User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/31/2013 3:25:04 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think you can define a point, because each and every circumstance is different. Say we automatically go in when 100K are killed, what happens when China suppresses a uprising and they kill a million or the Russians decide to use chemicals to suppress one of their various hots spots? Example: Rwanda |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2013 3:25:38 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think you can define a point, because each and every circumstance is different. Say we automatically go in when 100K are killed, what happens when China suppresses a uprising and they kill a million or the Russians decide to use chemicals to suppress one of their various hots spots? exactly. some countries we can treat like a little bitch and some we can't. so which ones do we draw the line at? those with nukes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2013 5:07:59 PM EDT
[#3]
As a committed realist, those that can have a direct impact on us or our allies.
Rwandans start killing each other--no impact. Troubling from a humanitarian point of view, but from a coldly logical, Americentric viewpoint, meh. Syrians start killing each other--could destabilize the region and affect our allies in Israel. Might want to consider it. Mexicans start killing each other--refugees and the potential for that gas to enter the US and be used against us--reenact Scott's Mexico City campaign. Once again, that requires an concept of national strategy that's been missing since 1989. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2013 5:27:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Is there no action by a sovereign government against its own population that warrants a response? Not according to international law! In fact if we attack Syria without justification then WE are viewed as the aggressors! AND if you're leading up to the argument that WE need to step in and stop Assad you need to also realize that generally when Nations get involved in a war a LOT more civilians will die than during a civil war. The US getting involved in a protracted war with Syria WILL kill a lot more Syrian civilians than have been killed so far. (Estimated 10,000 to 100,000). Just to get an idea of how many, consider this, Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths during the 2nd Iraq war vary but are as high as 1,033,000!! Casualties of the Iraq War And that only covers the period from March 2003 till August 2007! And the Iraq war is still far from over! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2013 5:37:05 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its a legitimate point. There should be a point at which a country will act. Obviously you have traditional causus belli. But we have liberal offensives where we act in purely interventionist modes. We went into Somalia. We went into LIbya. We went into Bosnia We went into Kosovo. We went into Lebanon. So, waty determines when we go in and when we don't? Whats the metric? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is a buzz word, just like conversation, spiral development, enterprise solution, so on and so forth. Its a legitimate point. There should be a point at which a country will act. Obviously you have traditional causus belli. But we have liberal offensives where we act in purely interventionist modes. We went into Somalia. We went into LIbya. We went into Bosnia We went into Kosovo. We went into Lebanon. So, waty determines when we go in and when we don't? Whats the metric? Lockheed Martin and/or Boeing and/or Gruman wants to boosts their stock. Dick Cheney wants to make a few billion dollars more through KBR. Dow Chemical wants to make more money. Or maybe O'bamer just wants to divert attention from his failed domestic policies! Take your pick. They're all sufficient reason to a politician! I suggest you go read up on the "Military Industrial Complex". President Eisenhower warned us of them when he left office and how they would attempt to drag us into fruitless wars. They may not be THE reason the O'bummer wants to drag us into Syria but they're still something to be aware of and to guard against. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2013 5:49:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its a legitimate point. There should be a point at which a country will act. Obviously you have traditional causus belli. But we have liberal offensives where we act in purely interventionist modes. We went into Somalia. We went into LIbya. We went into Bosnia We went into Kosovo. We went into Lebanon. So, waty determines when we go in and when we don't? Whats the metric? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is a buzz word, just like conversation, spiral development, enterprise solution, so on and so forth. Its a legitimate point. There should be a point at which a country will act. Obviously you have traditional causus belli. But we have liberal offensives where we act in purely interventionist modes. We went into Somalia. We went into LIbya. We went into Bosnia We went into Kosovo. We went into Lebanon. So, waty determines when we go in and when we don't? Whats the metric? There is no metric. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2013 5:52:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What snails leave during the "time of the month?" Quote HistoryLol |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2013 6:04:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
