Middle East and neighboring countries, the foreign policy debate was concerning Libya and a possible no-fly zone (the Republicans in Congress had come out against whatever Obama decided to do), the Fukushima reactors were in trouble and the nuke proponents were levering on the US media to influence the coverage, James O'Keefe had succeeded in damaging yet another "liberal" organization (NPR) by dishonestly editing a punk video (his fourth such triumph, as repeated exposure of his methods had not embarrassed his backers or outlets), several of Obama's recent appointments to various public offices had been blocked by filibuster again, US allies in Bahrain had just been caught using poison gas on demonstrators and Saudi Arabia was backing them with troops and supplies, and so forth.

 

 

 

That powerful political faction you are talking about, could that be the Democratic Party?

Nope. It's the faction represented by the quote - "Our goal is to make Obama a one term President".

 

If powerful political factions in the US set out simply to prevent the Executive Branch from functioning properly, and put full effort into that agenda for several years, no one should be surprised if they acheive some successes here and there.

Edited September 10, 2013 by overtone

[waitforufo]

This looks like as good a contingency plan as one could reasonably expect, being soberly and carefully carried out.

 

As you have repeatedly emphasized, the President's foreign policies are supposed to be formulated in cooperation and consultation with Congress and allies.

 

So any new policy regarding Syria after the uprising, as formulated back during the few days when the demonstrations were "peaceful" (compared with the neighbors), would have to have been formulated in cooperation with the Congress present at the time. Do you remember what that situation was, with the US Congress at that time? ( the Republicans in Congress had just blocked an administration funding request for increased security at various US embassies in the Middle East and neighboring countries, the foreign policy debate was concerning Libya and a possible no-fly zone (the Republicans in Congress had come out against whatever Obama decided to do), the Fukushima reactors were in trouble and the nuke proponents were levering on the US media to influence the coverage, James O'Keefe had succeeded in damaging yet another "liberal" organization (NPR) by dishonestly editing a punk video (his fourth such triumph, as repeated exposure of his methods had not embarrassed his backers or outlets), several of Obama's recent appointments to various public offices had been blocked by filibuster again, US allies in Bahrain had just been caught using poison gas on demonstrators and Saudi Arabia was backing them with troops and supplies, and so forth.

Being President is a tough job. Maybe too tough for some.

 

I really don't think you should bring up Libya. The President's policy there hasn't turned out too well either.

 

Your comments about the Fukushima reactors seem like fantasy to me. It's hard to defend exploding reactors even when they are old out of date ones.

 

James O'Keefe is a nobody with a camera when it comes to the President. Why would the President be distracted by him?

 

Why didn't the President bomb Bahrain if chemical weapons cross the "international red line" which is so important to our President?

 

What you are saying a above is that the President was distracted and dropped the ball. I agree.

 

 

Nope. It's the faction represented by the quote - "Our goal is to make Obama a one term President".

 

If powerful political factions in the US set out simply to prevent the Executive Branch from functioning properly, and put full effort into that agenda for several years, no one should be surprised if they acheive some successes here and there.

So the Democrats didn't try to make Bush a one term President?

So the Republicans didn't try to make Clinton a one term President?

So the Democrats didn't succeed in making H.W. Bush a one term President?

So the Democrats didn't try to make Reagan a one term President?

So the Republicans didn't succeed in makeing Carter a one term President?

.......................

 

It's the President's job to make the executive branch function properly. No one elses. Powerful factions are always working against Presidents. Good ones over come those factions. Poor ones don't.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. That's politics. That is the way politics has always been. It you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

 

In Syria the President backed himself into a corner he isn't willing to fight his way out of. No one's fault but his own.

 

Now the advantage is to Syria and Russia. His fault.

 

Even Joe Klein seems to agree...

 

http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/11/obama-and-syria-stumbling-toward-damascus/

Edited September 12, 2013 by waitforufo

[overtone]

 

It's the President's job to make the executive branch function properly. No one elses. Powerful factions are always working against Presidents.

The US has not always been afflicted with powerful forces enjoying major Congressional representation attempting to prevent the Executive Branch from functioning.

 

Good ones over come those factions. Poor ones don't.

True, the measure of any modern national politician attempting to govern or legislate for the good of the country is how well they overcome corporate Republican tactics and vandalisms. But I don't blame them for the consequences of failure - I blame the promulgators of the tactics and vandalisms for the consequences of what they do.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what your point is. That's politics. That is the way politics has always been

No, it isn't. The behavior of the Republican Party and its media since Reagan is without precedent in more than a century, if ever - maybe the pre-Civil War future Confederates would be the last comparable power group.

 

 

Now the advantage is to Syria and Russia. His fault.

 

Even Joe Klein seems to agree..

Why "even" that guy? He's one of those pundits who always gets stuff wrong and never seems to suffer any consequences - I recall vaguely that at one point he held, or was approaching, the all time record for forcing separate retractions at a major news publication (Time). Maybe Kristol has surpassed him, despite the briefness of his tenure in such venues.

