War with Syria
- Thread starter AladainAF
- Start date
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
Sure, he did it, at the cost of making sure any other countries in the future do not take his threats seriously. However, he did manage to make Putin look like a peacemaker heh. I guess thats a win err, maybe not.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
I'm not posting for your personal benefit. Obama bungled this from his original pronouncement, to how he handled it with the american people, to having Kerry be the spokesman for it with his silly "unbelievably small" strike comment. Sorry you can't see that and instead want to act like Obama had no choice but to bluff. He could have, for example, said nothing. Kind of like how you should have said nothing in this thread.
Yea, in other words you're full of shit. See, this is you:
OBAMA SHOULDN'T BOMB SYRIA.
OBAMA SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED UP ON HIS THREAT TO BOMB SYRIA.
So clearly, your problem is with his "threat" and whether he bombed Syria or abstained from bombing Syria, he had already lost in your eyes the moment he made his "threat. Of course, you would harp on HE NEVER SHOULD HAVE MADE THE THREAT IN THE FIRST PLACE !!!
But when I provided you with his "threat" on a platter, you act like a fucking pussy and decline to tell me what exactly was wrong with his "threat" or how he should of responded. Your response was, WELL IF A REPORTER ASKS ABOUT CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN AN UNSTABLE WAR-TORN COUNTRY, THE RIGHT ANSWER WOULD BE TO KEEP SILENT AND SAY NOTHING AT ALL !!! Idiot. Put up or shut up. Tell me what Obama said that was SO objectionable.
I mean, I'm not even making you do the research yourself, I'm serving you his "threat" on a platter. Why so gun-shy now ? You've had no problem waving your e-peen up to this point.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
How do you have so much trouble grasping this?
Obama should not have bluffed. If you are going to make threats, back them up or it makes you look weak. Instead, Obama managed to get the worst of all worlds. We are left with a Syria with chemical weapons, Obama with lowered prestige because no one will take threats of military action from him seriously again, and increased prestige for Putin.
All of which could have been prevented if Obama didn't decide to involve us in a war between Al-Qaeda and Assad.
Stale bro, stale. You keep throwing his "threat" at me yet you continue to pussy out on telling me what, SPECIFICALLY, was wrong with his "threat." The best you can muster is that, when a reporter asks about unstable chemical weapons in a country going through a civil war located next door to our closest ally, the POTUS should naturally keep mum and not say a word.
If, in an alternate universe, Obama had indeed kept his mouth quiet when prompted with that question, I can just imagine you and the other idiots like you clamoring that Obama was "soft" on his defense of Israel.
At this point you're regurgitating cable news bullshit. I'm off to a football watching party. I'll check back in a few hours to see if you were willing to rip that Obama quote apart. I have high hopes.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
Yes, he could have said nothing. Or he could have said we always leave all options open. Pretty much anything other than drawing a red line bluff.
Lleauaric
Sparkletot Monger
- 4,058
- 1,823
Great 60 minutes tonight laying out the complexity of the situation.
It was explained that AQ is like a virus, and no matter what happens after the civil war ends, the army and the security forces are going to be needed to get rid of them or the virus will take over the host. The trick they are trying to pull off is to give enough help to the rebellion to bring Assad to the negotiating table, but not too much where the rebels don't want to negotiate. They want Assad gone, but all his people in place.
A major problem is that the most effective fighting forces in Syria are the 2 AQ affiliates. They have been forged fighting the best most advanced military in the world for the last 10 years, so it's a step down going against the SA who are learning some hard lessons really fast. The Syrian rebels have no training and nobody else is helping them in the field, so they are basically following the AQ forces in battle.
If Syria falls into chaos, and the army and security evaporate, AQ will spread violence in all directions. They will attack Hezbollah and Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and fuel Chechen terror capability. Everyone loses. This why Obama was so reluctant to give any aid, and why the scope of the strikes proposed was so small.
All that in mind here is what I think happened.
Obama was reluctant to give aid to the rebels for the reasons above, but he wanted Assad forced to the table. His red line comment was an attempt to let Assad know he wouldn't have to worry about US involvement unless he used chemical weapons. Assad and Russia recognized this, but rogue elements in the SA used them without permission to back Rebels away from dug in positions outside Damascus and allow SA to retake territory without more heavy losses, as they are already bled white and doubtful they have enough veterans to follow up and hold after a heavy infantry assault. Remember, these AQ elements are masters of the IED, and taking fortified areas is murder for the SA.
But once the genie was out of the bottle, it backs Obama into a corner. But reality is the the US has as much to lose as Russia. Obama moves towards strikes, but holds off and buys time, not calling in Congress early, and waiting 9 days. They apply diplomatic pressure, but its not going well. Russia has no way to move toward the US without losing face and making it seem they were forced there by US threats. But then Kerry says something off the cuff that gives the Russians an opening to make it look like they are sticking it to us. They take the opening, and Assad gets rid of his weapons, which he lost control of temporarily, probably in exchange for a shit ton of conventional weapons from Russia. Meanwhile, the Saudis are giving the Rebels just enough aid to continue the stalemate, increasing when they are losing and pulling back when they get too close to winning.
It was explained that AQ is like a virus, and no matter what happens after the civil war ends, the army and the security forces are going to be needed to get rid of them or the virus will take over the host. The trick they are trying to pull off is to give enough help to the rebellion to bring Assad to the negotiating table, but not too much where the rebels don't want to negotiate. They want Assad gone, but all his people in place.
A major problem is that the most effective fighting forces in Syria are the 2 AQ affiliates. They have been forged fighting the best most advanced military in the world for the last 10 years, so it's a step down going against the SA who are learning some hard lessons really fast. The Syrian rebels have no training and nobody else is helping them in the field, so they are basically following the AQ forces in battle.