At what level does a government's actions require the US to step in? what % of the population must die? 10? 50? 90? Or is it a hard number, like 100 million? Is there no action by a sovereign government against its own population that warrants a response? A fair question... I’m not an isolationist and I’m real happy to have America kick ass in the name of justice, fair play, and all that stuff. But there are some conditions that have to be met first… 1.Do we know what the hell is really going on? Let’s face it, as an American I’m often confused about them foreigners. Their ways are so different we can’t even understand what most of them are saying cause they don’t speak proper English. Before we go sticking our noses into someone else’s war we need to be sure we know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. (Hint: most of the time they are all bad guys.) 2.Can we really do anything to help the situation? I mean, sometimes blowing up the evil dictator might solve the problem. Other times military aid to the opposition might do the trick. And sometimes an invasion might be practical. But other times our assistance will just make matters worse. And if our actions don’t solve the problem then they are worse than worthless. In the case of Syria, what action can we take to solve the problem? (Hint: not much short of a full scale invasion and a decade or two of occupation will do anything to help them out.) 3.Can we afford it? I’m a charitable guy. Tell me that I could help a random stranger turn his life around for ten bucks and I’ll give him ten bucks. Tell me it’s going to cost ten thousand dollars and he’s going to be going hungry. I just don’t have that much money to be giving away to strangers. So, can we afford to do what it would take to liberate Syria? (Hint: Hell NO.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2013 6:16:38 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
At what level does a government's actions require the US to step in? what % of the population must die? 10? 50? 90? Or is it a hard number, like 100 million? Is there no action by a sovereign government against its own population that warrants a response? Being a country makes you an acceptable option for our next illegal war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2013 6:35:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its a legitimate point. There should be a point at which a country will act. Obviously you have traditional causus belli. But we have liberal offensives where we act in purely interventionist modes. We went into Somalia. We went into LIbya. We went into Bosnia We went into Kosovo. We went into Lebanon. So, waty determines when we go in and when we don't? Whats the metric? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It is a buzz word, just like conversation, spiral development, enterprise solution, so on and so forth. Its a legitimate point. There should be a point at which a country will act. Obviously you have traditional causus belli. But we have liberal offensives where we act in purely interventionist modes. We went into Somalia. We went into LIbya. We went into Bosnia We went into Kosovo. We went into Lebanon. So, waty determines when we go in and when we don't? Whats the metric? Clinton was on the wrong side in Kosovo the metric is: "does it affect us strategically? if so, how?" though, a litmus test for this sort of thing would be insanely dangerous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 12:24:06 AM EDT
[#11]
made oil,didn't they....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 2:56:52 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not according to international law! In fact if we attack Syria without justification then WE are viewed as the aggressors! AND if you're leading up to the argument that WE need to step in and stop Assad you need to also realize that generally when Nations get involved in a war a LOT more civilians will die than during a civil war. The US getting involved in a protracted war with Syria WILL kill a lot more Syrian civilians than have been killed so far. (Estimated 10,000 to 100,000). Just to get an idea of how many, consider this, Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths during the 2nd Iraq war vary but are as high as 1,033,000!! Casualties of the Iraq War And that only covers the period from March 2003 till August 2007! And the Iraq war is still far from over! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is there no action by a sovereign government against its own population that warrants a response? Not according to international law! In fact if we attack Syria without justification then WE are viewed as the aggressors! AND if you're leading up to the argument that WE need to step in and stop Assad you need to also realize that generally when Nations get involved in a war a LOT more civilians will die than during a civil war. The US getting involved in a protracted war with Syria WILL kill a lot more Syrian civilians than have been killed so far. (Estimated 10,000 to 100,000). Just to get an idea of how many, consider this, Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths during the 2nd Iraq war vary but are as high as 1,033,000!! Casualties of the Iraq War And that only covers the period from March 2003 till August 2007! And the Iraq war is still far from over! You are wrong, international law specifically DOES allow and demand intervention. How they back it up is the question. Wikipedia is your source? 13'rs are hilarious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 2:57:33 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being a country makes you an acceptable option for our next illegal war. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
