[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

how did russia call us out. wow, i love your logic, let's not go with the best solution because it may have come from the russians.

 

So it seems that Putin/Obama had already discussed this option before Kerry spoke of it.

Now the picture makes sense. Obama went to Congress as a stalling tactic. He doesn't want to attack Syria but needs to put pressure on them. Seems he was bluffing which is why his argument for the attack is a bit weak.

I don't think there is a valid military option, and Obama and Putin both know it. It's a question of Russia realizing there's no point to testing Obama's resolve here.

It will be interesting to see how they craft the resolution.

 

yep and the media isn't even reporting this.

 

Wow, SL42, really?

This was planned all along, huh?

This is seriously quite funny.

 

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NQQdSwFgSec" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Wait so compromise amongst countries is a bad thing?

Russia wasn't going to do anything until we threatened to attack.

Isn't this the option we all want anyways?

 

Interesting. I look at it completely differently. Obama didn't want war, I think we all know that. But, he made a commitment to punish Syria for using the weapons. This isn't punishment, taking away the weapons they aren't supposed to be using anyways, and claim to not have used doesn't punish them for already using them.

And the fact that Russia, of all countries, is the one leading this diplomatic mission makes us look like secondary to Russia. That Russia has the power to broker agreements and that no one respects the US. It took no pressure to have Syria hand over the weapons. They still are acting like Syria didn't use them. It's not like they are going back on anything they've said. They have essentially said 2 things thus far: 1) Syria didn't use the weapons
2) If you attack Syria we will support a counter-attack
Getting them to hand over the weapons doesn't backtrack anything they've said or done thus far.


Can someone explain to me how to respond to multiple posts in one post...what I mean is how do I get the ID number so I can answer Major's responses in the same post...for now I will submit reply and continue...

 

If it is really over it is a victory for the American people and the Syrian people.

Who cares about Obama or Putin.

I wouldn't count on it being over. The US can start the war any time they want by claiming that all the weapons were not destroyed.

One thing is for sure this whole bombing episode and proxy war has very little to do with chemical weapons-- at least no more than Iraq I or II had to do with international law, wmd, feminism, love of democracy (anybody remember Iran, Chile, Egypt?) etc.

I was particularly amused ( what else can you do) by seeing Obama's spokesman as late as yesterday trying to do the whole boogie man is going to get you routine in a desperate attempt to get public support. Cool replay.

It went like this: when the chemical weapons are actually at the front then you never know who will acquire them and then ... they might wind up killing you when you are just watching a Rocket's game in your den.

 

I care about the decisions the president made. He has power.

 

I agree he didn't WANT to strike, but he made it all to clear those were his intentions if Syria used chemical weapons. They did, and now what? He isn't going to strike, but he is going to take away the weapons they claim not to have used, and shouldn't have even had in the first place? How does that punish them? If anything it helps them, it gets the US off their back and they lose virtually nothing. They still have their air support, they still have the military, they still have their arsenal of weapons. I support the move because it hopefully ensures the weapons aren't used again and most importantly, that they don't get into rebels hands, but punish? I disagree that it punishes them.

I don't think they threw out any bluster. They said strike and we strike. They weren't the ones initially threatening to strike. They were the ones saying you better not strike. Now they have come out with a diplomatic solution. It makes us look like the aggressors, and them like the negotiators.

US policy was to punish him for already using them AND to prevent a future attack. I agree it stops him from using them AGAIN (if he did in fact use them the first time), but it does nothing to punish him, which was their original mission. It's a half-win. And politically, it's a loss because they didn't offer the arrangement. Russia brokered the deal, Russia got Syria to agree, all of our rhetoric did nothing, because this doesn't hurt Assad. He is still making the argument he didn't use the weapons, so why would he need them? To me, it seems like a parent who takes a kid's toy hammer away because he beat the crap out of another kid with it. Ya, way to go, you stopped a future attack, but besides taking away his toy, have you really punished him?

I don't feel like it was his threat of use of force that got Syria to cave. I think they caved to Russia because they knew it would make us look bad, and didn't hurt them whatsoever.

 

I agree, military strikes would be futile if our end game isn't to topple to regime. Which, btw, I think would be terrible for the people of Syria and to US foreign policy/national security. The Syrian rebels are depleted, they are not the ones who would end up taking power if Assad was deposed.