If Syria falls into chaos, and the army and security evaporate, AQ will spread violence in all directions. They will attack Hezbollah and Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and fuel Chechen terror capability. Everyone loses. This why Obama was so reluctant to give any aid, and why the scope of the strikes proposed was so small.
All that in mind here is what I think happened.
Obama was reluctant to give aid to the rebels for the reasons above, but he wanted Assad forced to the table. His red line comment was an attempt to let Assad know he wouldn't have to worry about US involvement unless he used chemical weapons. Assad and Russia recognized this, but rogue elements in the SA used them without permission to back Rebels away from dug in positions outside Damascus and allow SA to retake territory without more heavy losses, as they are already bled white and doubtful they have enough veterans to follow up and hold after a heavy infantry assault. Remember, these AQ elements are masters of the IED, and taking fortified areas is murder for the SA.
But once the genie was out of the bottle, it backs Obama into a corner. But reality is the the US has as much to lose as Russia. Obama moves towards strikes, but holds off and buys time, not calling in Congress early, and waiting 9 days. They apply diplomatic pressure, but its not going well. Russia has no way to move toward the US without losing face and making it seem they were forced there by US threats. But then Kerry says something off the cuff that gives the Russians an opening to make it look like they are sticking it to us. They take the opening, and Assad gets rid of his weapons, which he lost control of temporarily, probably in exchange for a shit ton of conventional weapons from Russia. Meanwhile, the Saudis are giving the Rebels just enough aid to continue the stalemate, increasing when they are losing and pulling back when they get too close to winning.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,518
- 583
Lleauaric
Sparkletot Monger
- 4,058
- 1,823
Well, why was Obama so reluctant to help rebels before chemical weapon attack? McCain was on him every day to do more than humanitarian aidSure it was
Lleauaric
Sparkletot Monger
- 4,058
- 1,823
Erronius
Macho Ma'am
- 16,461
- 42,372
Yeah, no shit. The "red line" stuff is bullshit - even before he went there people were busting his chops for not committing. People can crow all they want about how Obama shouldn't have said that, but you know full well that if he just sat back and was noncommittal that he'd be getting freshly reamed every time something new came up in Syria. Or imagine if he'd made the red line commentANDfollowed through on it - all the people who've been saying that you shouldn't say something like if you aren't willing to follow through would have been the first ones in line to bitch and moan about Obummer not even trying diplomacy and intending to get us involved with BoTG in a civil war, and accusing him of "allying" American forces with the terrorists we fought for so long. Hell, we've even heard some of those accusations regardless.
I'm all for criticizing someone but holy shit, people are just looking for anything to skewer Obama for in order to support their bias.
AladainAF
Best Rabbit
- 12,861
- 30,811
This is hilarious. Let me see if I understand this.
Obama threatens.... something (obviously not Assad right?) with strikes if Assad uses chemical weapons. So he uses them. Let's assume Obama went through with the plan. We do strikes. But, we're not going to remove the person we believe to be responsible for using them, nor are we going to strike *him*.
Win for Assad? What does he lose here? He just gassed the rebels, weakening them. He stays in power, and pays no price for that action. How was the threat of strikes any kind of deterrent at all from using chemical weapons in this context? What was the point of the strikes for anyway? Just to remove any remaining weapons? We know where they all are now? That's pretty amazing that we know where these weapons are, especially since many world leaders (including the UN) didn't even know for sure WHO THE FUCK USED THEM (It's just not coming out that the UN report will say that Assad did), and Kerry had to do this big "justification" thing that Colin Powell did for Iraq. Why is that needed? We know where the weapons are right? We were ready to strike them right? I'm so confused how you can even remotely justify it this way. It boggles the mind, and clearly makes no sense. It's impossible to know where these weapons are I really don't know what you expected us to strike.
I was replying to strikes in general, and yes, any reasonable person understands if you threaten strikes against a country for their leader committing an action then the leader committing that action would generally be expected to be taken out.
edit: wrong link on ft.
Lleauaric
Sparkletot Monger
- 4,058
- 1,823
I don't know Aladain. When has there ever been a successful targeted missile strike against a head of state? I seem to remember a lot of military people before Iraq saying just taking out 1 specific person was almost impossible. Kind of why we had to go in for Osama as well I guess.
I mean, the US wouldn't mind just taking out Assad, as long as we left his Army and Security intact. It's Russia that wants Assad in place because he is the key to their deals. I just don't think it's possible, or legal.
As far as not knowing who used them... Any nation with satellite surveillance saw the missiles come from Syrian controlled territory and saw the coordinated attacks with infantry. No serious or credible intelligence agency or analyst thought that rebels gassed themselves.
I Imagine the strikes were going to destroy capacity to use Chemical weapons. Probably in the form of air bases and where they kept their rocket facilities. Heavy equipment that's really hard to hide and shit like that
I mean, the US wouldn't mind just taking out Assad, as long as we left his Army and Security intact. It's Russia that wants Assad in place because he is the key to their deals. I just don't think it's possible, or legal.
As far as not knowing who used them... Any nation with satellite surveillance saw the missiles come from Syrian controlled territory and saw the coordinated attacks with infantry. No serious or credible intelligence agency or analyst thought that rebels gassed themselves.
I Imagine the strikes were going to destroy capacity to use Chemical weapons. Probably in the form of air bases and where they kept their rocket facilities. Heavy equipment that's really hard to hide and shit like that
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,850
- 137,944
Lleauaric
Sparkletot Monger
- 4,058
- 1,823