At what level does a government's actions require the US to step in? what % of the population must die? 10? 50? 90? Or is it a hard number, like 100 million? Is there no action by a sovereign government against its own population that warrants a response? Being a country makes you an acceptable option for our next illegal war. You don't really understand the concept of sovereignty do you |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 3:00:41 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A fair question... I’m not an isolationist and I’m real happy to have America kick ass in the name of justice, fair play, and all that stuff. But there are some conditions that have to be met first… 1.Do we know what the hell is really going on? Let’s face it, as an American I’m often confused about them foreigners. Their ways are so different we can’t even understand what most of them are saying cause they don’t speak proper English. Before we go sticking our noses into someone else’s war we need to be sure we know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. (Hint: most of the time they are all bad guys.) 2.Can we really do anything to help the situation? I mean, sometimes blowing up the evil dictator might solve the problem. Other times military aid to the opposition might do the trick. And sometimes an invasion might be practical. But other times our assistance will just make matters worse. And if our actions don’t solve the problem then they are worse than worthless. In the case of Syria, what action can we take to solve the problem? (Hint: not much short of a full scale invasion and a decade or two of occupation will do anything to help them out.) 3.Can we afford it? I’m a charitable guy. Tell me that I could help a random stranger turn his life around for ten bucks and I’ll give him ten bucks. Tell me it’s going to cost ten thousand dollars and he’s going to be going hungry. I just don’t have that much money to be giving away to strangers. So, can we afford to do what it would take to liberate Syria? (Hint: Hell NO.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
At what level does a government's actions require the US to step in? what % of the population must die? 10? 50? 90? Or is it a hard number, like 100 million? Is there no action by a sovereign government against its own population that warrants a response? A fair question... I’m not an isolationist and I’m real happy to have America kick ass in the name of justice, fair play, and all that stuff. But there are some conditions that have to be met first… 1.Do we know what the hell is really going on? Let’s face it, as an American I’m often confused about them foreigners. Their ways are so different we can’t even understand what most of them are saying cause they don’t speak proper English. Before we go sticking our noses into someone else’s war we need to be sure we know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. (Hint: most of the time they are all bad guys.) 2.Can we really do anything to help the situation? I mean, sometimes blowing up the evil dictator might solve the problem. Other times military aid to the opposition might do the trick. And sometimes an invasion might be practical. But other times our assistance will just make matters worse. And if our actions don’t solve the problem then they are worse than worthless. In the case of Syria, what action can we take to solve the problem? (Hint: not much short of a full scale invasion and a decade or two of occupation will do anything to help them out.) 3.Can we afford it? I’m a charitable guy. Tell me that I could help a random stranger turn his life around for ten bucks and I’ll give him ten bucks. Tell me it’s going to cost ten thousand dollars and he’s going to be going hungry. I just don’t have that much money to be giving away to strangers. So, can we afford to do what it would take to liberate Syria? (Hint: Hell NO.) Take your three part test. 1. We know whats going on. A civil war. Specifically a civil war where civilians are targeted with WMDs. 2. We could stop the situation, at high risk and high cost, but there is no where on earth where we couldn't conventionally dominate with the exception of the 2 other major nuclear powers. 3. Of course we can afford it. Our budget woes are domestic in nature. The 4th question, the critical one, is, "Does it benefit us?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 3:21:08 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obama doesn't like your questions, you must be racist. The answer is obvious, when over a 100K civilians die from conventional warfare it's not a red line, but when 2k or less die from WMDs the red line has been crossed. Does that explain it? Do you understand now? Except on Tuesdays because Shirley is bisexual and having an Affair with Anita who is married to John who is screwing the baby sitter because Anita won't give him any because Louis tipped her off about the baby sitter who has a big brother that is seeing Mrs Jones while her husband is at work having an affair with his secretary that is getting a divorce from Chuck that is gay and has moved in with Larry the Wrench who has an ex wife that is Shirley. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 5:42:14 AM EDT
[#16]
It's like a debt ceiling.
