Will Obama stick to his word over Syrian chemicals?

[Skybird]

The evidence for chemicals being used by the Assad regime, is mounting. First the Israelis rang the alarm bell, then the US' Chuck Hagel, now the British become loud about it, too.

Obama had once set a red line of which he said if it get trespassed it would mean the engagement of the US military. The red line he has drawn back then was chemical weapons being used.

I am strictly against any modern weapons being delivered to the Syrian opposition, I am also against fincial funding of them. And even more I am against any military engagement by Western or Russian forces in that country.

However the valid question has risen now whether Obama has just given a worthless piece of sound when making his statements, or whether he will stick to what he said and will authorize the threatened consequences and get US military forces involved now.

Israel will have a close look on what he does, or does not. Because he has promised to stand by Israel when Iran is too close to getting the bomb. If Obama now does not drew consequences from the triggering of Syrian condition that he has set up, then the Israelis will have little trust in assuming that when Iran trespasses Obama's line, Obama then will stand by his announcement to play the military card together with Israel (which by then will be too late anyway, I claim with being 95% certain on that).

P.S. IMO, Obama should have never made that announcement that now is haunting him. It is a lose-lose situation. Either he is the president whose word is worth nothing (and that will be recognised by Israel and other allies in Asia), or he is the president having started another US military operation in support of Islamic fundamentalists and despite a hopeless financial situation of the nation. This is the outcome when hope is being made the only basis of decision-making, instead of cold-blooded reason.

[MH]

Will Obama stick to his word over Syrian chemicals?lol

politics and diplomacy .....

[Schroeder]

It definitely is a lose - lose situation. I don't think we'll see a US intervention in Syria any time soon though. The conflict would have gotten a hell lot more media attention then by now (hey, we have to make sure the people know who the bad guys are before someone goes into that conflict, right?).
Anyway I would suggest to stay as far out of this as possible. No funding of either side (except perhaps for humanitarian relief in the refugee camps), no weapons and definitely no troops!
Actually I absolutely can't fathom why the "rebels" are quiet often portrayed as the good guys, while they commit atrocities which aren't short of what Assad's thugs do. I think with Assad gone Syria will plunge into chaos and violence. :nope:

[Oberon]

I can see the weapons ban being lifted, there were murmurings the other day from, I think it was either Germany or the UK, about lifting the ban.
I can't see any boots on the ground occurring though, although there is the potential for 'No fly zones' ala Libya.

But, like Schroeder said, it's Lose-Lose. Sometimes in diplomacy there's a time where you really just have to keep your mouth shut, like China and Russia...but at the same time, if you're America, you really don't have that option as you are supposed to set the tone and direction of global politics.

[JU_88]

"Will Obama stick to his word...."

lol, going by his track record, and that of every president and politician across the globe...... er, probably not. :O:

[Skybird]

Beside Israel, obviously Iran will also look very closely what the US are doing now.

And China will also look (Taiwan, and the clash with Japan over those islands).

And Saudi Arabia.

Ha, and North Korea.

The possibility to send the wrong sigfnals from Washington into the world, with far-reaching consequences, are "endless".

As Oberon said: sometime you better just keep your mouth shut. What Obama did, in German chess-speak is called "lavieren" (meaning that in a position where you cannot enforce something positive, you wash/you manouver and by that do your mandatory turns, but at least do not compromise your position's strength). Obama "laviert" a lot, and here he has failed in keeping his position closed and strong, but allowed a vulnerability opening up. That is how "lavieren" should not be done. He either will go to war - or he will necessarily allow to see how other opponents are exploiting the gap and widening the breach at probably even higher longterm strategic costs to the US.

[Vince82]

Actually I absolutely can't fathom why the "rebels" are quiet often portrayed as the good guys

Because one of the groups attacking are actually defected syrian armed forces and civilian volunteers. Their goal is protecting the syrian people and getting rid of Asaad.

Personally I think that stating that the use of biological weapons would have consequences was a good idea. But as far as what the US and NATO can do, there are a lot of wrong decisions they can make and only a couple good ones.

I am also against fincial funding of them. And even more I am against any military engagement by Western or Russian forces in that country.


The Russians are allied with the Asaad regime.

[Schroeder]

Because one of the groups attacking are actually defected syrian armed forces and civilian volunteers. Their goal is protecting the syrian people and getting rid of Asaad.

