[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

This conflict has been around much longer than the discovery of oil. The discovery of oil, in a way, normalized Western culture in many aspects for the region. But it brought huge amounts of wealth that were unequally distributed amongst the royal elites. Western companies received concessions and took the rest of the wealth out of the region. Locals perceived this as an injustice by the West, when it was their own people taking advantage of them. When the oil is depleted, the animosity won't disappear, it will just reinvent itself in some other grievance.

 

Don't be concern with the little details. Words said by head of state are important. Putin (and so is Assad) is putting themselves into a corner with this offer. If they don't come through, there will be more pressure for military strike. Putin wouldn't make such offer lightly. It was due to real risk of military strike.

This is hardly Russian's awesome plan. I think you got strong bias against the US Administration and you aren't clear headed due to it.

 

Fox and conservative radio are scrambling to do damage control, essentially stating that Obama has lucked into a possible arrangement...... I don't think that narrative is going to carry the day. This is a major victory for Obama, and it shows that Russia and China will blink when it comes to foreign interests.

 

No War
No Strikes

i'm on board

Rocket River

 

I disagree. I supported Obama on this, but I think it makes Russia look much much better. It makes us look like weak war-mongerers, and Russia like the diplomatic beacon of light we once considered ourselves.

I am curious, I've heard chemical weapons have a shelf life of a year. Why does the use of such weapons evoke such a response, but the possession of such materials goes unnoticed? If chemical weapons are bad, why don't we say something to those who stalk pile them? If they are never permitted, under international law, to be used, than why do we allow* people to have them.

*I understand we can't invade or respond to every injustice in the world, but that shouldn't stop us from speaking out against them. You never hear anything until they've been used, but why did they have them in the first place?

 

Interesting.

To me this tells nations such as Syria, that Russia and China will not go to the mat for them and that Obama will not back down. I don't think it makes us look like war mongers, we are not going ahead with the bombing at this point. We took a hardline and got what we want.

 

How so? The US achieves all of its policy goals, at no cost. Russia backs down from it's bluster and gains nothing. Syria loses its chemical weapons and gains nothing. How exactly does Russia come out ahead?

People say Obama lucked into this and he was war-mongering. That might be true, though the entire body of history of Obama/Kerry/Hagel suggests the opposite. But for a threat to credible, it has to be believable. If anyone thought Obama was bluffing, it wouldn't work.

Amusingly, this would continue a history of Obama consistently winning policy battles while losing PR battles on just about every major issue he's dealt with during his Presidency.

 

We took a hardline? We gave them a warning, we are accusing them of ignoring our warning and using the weapons anyways. Then as we struggle to get Congressional approval for the strikes that our President obviously wants to take, Russia swoops in for a proposal to ignore the use of the weapons so long as they hand them over.

I don't get the impression Russia/China wouldn't step up to the plate should we have attacked. I certainly don't get the impression that Obama got what he wanted. In the end, I think it is better. Strikes would have been futile, but I think it certainly makes us look weaker than Russia.


Major -

The US and Obama, the might Diplomat in Chief, didn't come up with the proposal. He wanted to strike, and Russia gets them to agree to peaceful terms. I think it makes Russia look like the saviors and the US indecisive.

I agree, to a degree. I don't think Obama was necessarily war-mongering, he had to make it seem like he was prepared to go to war to make the threat credible. I agree. But he drew the hard line in the sand (albeit it was an International norm for nearly 90 years), and put us in an awkward position. If it had been the UK who came out and brokered this agreement, it would look/feel different, but because it is Russia, I think it strategically makes us look weak and Russia stronger.

I don't agree with that. He lost the policy battle here. It wasn't his policy that lead to the agreement. It was Russia. If Russia hadn't have had a relationship with Assad, I don't think they would have sided with us and given up the weapons. And he has lost the PR AND Policy battles on many issues.

 

The difference between obama and bush. Conventional wisdom says when taljing war dont dither make your mind up and attack. Bush didnt allow any other options on iraq because it wasnt a debate it was a sales pitch.

 

I am sorry but I cannot disagree more on virtually every point.

Obama appears to have gotten exactly what he wanted. He gets the chemical weapons removed AND doesnt have to take military action. That is about a perfect outcome.

Russia looks weak. They took a hardline on Syria and then ultimately folds and puts pressure on Syria to hand over their chemical weapons.

If I am a smaller, important domino nation, I am paying close attention. Russia essentially made Syria roll over.

In no way does Russia look stronger and the USA look weaker.....

 

He didn't want to strike. He wanted to punish Syria for using Chemical Weapons - missile strikes were the simplest option. Under this scenario, he gets to eliminate their chemical weapons AND get UN people on the ground in the country, which is an even better option.

