Jump to content

ballmich

Syrian Rebels launched the Chemical Weapons, not Assad

Recommended Posts

I think Obama has done well in the face of pressure, he isn't the type to cave. Like I said, his goal will be to kill Assad and be done with it...point being that if you use chemical weapons the US will kill you. I think that is fair.

But hasn't Obama said just the opposite, that regime change is NOT the goal of the proposed attack? Why are you so certain that Obama's plan is to kill Assad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But hasn't Obama said just the opposite, that regime change is NOT the goal of the proposed attack? Why are you so certain that Obama's plan is to kill Assad?

Because politicians often do the opposite of what they say. I generally try not to listen to too much of what comes out of their mouths, doesn't do much good. I am not certain he wants to kill Assad, I am just trying to read between the lines. I don't think he wants to give Assad a slap on the wrist. If that is the course Obama takes, well then this was a failure and anyone can call the President's bluff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Right Vote | The Weekly Standard By WILLIAM KRISTOL

The statesmanlike case for voting Yes on the congressional resolution to use force against the Assad regime has been made widely and well by conservative foreign policy thinkers. At the end, the case boils down to this: As a policy matter, a Yes vote may be problematic in all kinds of ways. But a No vote would likely be disastrous for the nation in very clear ways. Statesmanship requires choosing the problematic over the disastrous.

It’s true that Republicans on the Hill lack confidence in President Obama’s execution of the military action they are being asked to vote to authorize. So do conservative foreign and military policy experts, and so do we. But voting Yes doesn’t preclude criticizing—indeed, it makes it easier to constructively criticize—much of what President Obama has done and will do in Syria and in the Middle East. Indeed, if Republicans want to cast a broader vote of no confidence in President Obama’s conduct of foreign policy, there are other ways to do so, and we’d support many of them. But using this resolution to cast a vote of no confidence against Obama would empower those abroad making the case against placing confidence in the United States. That would be damaging. And in the real world, a vote against Obama will be seen as a vote for Bashar al-Assad, and for Vladimir Putin, and for the regime in Iran.

The fact is that Obama is the only president we have. We can’t abdicate our position in the world for the next three years. So Republicans will have to resist the temptation to weaken him when the cost is weakening the country. A party that for at least two generations has held high the banner of American leadership and strength should not cast a vote that obviously risks a damaging erosion of this country’s stature and credibility abroad.

Republicans on the Hill know this. The vast majority are not followers of Pat Buchanan or of Ron and Rand Paul. They don’t actually believe in abandoning our responsibilities, forsaking our allies, and trying to construct a Fortress America.

But they do believe the politics of this vote is awful. They believe, perhaps correctly, that President Obama has cynically thrown this ball into the lap of Congress in order to get Republican fingerprints on an action that may not succeed. They believe, correctly, that their constituents are against intervention. They believe, therefore, that the politically prudent vote is No.

They’re wrong. Winston Churchill noted that “the Muse of History must not be fastidious.” Likewise the Muse of editorialists. So we’ll be forgiven, we trust, for briefly laying out the crass political reasons why Republicans should vote Yes.

A Yes vote is in fact the easy vote. It’s actually close to risk-free. After all, it’s President Obama who is seeking the authorization to use force and who will order and preside over the use of force. It’s fundamentally his policy. Lots of Democrats voted in 2002 to authorize the Iraq war. When that war ran into trouble, it was President Bush and Republicans who paid the price. If the Syria effort goes badly, the public will blame President Obama, who dithered for two years, and who seems inclined to a halfhearted execution of any military campaign. If it goes well, Republicans can take credit for pushing him to act decisively, and for casting a tough vote supporting him when he asked for authorization to act.

A No vote is the risky vote. In fact, the risk is all on the side of voting No. The only thing that can get Obama off the hook now is for Republicans to deny him authorization for the use of force against the Assad regime. Then the GOP can be blamed for whatever goes wrong in Syria, and elsewhere in the Middle East, over the next months and years. And plenty will go wrong. It’s a Yes vote that gets Republicans in Congress off the hook.

