The State Dept. picked both. But Russia, China, and the African Union were tricked only once by false humanitarian-only claims. Gen. Wesley Clark said 10 years ago that he was told that these wars were in the cards. Obama's a puppet on a string to the State Dept., as was Bush to some degree.
It's common sense that when there was violence in Iraq and the people fled to Syria that Syria is important to Iraq's stability. Hillary ran State.
It almost sounds as if, in your roundabout charming way, you are vaguely criticizing Obama for avoiding a 3rd gigantic war of the young century. I can't believe my ears, so I'll starting picking at ear wax immediately.
I suggested NATO or UN action. Nothing unilateral. China and Russia have no veto in NATO. Like Hillary's husband did in Kosovo. That wasn't a gigantic war .
You just answered the part about the UN (veto). As for NATO, Clinton divided and conquered Yugoslavia for years in preparation for his air-only war. The prep's been done in Syria and has failed. NATO's not interested because supply lines are much farther to Syria than to Yugoslavia. The Syrian Army is big with modern weapons like hypersonic missiles. The Arab League's opposed. NATO requires a unanimous vote of all 28 members. Many countries require parliamentary approval. Forget it. Even when it appeared Syria had used chemicals and Obama was threatening Syria, the British Parliament said no, so he refrained.
Nice history rewrite there. NATO was fine going into Libya. Obama chose not to go through NATO to deal with Syria. Instead of trying to broker a peace there, he was fixated on revenge for the use of chemical weapons. http://www.defenseone.com/politics/...eeking-un-nato-permission-strike-syria/69446/ BANDER SERI BEGAWAN, Brunei — With its military ready to attack Syria on President Obama’s command, the United States is no longer pursuing a United Nations or NATO stamp of approval to respond with force to the purported deployment of chemical weapons. Instead, the U.S. has focused on building a rapid coalition consisting of the United Kingdom, France and several Arab states, by sharing intelligence evidence that U.S. officials say proves Bashir al Assad’s regime was responsible for last week’s chemical weapons attack. “Syria used chemical weapons against its own people,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a BBC interview in Brunei, where he arrived on Tuesday for a two-day meeting of Asian defense ministers. The U.S. military is “ready to go,” Hagel said. Hagel spoke to his British and French counterparts on Tuesday and told the BBC that most leaders in the international community “have little doubt that the most base, human, international humanitarian standard was violated [by Syria] in using chemical weapons against their own people.” Now there is little talk anymore within the administration of seeking a U.N. or NATO imprimatur for a retaliatory military strike against Syria. “If action is taken, it probably won’t be pursued through the U.N. or NATO,” a senior U.S. official told Defense One. “These aren’t the only ways to undertake such action, and any response would be conducted pursuant to the law.”
You play with words. Obama "chose not to go through NATO" because NATO wouldn't vote approval, just as I said. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-united-kingdom-debate/2725999/ http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/natos-not-attacking-8550 http://en.alalam.ir/news/1511451 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/28/world/la-fg-us-syria-20130829 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/02/world/la-fg-wn-britain-second-vote-syria-20130902 http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nato-chief-no-plans-alliance-action-syria http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/22/why-assad-shouldnt-worry-about-nato/
They would not back Obama's line in the sand. They were never asked to do a Kosovo style peace keeping mission. You keep trying to rewrite history. EDIT: Obama's line in the sand: "if they use chemical weapons, I'll be wishy washy about doing something, maybe." He resolved to do some sort of limited strikes, not peacekeeping mission
Ridiculous distinction. You talk out of both sides of your mouth like Kerry. Show me a link that says that NATO had 28 votes to invade Syria your way but refused another specific way. My links say they flat out didn't have the votes.
The community organizer in chief never brought the idea up with NATO. Instead, he was intent on lobbing a few cruise missiles at select targets. Something like that. So why would there be any votes about it?
I listened to John Kerry make ridiculous distinctions. You, Sir, are no John Kerry. "Something like that." Ha ha. Kerry's Senate seat is available in November, but...Don't quit your day job.
I shot you down in Post #47 with a dozen links (there wasn't room to post all I had). Instead of hiding under a rock and licking your wounds, you retorted in Post #49 by repeating your own opinion, but putting it into boldface this time. Clever. In Post #51 you gave 2 more of your own opinions, without links to back them up. You finished with the assuring, "Something like that." Now you say you've been specific. Well yeah, about your unsupported, half-baked, wrong-result opining.
You cited articles talking about Obama wanting a limited strike against Syria because they used chemical weapons. He looked like a fool and got schooled by Putin. I quoted articles saying that Obama is not seeking to go through the UN or NATO. He wanted to form a coalition of the willing to support limited air strikes. I suggest something entirely different (go through NATO) that shouldn't be going over your head. You're too smart for that.
From your first (USA Today) link: The community organizer in chief sought retaliation against Syria due to its use of chemical weapons. NOT TO ENFORCE A PEACE AGREEMENT. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-united-kingdom-debate/2725999/ The votes came on a day that the Obama administration postponed disclosure of the intelligence that led it to conclude the regime of Bashar Assad was to blame for the Aug. 21 chemical attack that killed hundreds of people in a region north of Damascus. The British government released its intelligence findings Thursday. The president would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own, without an international coalition, a spokesman said following the vote in London.
Saw this a bit ago: Seems like we've seen this story before a few times. Just get the fuck out of there.
So, Denny, you admit that there is not a lot that the US can do right now because the situation is beyond control. So the "do something" crowd can't be very specific, obviously. You say that other courses of action may have prevented the current mess. I agree. Not invading Iraq in the first place. I could give a long list of things done wrong since then, all well documented. And meanwhile those who are screaming loudest now, I'm talking about the pundits and senators and so on, back in 2003 said the decisive victories had been won in Iraq and Afghanistan. That the insurgency was in its last throes. That Sunni and Shia would not be in conflict the way sectarian violence broke out in the former Yugoslavia. My original statement was that those who have been wrong over and over and over since 2002 (and before) are cited as "experts" on foreign policy.
You have no idea what would happen if Saddam were still in power. Based upon past history, he'd have slaughtered his own people by the hundreds of thousands. Based upon what was going on at the time, our "allies" would have resumed relations with Iraq and Saddam would be building WMDs again. Or if the oil for food program continued, Saddam would have built more palaces while children starved and died of preventable disease. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east-july-dec04-oil-for-food_12-3/ Those things are all well documented. The guy who was wrong was Obama, who said the surge wouldn't work (it did) and that a surge would work in Afghanistan (it didn't). All well documented. [video=youtube;tLteUGkvpOc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLteUGkvpOc[/video] WRONG! [video=youtube;P_igpyewuzQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_igpyewuzQ[/video] WRONG!