And here lies the problem that I have. There are so many more or less independent groups that you can't support the "rebels" without supporting terrorists and extremists as well. We've seen how well that worked in Soviet occupied Afghanistan.

[MH]

Personally I think that stating that the use of biological weapons would have consequences was a good idea. But as far as what the US and NATO can do, there are a lot of wrong decisions they can make and only a couple good ones.


This could be good decision only if there is something of substance behind it.
If nothing is done it makes it very bad decision with far reaching implications.
Mach worse than keeping your mouth shot.

[nikimcbee]

"Will Obama stick to his word...."

lol, going by his track record, and that of every president and politician across the globe...... er, probably not. :O:

This.:salute:

[Catfish]

Wow the Israelis rang the alarm bell. Now while i 'respect' the Mossad (if this is the right word for any security service) for its military intelligence i really think they might have a tiny small almost invisible reason or better agenda, for such alarms.
Then Chuck Hagel and 'the British' - i take it if anyone really had evidence it would be the Mossad, all else is just propaganda.

Why don't 'the British', the USA, edit: Russia's and Germany's politicians just check their delivery bills, that way they will know exactly how much and which chemical weapons Assad has.
:hmm2:

[Skybird]

Because one of the groups attacking are actually defected syrian armed forces and civilian volunteers. Their goal is protecting the syrian people and getting rid of Asaad.
The vast majority in Syria (said to be minimum 85%) wants a sharia-based regime and a fundamentalist state order. That is not better news for many groups of people, especially women, Jews and Christians. There must be a reason why the number of fleeing Christians and Jews from Libya, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan is growing, not shrinking, since regime change.

We cannot have any desire to assist in creating in these circumstances.

Instead, we should put these dark places under quarantine and run a blockade against them.

Just image the day when the many djihadists from Western countries that went to Syria, will return with their war experiences, connections and experiences of having gotten radicalized even more, with their inhibitions having been lowered tremendously. they failed to integrate before, now they will become real textbook examples for integration? Hardly. In other words: even here in our own home countries things will become worse with Islamic communities.

[Platapus]

We still don't have confirmation from a reliable source that indicates that Sarin has been used or by whom.

I think it is a bit premature to make any decisions.

[vienna]

It should be noted that the ability to respond has been somewhat diminished by the experience with Dubbya and the WMDs. (Not a bad group name, that...) In order not to appear as just another stupe who going to drag the country into another sensless intervention, whoever makes such a decision post-Dubbya is going to have to be very, very careful to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's. The requisite and bar for due diligence is much higher now...

<O>

[raymond6751]

I bet the spec forces are on the ground now to verify evidence. They should be. O would want reliable verification before doing the nasty. What would he do anyway?

Russia is no friend to the US but is to Syria. We can speculate about missile attacks, no fly zone, and so on but Russian reaction is likely.

I'd like to see that evidence used in the World Court to declare war criminals and the Syrian government a rogue state.:dead:

[Tribesman]

The vast majority in Syria (said to be minimum 85%) wants a sharia-based regime and a fundamentalist state order.
Well, how long does it take anyone to work out that the statement is bull?

[Jimbuna]

"Will Obama stick to his word...."

lol, going by his track record, and that of every president and politician across the globe...... er, probably not. :O:

I'd say that's a good even money bet :yep:

[mapuc]

Well, how long does it take anyone to work out that the statement is bull?

I can't say if it's 85 % that wants sharia in Syria

I can say that, according to a danish journalist to the middle east Steffen Jensen saying to us viewer a few month ago that it's almost 95 % sure that Syria will become a sharia state after Assad have been put aside.

a few days later I saw BBC World and one of their journalist said almost the same.

Maybe your knowledge about the Middle east and specially Syria is better than those two journalist.

Markus

[Bilge_Rat]

The evidence for chemicals being used by the Assad regime, is mounting. First the Israelis rang the alarm bell, then the US' Chuck Hagel, now the British become loud about it, too.

Obama had once set a red line of which he said if it get trespassed it would mean the engagement of the US military. The red line he has drawn back then was chemical weapons being used.

I am strictly against any modern weapons being delivered to the Syrian opposition, I am also against fincial funding of them. And even more I am against any military engagement by Western or Russian forces in that country.

However the valid question has risen now whether Obama has just given a worthless piece of sound when making his statements, or whether he will stick to what he said and will authorize the threatened consequences and get US military
forces involved now.