 

Although I did appreciate the observation that the odd group of otherwise centrist media figures who somehow didn't like Hilary Clinton were all Catholics. That's one of those truths you need to keep schmucks like Klein around to say in public.

 

As far as advantage to Russia and Syria - nothing new there: they've had us by the short one's since W headbutted the tar baby in Iraq. We best keep China happy - they'll help us with Russia.

 

.

[waitforufo]

The US has not always been afflicted with powerful forces enjoying major Congressional representation attempting to prevent the Executive Branch from functioning.

 

True, the measure of any modern national politician attempting to govern or legislate for the good of the country is how well they overcome corporate Republican tactics and vandalisms. But I don't blame them for the consequences of failure - I blame the promulgators of the tactics and vandalisms for the consequences of what they do.

 

 

 

No, it isn't. The behavior of the Republican Party and its media since Reagan is without precedent in more than a century, if ever - maybe the pre-Civil War future Confederates would be the last comparable power group.

 

 

Why "even" that guy? He's one of those pundits who always gets stuff wrong and never seems to suffer any consequences - I recall vaguely that at one point he held, or was approaching, the all time record for forcing separate retractions at a major news publication (Time). Maybe Kristol has surpassed him, despite the briefness of his tenure in such venues.

 

Although I did appreciate the observation that the odd group of otherwise centrist media figures who somehow didn't like Hilary Clinton were all Catholics. That's one of those truths you need to keep schmucks like Klein around to say in public.

 

As far as advantage to Russia and Syria - nothing new there: they've had us by the short one's since W headbutted the tar baby in Iraq. We best keep China happy - they'll help us with Russia.

 

.

 

You should study history a bit more. By "pre-Civil War future Confederates" you mean Democrats right?

[Iggy]

You should study history a bit more. By "pre-Civil War future Confederates" you mean Democrats right?

I thought it was a bloody brilliant post.

 

Post 32 was better, but all around interesting.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Iggy

[ewmon]

I think what iritates most Americans (and others) is that Obama is labeling a little pissant dictator halfway around the world a danger to America. A well-known quote —

 

Of course the people don’t want war ... But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country.”

 

Accredited to a particular field marshal from 20th century Europe.

 

And there's nothing clumsier than a Democrat trying to wage war, as Kennedy (Bay of Pigs) and Johnson (escalating Vietnam) proved.

[waitforufo]

Don't forget Jefferson Davis (Civil War). 620,000 fatalities and 400,000 additional wounded all to perpetuate slavery.

[overtone]

I think what iritates most Americans (and others) is that Obama is labeling a little pissant dictator halfway around the world a danger to America.

But he isn't. I mean, how can that be a big irritation when he isn't doing it?

 

One of the most striking things about this whole camapign to bomb Syria is how little of the W style "he's the nw Hitler, mushroom clouds on the horizon" rhetoric we've been hearing. It was the standard rhetoric from the US President for so long the wingnut crowd seems to be still hearing it, like a ringing in their ears.

 

I think they miss it. They associate it with strength, like W.

 

 

 

By "pre-Civil War future Confederates" you mean Democrats right?

I mean the Tea Party of their time. They call themselves Republicans now. The current President has had better luck dealing with them than Lincoln did, but it ain't over yet.

 

 

 

What you are saying a above is that the President was distracted and dropped the ball

For those who can read, I'm saying that cooperation with Congress in governing the country requires a Congress capable of cooperating in governing something - a lemonade stand, a State, something - and this President has never had that luxury. So priorities had to be set, and things that required cooperation with Congress were lined up in the "do if necessary" file.

 

Clearly Syria was a complicated mess that was not a direct threat to the US, and Congressional Republicans were a pack of jackasses that were (defaulting the economy, etc), so policies focused on dealing with them rather than Syria (since it was impossible to do both) made sense, is all.

 

btw: Obama looks like he's going to come out of thisSyria business smelling like a rose, eh? So far, he is getting everything he wanted at minimal real cost. If I thought he had planned things like this my estimation of him would be rising considerably.

 

 

 

And there's nothing clumsier than a Democrat trying to wage war, as Kennedy (Bay of Pigs) and Johnson (escalating Vietnam) proved

You might want to wait until Reagan and W are both long dead, before introducing the topic of Party affiliation screwing up a war. Not everybody is as incapable of remembering from 12 to noon as your average American rightwingy. Edited September 14, 2013 by overtone

[Delbert]

It seems to me this business is nothing more than delaying tactics. He probably realised he couldn't use chemical weapons again without getting an ear bashing from the Russians. So take up the suggestion to destroy them, use the situation to buy time and divert attention from other activities. Play his cards right and in the fullness of time he might end up on the world stage as a UN peace delegate.

[Iggy]

It seems to me this business is nothing more than delaying tactics. He probably realised he couldn't use chemical weapons again without getting an ear bashing from the Russians. So take up the suggestion to destroy them, use the situation to buy time and divert attention from other activities. Play his cards right and in the fullness of time he might end up on the world stage as a UN peace delegate.