__________________________________________________________________ Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.3.2) (and the original thread). «nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus» |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 6:02:18 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Take your three part test. 1. We know whats going on. A civil war. Specifically a civil war where civilians are targeted with WMDs. 2. We could stop the situation, at high risk and high cost, but there is no where on earth where we couldn't conventionally dominate with the exception of the 2 other major nuclear powers. 3. Of course we can afford it. Our budget woes are domestic in nature. The 4th question, the critical one, is, "Does it benefit us?" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At what level does a government's actions require the US to step in? what % of the population must die? 10? 50? 90? Or is it a hard number, like 100 million? Is there no action by a sovereign government against its own population that warrants a response? A fair question... I’m not an isolationist and I’m real happy to have America kick ass in the name of justice, fair play, and all that stuff. But there are some conditions that have to be met first… 1.Do we know what the hell is really going on? Let’s face it, as an American I’m often confused about them foreigners. Their ways are so different we can’t even understand what most of them are saying cause they don’t speak proper English. Before we go sticking our noses into someone else’s war we need to be sure we know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. (Hint: most of the time they are all bad guys.) 2.Can we really do anything to help the situation? I mean, sometimes blowing up the evil dictator might solve the problem. Other times military aid to the opposition might do the trick. And sometimes an invasion might be practical. But other times our assistance will just make matters worse. And if our actions don’t solve the problem then they are worse than worthless. In the case of Syria, what action can we take to solve the problem? (Hint: not much short of a full scale invasion and a decade or two of occupation will do anything to help them out.) 3.Can we afford it? I’m a charitable guy. Tell me that I could help a random stranger turn his life around for ten bucks and I’ll give him ten bucks. Tell me it’s going to cost ten thousand dollars and he’s going to be going hungry. I just don’t have that much money to be giving away to strangers. So, can we afford to do what it would take to liberate Syria? (Hint: Hell NO.) Take your three part test. 1. We know whats going on. A civil war. Specifically a civil war where civilians are targeted with WMDs. 2. We could stop the situation, at high risk and high cost, but there is no where on earth where we couldn't conventionally dominate with the exception of the 2 other major nuclear powers. 3. Of course we can afford it. Our budget woes are domestic in nature. The 4th question, the critical one, is, "Does it benefit us?" Searching the text of BarryO's pre-golfing speech yesterday, you won't find "WMD" or any of of its words. Same for Kerry's official statement on the 30th. Hmmm |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 6:20:06 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why does it have to be red, or any color? Rainbow! The rainbow line! As for OP: The syrians can kill each other down to the last man and it's still not necessarily a reason to intervene, particularly when a win by either side is not in our national interest, or those of our allies. Nothing in international law compels us to act and that war in particular is just another round in the endless "arab/sunni vs persian/shiite" conflict. National interest, likelihood of military success in intervention, acceptable/achievable end-state and realistic exit strategy have to be part of any calculation. And all other means have been exhausted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 6:55:45 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rainbow! The rainbow line! As for OP: The syrians can kill each other down to the last man and it's still not necessarily a reason to intervene, particularly when a win by either side is not in our national interest, or those of our allies. Nothing in international law compels us to act and that war in particular is just another round in the endless "arab/sunni vs persian/shiite" conflict. National interest, likelihood of military success in intervention, acceptable/achievable end-state and realistic exit strategy have to be part of any calculation. And all other means have been exhausted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why does it have to be red, or any color? Rainbow! The rainbow line! As for OP: The syrians can kill each other down to the last man and it's still not necessarily a reason to intervene, particularly when a win by either side is not in our national interest, or those of our allies. Nothing in international law compels us to act and that war in particular is just another round in the endless "arab/sunni vs persian/shiite" conflict. National interest, likelihood of military success in intervention, acceptable/achievable end-state and realistic exit strategy have to be part of any calculation. And all other means have been exhausted. Is there a national interest in discouraging the use of chemical weapons, regardless their target? I could easily argue, yes. Based simply along the reality that chemical weapons give an asymetric advantage to our would be enemies in cases where our national interests are more threatened. legitimizing their use due to non-action can easily work against us long term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 7:09:31 AM EDT
[#20]
I'm not joking when I say this.