Russia was throwing out just as much bluster, and they are now backing down. How do they come out ahead? Keep in mind that Kerry initially (accidentally or not) suggested this idea and Russia jumped at it almost immediately.

US policy was to stop Assad from using chemical weapons. This would accomplish exactly that. Of course the US wins the policy battle here. If it works (still a big IF), then he used the threat of force to get Russia and Syria to cave to our goals and get nothing in return.

 

Everyone is looking at this as zero sum game between Putin and Obama. Both can actually come out looking good from this. Obama looks good for ending the threat of Syrian chemical weapons and Putin looks good for being a peacemaker.

 

That is one part that you have right.

Actually the region liked the USA quite a bit up at least till 1957 when we forced the French, and British to not invade Egypt to take back the Suez Canal. We were seen as anti-imperialists unlike the British and French. Now we are truthfully seen as the main imperialists, backers of tyrants if they do our bidding, overthrowing of democratically elected presidents if they don't and the main reason why Israel can keep grabbing more land and oppressing the Palestinians.

As far as religion and culture goes they didn't agree 1,000 years ago and they don't agree now. What has changed is our policies toward the region.

 

I think Russia knows it can make Obama squirm and fall apart, but it sees an opportunity to give Obama an out. There will be no attack, Russia has to know the U.S. congress is opposed and Obama didn't have the votes. Putin knows what he is doing - you are right there.

But he isn't playing Obama like you think. It's clear to me the only explanation that makes sense is that Putin sees and opportunity to warm relations. Seems Putin was genuinely upset with the snub that Washington gave them - perhaps not expecting such a harsh reaction, and now sees an opportunity to play a role that will help smooth things over.

 

Uh, no, the whole mission creep thing is NOT nonsense. It's sorta the whole point.

You are saying this is just going to involve a few missiles. And then two sentences later talk about ground troops. Really?

And you should know that I of all people am not completely opposed to using ground troops in the ME, since I was one. But it needs to be for the right reasons. I said earlier I'd actually support going in and seizing Assad's CBW if it looks like the rebels or Hizbollah are going to gain possession of them. THAT would represent a threat to US interests and US national security. Assad's possession of them and his use against his own people, as ghastly as it is, does not present a threat to us or our interests.

I am OK with a big mission if it's necessary. I am not OK with a big mission that isn't necessary. I am also not OK with an "unbelievably small" mission that isn't necessary and turns into a big mission.

Blah blah blah, I'm too dumb to get the nuance.

Are you going to deny that many on the Left opposed Iraq simply for political reasons?

We are simply debating here, of course we can't judge anything yet. If we do a pinprick attack and it has no effect upon Assad's behavior, then I am right. If we do a pinprick attack and Assad does it again, and we end up having to hit him repeatedly and get dragged into it, then I am right. If we get involved in an air campaign that ends up tipping the balance against Assad then I am right. If Iran or other actors decide to retaliate and it sparks a larger conflict than I am right.

The interventionists will be right if we do a pinprick attack, everything goes perfectly, and Assad is a good little boy afterwards. How likely is that?

And if that's how it works out, fine. I'd just caution that if they do the deal with Russia then there needs to be international oversight over the operation. No one should trust the Russians in this. And to pretend that this was the plan all along is laughable. It's simply a case of Putin taking advantage of the situation and conveniently bailing out a bumbling POTUS from a mess that he got himself into.

Anytime we are talking to Putin you can bet that we are getting played. He has pulled the will over this administration's eyes so many times I've lost count.

If we get played and it results in Assad's CBW being seized and destroyed then that is a fine outcome. It's hard to argue against that.

 

wool. I suck.

 

It is in the Russians' interests to avert a strike because as I said earlier, they know that if we intervene then there is a decent chance that the Assad regime will fall (again, ask Khadaffi how that works). Assad is their biggest client in the ME and Tartus is Russia's only remaining Mediterranean port; they have a strong interest in keeping Assad in power.

No one has done more to paint themselves into a corner than POTUS. He is the one who escalated this, and it is very clear that he had no idea what he was doing throughout this entire episode. He is most certainly being bailed out by Putin, and to argue otherwise is laughable.

I am OK with that, though. If it results in Assad's CBW being destroyed then that saves us the trouble of having to do something if Assad falls and it looks like Hizbollah or the rebels will seize control of them. One less thing we have to worry about.

 

humiliating for Obama...

Kerry's comments was totally off the cuff, and now we're basing decisions based on Russia calling us out on it.

 

I am finding this enormously entertaining. The spin here is truly dizzying.

"This was the plan all along! Obama's a genius! Kerry is the master statesman!"

LOL, freaking hilarious. No one is buying that crap. Putin played the situation beautifully. He knew Obama was facing a disaster and threw him a rope, and got a chance to save his client and enhance Russia's image at the same time. And Obama owes Putin now.

Lovely.