Israel will have a close look on what he does, or does not. Because he has promised to stand by Israel when Iran is too close to getting the bomb. If
Obama now does not drew consequences from the triggering of Syrian condition that he has set up, then the Israelis will have little trust in assuming that when Iran trespasses Obama's line, Obama then will stand by his announcement to
play the military card together with Israel (which by then will be too late anyway, I claim with being 95% certain on that).

P.S. IMO, Obama should have never made that announcement that now is haunting him. It is a lose-lose situation. Either he is the president whose word is
worth nothing (and that will be recognised by Israel and other allies in Asia), or he is the president having started another US military operation in support of Islamic fundamentalists and despite a hopeless financial situation of the nation.
This is the outcome when hope is being made the only basis of decision-making, instead of cold-blooded reason.

so what are you saying, it was "criminal" for the US to intervene in Iraq, but now you want the US to intervene in Syria...:haha:

why does'nt Germany do something for a change.

[Skybird]

so what are you saying, it was "criminal" for the US to intervene in Iraq,
Iraq and Syria are two totally difefrent stories with totally different starting stories leading there, which seems to have escaped your attention so far.

but now you want the US to intervene in Syria...:haha:

If I may quote myself from #1:

I am strictly against any modern weapons being delivered to the Syrian opposition, I am also against financial funding of them. And even more I am against any military engagement by Western or Russian forces in that country.

and post #6

He either will go to war - or he will necessarily allow to see how other opponents are exploiting the gap and widening the breach at probably even higher longterm strategic costs to the US.

and post #12

We cannot have any desire to assist in creating these circumstances.


Now please explain to us how you come to your claim that I demand the US to go to war over Syria when in reality I have repeatedly said differently, and exactly the opposite.


why does'nt Germany do something for a change.
Acting first, thinking second, like you just typed before thinking in the above, you mean?

Or like Bush has done in 2003 - first launching a war, then thinking about the consequences and still refusing advice from his own experts on location? Or France and Britain in Libya, where now the public mood is strictly oriented for a fundamentalist regime based on Sharia? Or America demanding "freedom" in Egypt - and freedom being used to install the dominance of the MB and a new constitution basing on Sharia, both of which aiming to prevent freedom?

I think Germany is better off to leave such stupid acting to nations thinking they want to behave like that. We have other ways to behave silly. And they cost us at least as much money, if not more.

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh my god have we not had enough of this sort of topic? Is it truly the fate of the members to be subjected to countless threads of circular argument? Everybody knows where everybody else stands on things by now. Enough already!

[Tribesman]

I can't say if it's 85 % that wants sharia in Syria

I can say that, according to a danish journalist to the middle east Steffen Jensen saying to us viewer a few month ago that it's almost 95 % sure that Syria will become a sharia state after Assad have been put aside.

a few days later I saw BBC World and one of their journalist said almost the same.

Maybe your knowledge about the Middle east and specially Syria is better than those two journalist.

Perhaps you can ask those journalists what the legal system is in Syria and how many decades they have had it.
Perhaps you can also ask them what sharia is.

Then maybe work on the second part of the line which I quoted to see how that claim simply does not add up either.

[Catfish]

[...]
why does'nt Germany do something for a change.

Yes after WW2 there is a Passus in the german Basic law saing that

" ... no war shall ever be started without Germany anymore."

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

or something along those lines :O:

[Takeda Shingen]

Yes after WW2 there is a Passus in the german Basic law saing that

" ... no war shall ever be started without Germany anymore."

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

or something along those lines :O:

I assume you mean 'with' or possibly 'by' Germany. "No war shall ever be started without Germany" would imply the opposite of what I think you are trying to say.

[Catfish]

No i wrote what i meant, which is why i said 'or something along those lines", and put this smiley to the end.

It seems i really have to explain every ironic comment here .. :dead:

[Takeda Shingen]

No i wrote what i meant, which is why i said 'or something along those lines", and put this smiley to the end.

It seems i really have to explain every ironic comment here .. :dead:

Oh, my apologies. I thought we were dealing with a language barrier thing here and I was trying to be helpful. That was probably where I went wrong.

[Wolferz]

Saddamize Assad

[MH]

Wow the Israelis rang the alarm bell. Now while i 'respect' the Mossad (if this is the right word for any security service) for its military intelligence i really think they might have a tiny small almost invisible reason or better agenda, for such alarms.
Then Chuck Hagel and 'the British' - i take it if anyone really had evidence it would be the Mossad, all else is just propaganda.