I saw your thread title and thought, "Well, it's about 9 inches long and corkscrewed..." Not kidding. You sumbitch. TRG |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 7:15:58 AM EDT
[#21]
you should use a metaphor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 7:33:16 AM EDT
[#22]
In this particular case, while there are many valid reasons we may step into this or that conflict at such and such a stage, the entire (ENTIRE) reasoning behind whether we will wind up in Syria is because of our President's political image, period, dot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 7:38:30 AM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 10:54:10 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In this particular case, while there are many valid reasons we may step into this or that conflict at such and such a stage, the entire (ENTIRE) reasoning behind whether we will wind up in Syria is because of our President's political image, period, dot. The "problem" is that the President made a nonsensical, and illogical, outline for his justification. His 'threat to the US and our allies was simply this: Bashar al Assad has chemical weapons. Assad used them against Assad's enemies (Muslim Brotherhood? Al Quaeda?). By demonstrating his possession of these weapons, and his willingness to use them, he opened the door for the weapons to NOT be in his control and taken by a third party (MB, AQ? Who knows?). Therefore, Assad must be taken down to insure the weapons do not fall in to the hands of the MB and/or AQ... WTF? To secure the weapons, we must take out the only point of control of the weapons? Once he set up that impossible construct he was done. Any red line became a red circle. That circle was drawn all the way around Obama's feet and meant that any step Obama made was going to make him cross his own illogical construct and be indefensible in his actions. Now, he is once again, after letting his mouth make up fairyland nonsense, left standing outside wondering why nobody is supporting him. He's not even supporting himself. TRG |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 11:00:59 AM EDT
[#25]
The original "thin red line"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 12:53:27 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The "problem" is that the President made a nonsensical, and illogical, outline for his justification. His 'threat to the US and our allies was simply this: Bashar al Assad has chemical weapons. Assad used them against Assad's enemies (Muslim Brotherhood? Al Quaeda?). By demonstrating his possession of these weapons, and his willingness to use them, he opened the door for the weapons to NOT be in his control and taken by a third party (MB, AQ? Who knows?). Therefore, Assad must be taken down to insure the weapons do not fall in to the hands of the MB and/or AQ... WTF? To secure the weapons, we must take out the only point of control of the weapons? Once he set up that impossible construct he was done. Any red line became a red circle. That circle was drawn all the way around Obama's feet and meant that any step Obama made was going to make him cross his own illogical construct and be indefensible in his actions. Now, he is once again, after letting his mouth make up fairyland nonsense, left standing outside wondering why nobody is supporting him. He's not even supporting himself. TRG Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In this particular case, while there are many valid reasons we may step into this or that conflict at such and such a stage, the entire (ENTIRE) reasoning behind whether we will wind up in Syria is because of our President's political image, period, dot. The "problem" is that the President made a nonsensical, and illogical, outline for his justification. His 'threat to the US and our allies was simply this: Bashar al Assad has chemical weapons. Assad used them against Assad's enemies (Muslim Brotherhood? Al Quaeda?). By demonstrating his possession of these weapons, and his willingness to use them, he opened the door for the weapons to NOT be in his control and taken by a third party (MB, AQ? Who knows?). Therefore, Assad must be taken down to insure the weapons do not fall in to the hands of the MB and/or AQ... WTF? To secure the weapons, we must take out the only point of control of the weapons? Once he set up that impossible construct he was done. Any red line became a red circle. That circle was drawn all the way around Obama's feet and meant that any step Obama made was going to make him cross his own illogical construct and be indefensible in his actions. Now, he is once again, after letting his mouth make up fairyland nonsense, left standing outside wondering why nobody is supporting him. He's not even supporting himself. TRG The real irony is that is the exact rationale Bush used to invade Iraq, and he got all KINDS of shit for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 12:54:41 PM EDT
[#27]
This is sad, but I don't like to see such important conceptual notions such as this defined by a metric or numbers. Suddenly at that point we truly have descended into the deepest, most logical calculus of war. Where the cost of human life is nothing more than a verified number on piece of paper. Things like that allow for giant, gaping holes for people to exploit on both sides.