A Yes vote seems to be statesmanlike. (Actually, it happens also to be statesmanlike, but we’re now talking politics.) Establishment foreign policy voices, including conservative ones, may not move voters—but they do have some pull in the media and with influentials across the country. Casting a “tough” political vote is a way for members of Congress to appear to be rising above mere party politics. In fact, many voters do like to think they’re voting for someone who has at least a touch of statesmanship, and so casting what appears superficially to be a politically perilous vote could well help the stature of Republicans with many of their constituents back home.

It’s true that a Yes vote will be temporarily unpopular with the base. To support Obama now may seem to invite primary opposition from challengers who would be more in tune with popular sentiment to stay out of the Syrian civil war. For a few weeks after the vote, Republicans will hear such rumblings. But at the end of the day, Republican primary voters are a pretty hawkish bunch. It’s hard to believe they’re going to end up removing otherwise conservative representatives or senators in favor of challengers who run on a platform whose key plank is that Republicans should have voted to let an Iran-supported, terror-backing dictator with American blood on his hands off the hook after he’s used chemical weapons. What’s more, primary elections are more than half a year away. Republican senators and congressmen will have plenty of time to reestablish their anti-Obama credentials by fighting Obama on Obama-care, immigration, the debt ceiling, and a host of other issues.

A Yes vote can also be explained as a vote to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Syria is an Iranian proxy. Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons is a proxy for Iran’s ability to move ahead unimpeded in its acquisition of nuclear weapons. To bring this point home, soon after voting to authorize the use of force against the Assad regime, Republicans might consider moving an authorization for the use of force against the Iranian nuclear weapons program. They can explain that Obama’s dithering in the case of Syria shows the utility of unequivocally giving him the authority to act early with respect to Iran. An Iran debate would pretty much unite Republicans and conservatives and would help mitigate political problems arising from a Yes vote on Syria. The issue of Iran will most likely come to a head before Election Day 2014, probably even before primary elections earlier next year. An Iran resolution means the Syria vote won’t be the most important vote Republicans cast in this session of Congress—it won’t even be the most important foreign policy vote.

So, in the vote on the authorization to use force in Syria, Republicans’ self-interest coincides with the national interest. For reasons both fastidiously statesmanlike and crassly political, Yes is the right vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Right Vote | The Weekly Standard By WILLIAM KRISTOL

So, in the vote on the authorization to use force in Syria, Republicans’ self-interest coincides with the national interest. For reasons both fastidiously statesmanlike and crassly political, Yes is the right vote.

Sorry, but being a "statesman" is a stupid reason to go to war. Especially with a Russian fleet nearby.

Maybe Obama's interviews today and his speech tomorrow will set forth a cogent explanation of why attacking Syria is in our interest and what it will actually accomplish. Maybe T&P is right and this will a 1986 Libya (except, one hopes, successful in killing the target) or 1990s Kosovo. But I am not convinced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but being a "statesman" is a stupid reason to go to war. Especially with a Russian fleet nearby.

Maybe Obama's interviews today and his speech tomorrow will set forth a cogent explanation of why attacking Syria is in our interest and what it will actually accomplish. Maybe T&P is right and this will a 1986 Libya (except, one hopes, successful in killing the target) or 1990s Kosovo. But I am not convinced.

I strongly disagree with the editorial, but posted because it's in the news.

I want no part of Syria, Iran, Iraq, or any of the middle east stuff. I believe in a defense department, not a war department. And William Kristol, the war monger, should be putting on his boots and heading to the theater himself. Him and Assad can gas each other for all I care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly disagree with the editorial, but posted because it's in the news.

I want no part of Syria, Iran, Iraq, or any of the middle east stuff. I believe in a defense department, not a war department. And William Kristol, the war monger, should be putting on his boots and heading to the theater himself. Him and Assad can gas each other for all I care.

OK. Given your other posts, I thought it was a bizarre thing for you to agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walt - my opinion is this.... this is exactly the kind of thing that needlessly angers other countries. We're not actually bombing to do anything, we're bombing for symbolic reasons? If I were in that nation, I'd think.... wtf... folks die in our country for what?

This is absolutely right... this entire situation was all about symbology from the beginning. All the more confounding that the Administration even wants to do this.