Why don't 'the British', the USA, edit: Russia's and Germany's politicians just check their delivery bills, that way they will know exactly how much and which chemical weapons Assad has.
:hmm2:

World is mysterious place to you isn't it?

[Catfish]

^ You did not get the 'bills' thing, did you ?

It is not mysterious at all, just thinking about who profits most of a situation usually sets you on the right way to find the cause.
:O:

[Catfish]

Oh, my apologies. I thought we were dealing with a language barrier thing here and I was trying to be helpful. That was probably where I went wrong.

Well sorry then, thanks for trying to help - i might need it in some cases
:salute:

[MH]

^ You did not get the 'bills' thing, did you ?

It is not mysterious at all, just thinking about who profits most of a situation usually sets you on the right way to find the cause.
:O:

Who profits from speaking the truth or ignoring the truth?

[Catfish]

Who profits from speaking the truth or ignoring the truth?

Rethorical nonsense. But if you so want:

I would say everyone profits from speaking the truth. AND from hearing it.
Do you mean people ignoring the truth are better off ?
And do you mean the liars, or the believers ?

So let us assume: People are being told lies for whatever reason. One reason might be that someone who spreads those lies benefits from telling those lies to the people. I think he/she must have a reason for that, otherwise he could as well tell the truth.
The people believe it, the liar lives on like he did before (or better).

The other possibility is that this person tells the truth. In that case there should be enough evidence to back that up.

I have attended enough events and read about this in the newspapers or other media, to be highly critical of such articles and the 'truth' told.
Believeing without questioning is like a religion, you believe without posing questions, even facing unbelievable events. But we are not living in the middle ages after all, where you either believed your king/the church, or died.

So you assume people fare better by believing all and not questioning even obvious lies ? Well you may even be right, life may be easier that way. I guess i do not like seeing certain people get away with obvious lies. I have to, i know.

Does that make more sense than your question ? I really don't know :)

[MH]

Rethorical nonsense. But if you so want:

I would say everyone profits from speaking the truth. AND from hearing it.
Do you mean people ignoring the truth are better off ?
And do you mean the liars, or the believers ?

So let us assume: People are being told lies for whatever reason. One reason might be that someone who spreads those lies benefits from telling those lies to the people. I think he/she must have a reason for that, otherwise he could as well tell the truth.
The people believe it, the liar lives on like he did before (or better).

The other possibility is that this person tells the truth. In that case there should be enough evidence to back that up.

I have attended enough events and read about this in the newspapers or other media, to be highly critical of such articles and the 'truth' told.
Believeing without questioning is like a religion, you believe without posing questions, even facing unbelievable events. But we are not living in the middle ages after all, where you either believed your king/the church, or died.

So you assume people fare better by believing all and not questioning even obvious lies ? Well you may even be right, life may be easier that way. I guess i do not like seeing certain people get away with obvious lies. I have to, i know.

Does that make more sense than your question ? I really don't know :)

Yeah yeah you are one of those guys...

July eighth, 1979, all the fathers of Nobel Prize winners were rounded up by United Nations military units, all right, and actually forced at gunpoint to give semen samples in little plastic jars, which are now stored below Rockefeller Center underneath the ice skating rink…
but have fun.:haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

Yeah yeah you are one of those guys...

but have fun.:haha:

If this forum had rep you, sir, would have some from me. :)

[Catfish]

@M.H. : Orwell .. ok. Was he so wrong ? Strange quote though .. :)

@ Takeda S. : Now i really need help - what does that sentence mean -what is 'Rep' ?
:hmm2:

[Takeda Shingen]

@ Takeda S. : Now i really need help - what does that sentence mean -what is 'Rep' ?
:hmm2:

Sorry. Reputation. Some forums have a feature where you can 'like', 'agree', 'disagree', etc. Occasionally they have a feature where you can add 'reputation', which appears like a green or red meter depending on good or bad reputation.

We toyed with this idea a few years ago but decided against it due to the way that it could just become a ratings spamfest. All in all, it was probably a good call not to use it.

[Catfish]

Already thought of 'reputation', but then i thought Subsim does have some .. :03:
Just did not get the connection to those like buttons ..

We toyed with this idea a few years ago but decided against it due to the way that it could just become a ratings spamfest. All in all, it was probably a good call not to use it.
Especially when there are no dislike buttons :O:

Thanks.
:salute: