It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What difference would THAT POSSIBLY make ?
You're missing the entire point. I'm not suggesting that anybody 'goes in' at all. I'm suggesting that Obama and Putin have other agendas because neither have even mentioned that the civil war should be addressed. Don't you find that a wee bit suspicious ?
The CW talks don't include getting any CWs from rebels that I know of. Please show that it does, I hope I'm wrong.
And the opinion is already against the U.S., and the ME has been a nightmare for .... how long now ?
?? The civil war has been going since Jan 2011 !! And the U.N. has failed in every single effort. Why is THAT ?
__________
xuenchen
The civil war has been going since Jan 2011 !! And the U.N. has failed in every single effort. Why is THAT ?
If this was his plan, why did he never approach the United Nations to ask for this? Actually, why did he never approach the UN on the subject at all?
Obama now has the high moral ground, a plan and a resolution,the best outcome "removal and destruction" of any arms under UN observation,the opening of dialogue, between the different factions,
Then why the red line and all of his other statements about targeted strikes designed to stop WMD use, and Kerry's comments about "unbelievably" small strikes?
you discount the fact that a strike from the us would decapitate Assads forces, creating a power vacuum, and put chem weponds at risk of theift or use.
Would you care to tell me what the consequences would be? Russia is insisting that no military force be used or even threatened in controlling the WMDs. So what will we do, draw another line? Perhaps in puce, vermilion, or coral?
Assad now knows what the consequences will be if he does not get rid of his chem weapon's,
the international community can disarm and remove them from the country,
Time to level the table. I never said 100,000 deaths was from one side, I said it was from the civil war.
your claim was only one side was the cause of 100,000 deaths,
in war it is never "one sided" i was trying to point out your error.
U.N. peacekeepers won't work, plus Russia and the U.S. would probably say no. Neither want the U.N. involved, that's why we see what we are seeing now with the CWs. The CWs are a major p.i.t.a. for Putin and Obama. The CWs could have been released by a 3rd party. Again, all this new malarkey will keep the civil war going. There's an agenda beyond what we are seeing with the CWs. It's complicated, we will get into all that later in this topic I think. The suspicions will be discussed.
civil wars are not as easy to mitigate, do you think peace keepers should be sent in?
xploder
muse7
damned if you do damned if you don't
At first he was a warmonger and now he's a wimp because he didn't approve the air strikes.
He had the power to launch air strikes without congressional approval, yet he backed down from it and discussed it with congress.
If only we could have had a leader that did that back in 2001 and 2003
Obama Rejects Criticism of Shifting Syria Policy
Mr. Confusion back with more questions for you. I'm asking you as you seem to be the major supporter of the Obama policy in this thread.
Forgive my ignorance, but what was Obama's policy? Not his goal, everybody wants the world to be free of WMDs, that's pretty much a given. What was his plan to get there?
If I recall, he ignored the first chemical attack, except for saying that he was really, truly, serious this time, and if the Syrians used them that would be crossing a red line. Somebody used the weapons, the red line was crossed, and nothing happened.
There followed a delay, as though he was thinking up a new plan. He appeared to the world to have two choices; military force, or admit that red lines drawn by the US don't have any particular meaning.
He tried, but was unable to get any international support even from his traditional allies. (The French eventually said they weren't going into this if they were the only ones.)
Then he went to Congress, asking for permission that he wasn't required to obtain, and said he reserved the right to launch an attack regardless of Congress' vote.
So, please. tell me. What was he thinking, what was his plan that he had in mind all along?
If this was his plan, why did he never approach the United Nations to ask for this? Actually, why did he never approach the UN on the subject at all?
Then why the red line and all of his other statements about targeted strikes designed to stop WMD use, and Kerry's comments about "unbelievably" small strikes?
Would you care to tell me what the consequences would be? Russia is insisting that no military force be used or even threatened in controlling the WMDs. So what will we do, draw another line? Perhaps in puce, vermilion, or coral?
How successful have we been in getting to inspect and control Iran's nuclear program? Why should we think that good ol' Bashar will point out of his stocks of WMDs? There is no reason to believe that this proposal will solve anything. What it does do is tell the world that al-Assad is the legitimate ruler of his country, and that the world is willing to negotiate with him.
I think there could have been better ways to play this, other than to leave us with a President seen as indecisive and weak, and allowing the Russians to protect their ally against any US action.
Do you really think Obama was making a serious threat to employ significant military force? After all, Kerry said it would be "unbelievably" small, and Obama said he didn't want to affect the balance of power in the country. Seems like a wrist slap.
the very threat of "intervention" has provoked action, not one single country on earth wants to be looking down the barrel of the US military!!!
i cant say what the plan WAS, but i can see that the threat was very real and the case compelling for strikes, but with a closer look the "fallout" was going to cause even more death if the issue of rouge groups with stolen CWs was not factored in.
But Obama and his spokespeople were saying that they knew it was al-Assad who used them.
who do you punish if it is unclear who "used them first"
More confusion for me. Obama drew the red line himself. Is he forcing himself to take a side?
or was the red line being used to force Obamas hand, one way or another?
I suppose, technically he could, but nobody believes he will after the Russian plan was announced. Syrian headlines are trumpeting their defeat of Obama.
this was and is a "no win" situation, the US still has the option to strike,
Unfortunately, he hasn't made the situation any better. There is no realistic plan to remove the WMDs from Syrian control, and the civil war will continue, just as it was before the red line speech. All of our flopping around and we're back to square one.
thing is no one over here is calling him that and many applaud the fact that he has not made a complex situation much worse,
Was there ever a requirement that we support either side? I'm sure you wouldn't want to. Does the US have an obligation to prevent them from killing each other?
in a civil war either side could turn to genocide, which side do you suggest supporting?
He didn't approach the UN, making his threat even less credible than it already was. Bush went to the UN for approval for Iraq. They turned him down and he used that rejection as one of the 12 reasons he was asking Congress for a declaration of war.
in international law a mandate is required from the UN,
He was willing to do Libya without Congress, he could have done the same in Syria. Even further proof that he did not expect his threat to be taken seriously.
in american law a declaration of war is required by congress,
My confusion is that I can not create even a single logical possibility which would account for his moves. Most believe his red line comment was a mistake, but he was afraid to withdraw it. That left him in the position of trying to both support the possibility of a strike and reject it, at the same time.
So, please. tell me. What was he thinking, what was his plan that he had in mind all along?
i can only answer for myself, i dont know Obama or how he thinks.
I think there could have been better ways to play this, other than to leave us with a President seen as indecisive and weak, and allowing the Russians to protect their ally against any US action.
i actually see it as the russians REACTING to kerry and Obama,
not the other way around.
So now we've told the world that we can't be trusted or believed, a move that weakens our alliances, emboldens our enemies, and makes the US even less significant in the world. Maybe that was his plan from the start.
XPLodER
but Obama just saved a nightmare from the world,