Maybe this was Obama's plan all along. I don't believe that, but I recognize it as a possibility at this point. I'm sure more info will eventually come out about the decision process and strategy.

IMO, it looks like Obama blundered this and Russia saved/killed him. They saved him by saving a military excursion they killed us by brokering the deal. To a lot of people it makes Russia look like the Knight in shining armor. I recognize the opposite perception, but I am leaning towards an Obama failure at this point.

 

I think we all do but we don't need to be so concerned about his hurt feelings nor is it a reason to start a war because in a momentary lapse (perhaps?) he drew a red line but needs to undo it.

 

Yes, and it's a perfectly acceptable outcome if it eventually comes to fruition. We're not there, yet.

It's just disingenuous to claim that this was the plan all along, or that this was some master stroke of diplomacy or something. This entire episode has been categorized by incompetence by out leadership, and it's ludicrous to pretend otherwise. I find it fascinating that some of the exact same posters who yesterday were complaining about that incompetence are now parading this as a masterstroke...

I have to ask, though. If this was the planned outcome the whole time, then why didn't POTUS or SoS suggest it earlier? Oh yeah, I know, the threat had to be credible. Riiiiiiight.

 

Link?

I am not ruling out that is possible but that seems rather speculative.

Or the other possibility that seems more likely given the timeline of Kerry's statement and then the Russian / Syrian statement is that the Russians and Syrians started to think that no matter what the vote was in Congress Obama was going to strike. Remember it was as soon as two days ago that Assad was denying they had chemical weapons threatening back in the interview with Charlie Rose so why the sudden about face?

It seems more likely that Kerry threw them a lifeline and they took it rather than the other way.

 

As opposed to the spin that the Russians are playing Obama..

You seem determined to put Obama in the worst light when the timeline supports the idea that it is the Russians and Syrians who have been played.

As I said though I don't see this as one side or the other getting played. Obama and Putin can both come out looking good.

 

I would just caution everyone that there is no deal yet. There are still quite a few hurdles to get over. The Russians are already calling for us to rescind the threat of force or the process may not move forward. We are not playing that game, apparently.

This is going to go to the UN, and ultimately the UNSC is going to have to approve it. That is always a dicey proposition.

I hope it goes through and I hope whatever passes has enforcement mechanisms in it, otherwise it will be worth less than the paper it's printed on. Wait and see.

POTUS is now asking the Senate to delay a vote on AUMF. Apparently they don't even have 50 votes in the Senate yet.

 

Not if what you REALLY want is more scandal and outrage directed at Obama.

 

Er, I think that's quite unlikely. Yesterday morning:

SECRETARY KERRY: Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.

So yesterday morning Kerry brushed off his own suggestion?

Please, it's painfully obvious that the Russians took his remark, made a few phone calls, and turned it around on him. This was not some master plan, this was him having his own words turned to produce an outcome that he thought himself impossible only yesterday morning.

It's still amateur hour in DC.

 

According to this article the resolution and Obama's statement to the country tonight are being rewritten to reflect the latest developments. I suspect it will be that the US will accept the Russian / Syrian offer but will reserve the right to use force. This will likely include France's proposal to go to the UNSC to get a resolution there also. The Congressional Resolution likely will ask for authorization of force even without a UNSC resolution.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...l-declare-chemical-weapons-sign-arms-ban?lite

[rquoter]According to a senior administration official, Obama was changing his speech Tuesday afternoon to reflect the latest diplomatic developments. The president prepared to address Congress and the American people to make the case for the use of military strikes if diplomatic solutions fail.

The president does still believe that a military option has to stay on the table, the official said, in response to Putin's suggestion.

U.S. officials confirmed that the Tuesday emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council was put on hold because Russia- who had requested it originally - withdrew its request.

Officials told NBC News that France, Britain and the United States are meeting privately to discuss the elements of a new resolution to incorporate Russia's proposal.
...
Senior senators - including John McCain, R-Ariz., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. - announced they were working on a new plan that would authorize the president to use force only if Syria did not comply with a U.N. resolution to remove chemical weapons by a pre-determined deadline.[/rquoter]

 

Oh, looky what I found:

Kerry tells Russia his Syria comments were not meant as a proposal

http://www.trust.org/item/20130909200515-5ncvm

So Kerry himself told the Russians that his comments were rhetorical, but we are now convinced it was planned all along? Riiiiiight. OK.

More on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w_KBRJYQyY

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html