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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by 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.

This.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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.

[MH]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[MH]

Originally Posted by 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.

Who profits from speaking the truth or ignoring the truth?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by MH

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

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

why does'nt Germany do something for a change.