We shouldn't be in the business of bombing countries to save face. Obama should just take the credibility hit from drawing the "red line" and just move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but being a "statesman" is a stupid reason to go to war. Especially with a Russian fleet nearby.

In the case of Kristol, "statesman" means "myself and my constituents stand to make a lot of money if we get into another war".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we kill Assad, we're going to have to put troops into Syria to secure his chemical weapons. Otherwise, they'll end up with God knows who. Some of our "allies" in Syria would be just as happy to use those weapons on Damascus, Virginia as on the Syrian capital.

So, it's fairly well accepted that the rebels have used chemical weapons too. Where did they get them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, Vlad Putin is playing us like a fiddle

"If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," [Russian Foreign Minister Sergey ] Lavrov said.

"We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," he said.

Lavrov said that he has already handed over the proposal to [syrian counterpart Walid] al-Moallem and expects a "quick, and, hopefully, positive answer."

Russia to push Syria to surrender chemical weapons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shouldn't be in the business of bombing countries to save face. Obama should just take the credibility hit from drawing the "red line" and just move on.

The credibility hit won't be against Obama, it will be against the US. I wouldn't call it symbolic to execute a countries leader (if that is what happens).

We don't know anything yet, let's see how it plays out. But I think doing nothing is abhorrent. Like it or not, the US is the patriarch of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The credibility hit won't be against Obama, it will be against the US. I wouldn't call it symbolic to execute a countries leader (if that is what happens).

We don't know anything yet, let's see how it plays out. But I think doing nothing is abhorrent. Like it or not, the US is the patriarch of the world.

In my judgment, doing something useless is even worse than nothing because it exposes us an impotent. And it sure looks like the administration's plan is to do something "unbelievably small."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The credibility hit won't be against Obama, it will be against the US. I wouldn't call it symbolic to execute a countries leader (if that is what happens).

We don't know anything yet, let's see how it plays out. But I think doing nothing is abhorrent. Like it or not, the US is the patriarch of the world.

I know what you are saying, but you used patriarch incorrectly. That would be the oldest living male member of a family/faction. We are the police for the world...or have become that at least because we have the biggest stick. I just do not want to see us wave it so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my judgment, doing something useless is even worse than nothing because it exposes us an impotent. And it sure looks like the administration's plan is to do something "unbelievably small."

And if that is how it plays out, then I completely agree with you. If they go in there and fire off a couple bottle rockets and say "see, told you we would respond," then it would be an outright failure. At this point, doing nothing, would be just as big of a failure. Go big or go home, Obama can't fold now, so he has to go big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know what you are saying, but you used patriarch incorrectly. That would be the oldest living male member of a family/faction. We are the police for the world...or have become that at least because we have the biggest stick. I just do not want to see us wave it so much.

I know the literal definition, but the word is used in a variety of ways. It was good enough to get the point across.

Also, I don't think it has to be the oldest member of the family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but I wouldn't believe Alex Jones if he said the sky was blue. Though I do share your concern that our "allies" in the Free Syrian Army are not much better (and potentially worse) than Assad himself.

If you dont' like Jones, fine. But then find another source. The information is real. These are real comments made from freed prisonsers that were held by the FSA and/or their allies. And this guy was a supporter of the FSA, until they took him hostage.

Syria: Assad not Responsible for Ghouta Gas Attack, Says Freed Hostage Pierre Piccinin - IBTimes UK

"It wasn't the government of Bashar al-Assad that used sarin gas or any other gas in Ghouta," Piccinin told Belgian RTL radio after he was released.

"We are sure about this because we overheard a conversation between rebels. It pains me to say it because I've been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army in its rightful fight for democracy since 2012," Piccinin added.

"We were prisoners, stuck with this information and unable to report it," he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They overheard a conversation between rebels? This is information you are convinced is the truth? I am not buying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US official to 'Post': Russia proposal to put Syria chemical arms under global control will go ignored | JPost | Israel News

[h=1]US official to 'Post': Russia proposal to put Syria chemical arms under global control will go ignored[/h]

A US government official told The Jerusalem Post on Monday that a Russian proposal urging Syria to place its chemical weapons arsenal under international control, in order to avoid a US strike, would be ignored.

"There's no mechanism to implement what the Russians are proposing," said the official.

The Organization for the Prohibition on Chemical Weapons is the only organization that has monitoring power over chemical arms, the official noted. But the OPCW only has jurisdiction over signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention, of which Syria is not a member. And the OPCW does not tolerate the existence of such weapons, but oversees their destruction, which the Russians have not proposed.

More at link

***

The chess game may not be over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
US official to 'Post': Russia proposal to put Syria chemical arms under global control will go ignored | JPost | Israel News

[h=1]US official to 'Post': Russia proposal to put Syria chemical arms under global control will go ignored[/h]

A US government official told The Jerusalem Post on Monday that a Russian proposal urging Syria to place its chemical weapons arsenal under international control, in order to avoid a US strike, would be ignored.

"There's no mechanism to implement what the Russians are proposing," said the official.

The Organization for the Prohibition on Chemical Weapons is the only organization that has monitoring power over chemical arms, the official noted. But the OPCW only has jurisdiction over signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention, of which Syria is not a member. And the OPCW does not tolerate the existence of such weapons, but oversees their destruction, which the Russians have not proposed.

More at link

***

The chess game may not be over.

That entire statement is idiotic. Like another group of bureaucrats cannot be created instantly to oversee Syria's weapons. The US's position has no credibility. Russia/Syrian played us like a fiddle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The credibility hit won't be against Obama, it will be against the US. I wouldn't call it symbolic to execute a countries leader (if that is what happens).

Well, it will be against Obama, but as far as I can tell, you could make an argument that wherever the credibility impact falls, that ship appears to have sailed. On the international stage, we look like an absolute joke, and I don't think bombing Syria is going to improve that result. In fact, I think the downside is much greater. We're single-handedly making Vlad Putin look like a paragon of virtue... that's gotta be a first.

Just my opinion, but the President (who, as many know, I've defended in the past on various issues) ****ed up big time on drawing the red line. In fact, it may be the worst decision or statement he has made as President. He (and by extension, we) need to accept the hit and move on before we risk starting a real shooting war.

Edited by mtutiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it will be against Obama, but as far as I can tell, you could make an argument that wherever the credibility impact falls, that ship appears to be solved. On the international stage, we look like an absolute joke, and I don't think bombing Syria is going to improve that result. In fact, I think the downside is much greater.

We shouldn't be too worried about how others view us, certainly not on a situation by situation basis. This still has to play out.

Just my opinion, but the President (who, as many know, I've defended in the past on various issues) ****ed up big time on drawing the red line. In fact, it may be the worst decision or statement he has made as President. He (and by extension, we) need to accept the hit and move on before we risk starting a real shooting war.

I disagree with your opinion. If countries are allowed to use chemical weapons, what is next? At this point in history, the US enforces most of the rules, most people call foul against us, but when they are in trouble, we are the first country they turn to. Accepting the hit would be the worst thing Obama could do at this point. He has to attack.

Edit: I just saw your Putin comment. Again, I don't think one situation where Putin is obviously trying to embarrass Obama should hold much merit, Putin has a reputation that certainly precedes him. And if Assad is taken out, then it doesn't matter what Putin said anyway.

Edited by T&P_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Russia/Syrian played us like a fiddle.

This hasn't even played out yet. Do you think Syria will be saying it played us like a fiddle if Damascus is bombed and Assad is killed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know what you are saying, but you used patriarch incorrectly. That would be the oldest living male member of a family/faction. We are the police for the world...or have become that at least because we have the biggest stick. I just do not want to see us wave it so much.

Al Qaeda's air force, paid for by the Sheik's of Saudi Arabia, the Hashemite King and other middle eastern dicatators.

Frankly they interviewed Assad on Charlie Rose and he made some good points about Kerry's credibility as the accuser in chief. Seems like the admin should have pushed someone else out front on this rather then Kerry, he is too much of a laughing stock when it comes to exercising American power, now if you want to talk about attacking American power he is your man.

Not sure who that would be in this admin, Valerie Jarrett probably wouldn't have allowed them in the admin in the first place.

Edited by DrWho17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...