I'm not so sure anymore.

 

If you look at what Libya did after the latest Iraq war started... Gaddafi gave over his chemical weapons at last. He really didn't have to, but it seemed like he felt maybe the changing politics in his own country combined with the threat of international force made them more trouble than they're worth. He could have done a lot of damage with those things. But, he just gave them up. Maybe al-Assad has come to a likewise conclusion.

 

Of course, it helps enormously that Russia smacked him across the ear. And, of course, it has to be a delaying tactic in so far as Assad thinks it will keep him stay in power... so, you're ultimately right, I just... I don't know, I'm conflicted.

 

I was happy when Gaddafi gave up his nerve agent, but I was more happy when someone dragged him out of drain pipe and shot him in the head. I guess I'm just hoping (like maybe you are as well) that the former doesn't prevent the latter in this case, because Assad is a monster and deserves no better.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Iggy

[waitforufo]

 

I mean the Tea Party of their time. They call themselves Republicans now. The current President has had better luck dealing with them than Lincoln did, but it ain't over yet.

 

Nice try, but the Democratic party can't sidestep it's history. They are the party of slavery, secession, civil war, segregation, jim crow, and the KKK. This will never be lost to history, and the Democratic party will forever have to atone for this history. Yes, the tea party will always be owned by the Republican party, but so far, in comparison, their actions have been trivial.

[john5746]

Your anti-Obama, anti-democrat trolling is almost entertaining.

 

So, since the democrat party began as a party for weak federal government, strict constitutionalism, uphold state's rights and the party for the farmer, then that is how we should view it today, as opposed to what the politicians say or do?

[waitforufo]

It's the democratic party history plain and simple. There is no doubt. Also, I'm in my fifties and remember watching a Democrat Governor say on TV “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

 

Is Jim Crow ancient history? No.

 

I’m not a big fan of the tea party but they haven’t started any wars, let alone a civil war that caused over 600,000 fatalities. The bloodiest war in US history. This is not something that should be quicky forgotten as yesterday's news.

 

It’s disingenuous to say that when Democrats act badly they are suddenly transformed into Republicans.

Edited September 17, 2013 by waitforufo

[Endy0816]

The parties have changed since then. Almost the opposite today with the democrats being seen as more supportive of minority rights.

 

Your own attitude is prejudicial. Can't hold anyone or anything responsible for the past indefinitely. If people can change then so can the groups composed of them.

[waitforufo]

620000 fatalities and 476000 additionally wounded all to preserve slavery seems like a big deal to me. I remember watching all that TV news with attack dogs and water cannons too. I seem to remember a Democrat behind every one of those prejudical acts.

[Endy0816]

That's okay though since black people were savages a few hundred years before that...

 

That is where that sort of logic takes you. Nowhere good.

[Iggy]

620000 fatalities and 476000 additionally wounded all to preserve slavery seems like a big deal to me. I remember watching all that TV news with attack dogs and water cannons too. I seem to remember a Democrat behind every one of those prejudical acts.

Uhhh... you remember pro-slavery democrats? How old are you?

 

Anti-slavery democrats joined with northern Whigs to form the republican party some time before 1970, but that was all ancient history by the time of Kennedy and Jim Crow. Speaking of a "big deal"... it changed in the time of FDR in fact.

 

If you remember democrats being behind attack dogs and water cannons then I'm pretty sure you're spot off there.

 

Edit...

 

I guess... maybe southern democrats up until maybe the 1950's... but... whatever... it has nothing to do with the party now. You're about 3 generations late on that.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Iggy

[waitforufo]

That's okay though since black people were savages a few hundred years before that...

 

That is where that sort of logic takes you. Nowhere good.

Maybe that is where it take you, but I have never felt that way.

 

Uhhh... you remember pro-slavery democrats? How old are you?

 

Anti-slavery democrats joined with northern Whigs to form the republican party some time before 1970, but that was all ancient history by the time of Kennedy and Jim Crow. Speaking of a "big deal"... it changed in the time of FDR in fact.

 

If you remember democrats being behind attack dogs and water cannons then I'm pretty sure you're spot off there.

 

Edit...

 

I guess... maybe southern democrats up until maybe the 1950's... but... whatever... it has nothing to do with the party now. You're about 3 generations late on that.

Three generations is 60 years so your timing is right. But three generations is nothing. From a historical perspective either is 150 years.

The Democratic party should be proud of the atonement that they have made so far, but they have a long way to go. There are lots of people alive today that remember the the 50's and 60's. I don't think they would say it was a "whatever" moment.

[john5746]

The Democratic party should be proud of the atonement that they have made so far, but they have a long way to go.

Oh, I see - you want people to support the Democratic party, since they are helping(actually they consist of many) minorities, due to their past. I guess the Republican party's anti-minority agenda is due to "payback" for all the good Lincoln did? Interesting.

 

Anyway, in regards to Syria, I'm glad they took their time. We didn't rush in to bomb the place and this may end up being the best course.