Candidly, as others have noted, the national strategy of foreign policy has gone undefined and wanting for decades. It needs direction and definition. American doctrine needs the backbone and wherewithal to ACT WITH CONVICTION on the national and international stage. This multinational clusterfuck displayed by the US, the UK and by France in recent days has for all intents and purposes neutered their leaders on the world stage, and will likely test old alliances for a generation to come. I do not say that any number of people must die, but I would certainly exercise the prudent action of calling out the proxy leaders and demanding that they make countenance with their appropriate counterparts to resolve the matter. Acknowledge spheres of influence as they are a reality. Openly call out Putin to resolve this situation before the world, as this is a situation and leader under his fold and that it would be improper for western alliances to involve themselves in a situation which he should rightly be working to control. Force his hand for a change... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 12:55:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Obama may have been talking smack about "red lines", but the only thing that's on him now is the yellow streak running up his back...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 1:06:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Don't ever cross a red line painted on the tarmac of AFB Misawa, Japan or you will find yourself face down with an M16 pointed up your ass. Really don't cross that line if you're wearing a Marine uniform and another Marine has just recently taken three MP rifles left racked and unguarded at the front of the chow-hall, field-stripped them, and left them all in jumbled a pile of parts on the floor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 1:12:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Obama's "red line" was to divert media attention from the scandals and a lousy economy. It worked.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 1:15:15 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
At what level does a government's actions require the US to step in? what % of the population must die? 10? 50? 90? Or is it a hard number, like 100 million? Is there no action by a sovereign government against its own population that warrants a response? There is no simple formula. Much of this decision is based on history such as whether or not we are dealing with a Hitler or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 1:17:02 PM EDT
[#32]
I'm drawing a red line right here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 1:19:08 PM EDT
[#33]
Apparently it's a direct line to public polling results.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 1:33:18 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real irony is that is the exact rationale Bush used to invade Iraq, and he got all KINDS of shit for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In this particular case, while there are many valid reasons we may step into this or that conflict at such and such a stage, the entire (ENTIRE) reasoning behind whether we will wind up in Syria is because of our President's political image, period, dot. The "problem" is that the President made a nonsensical, and illogical, outline for his justification. His 'threat to the US and our allies was simply this: Bashar al Assad has chemical weapons. Assad used them against Assad's enemies (Muslim Brotherhood? Al Quaeda?). By demonstrating his possession of these weapons, and his willingness to use them, he opened the door for the weapons to NOT be in his control and taken by a third party (MB, AQ? Who knows?). Therefore, Assad must be taken down to insure the weapons do not fall in to the hands of the MB and/or AQ... WTF? To secure the weapons, we must take out the only point of control of the weapons? Once he set up that impossible construct he was done. Any red line became a red circle. That circle was drawn all the way around Obama's feet and meant that any step Obama made was going to make him cross his own illogical construct and be indefensible in his actions. Now, he is once again, after letting his mouth make up fairyland nonsense, left standing outside wondering why nobody is supporting him. He's not even supporting himself. TRG The real irony is that is the exact rationale Bush used to invade Iraq, and he got all KINDS of shit for it. Both of whom have much more justification than Obama did for Libya. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 1:42:31 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no simple formula. Much of this decision is based on history such as whether or not we are dealing with a Hitler or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
At what level does a government's actions require the US to step in? what % of the population must die? 10? 50? 90? Or is it a hard number, like 100 million? Is there no action by a sovereign government against its own population that warrants a response? There is no simple formula. Much of this decision is based on history such as whether or not we are dealing with a Hitler or not. Is there some kind of a rule in America that you cannot propose historical analogies that do not involve Adolf Hitler? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 1:46:37 PM EDT
[#36]
One word: Rwanda.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 1:48:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
________________________________________________________________________ ^ That is a red line ^ There it is, the correct answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 1:50:18 PM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 1:58:23 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Both of whom have much more justification than Obama did for Libya. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In this particular case, while there are many valid reasons we may step into this or that conflict at such and such a stage, the entire (ENTIRE) reasoning behind whether we will wind up in Syria is because of our President's political image, period, dot. The "problem" is that the President made a nonsensical, and illogical, outline for his justification. His 'threat to the US and our allies was simply this: Bashar al Assad has chemical weapons. Assad used them against Assad's enemies (Muslim Brotherhood? Al Quaeda?). By demonstrating his possession of these weapons, and his willingness to use them, he opened the door for the weapons to NOT be in his control and taken by a third party (MB, AQ? Who knows?). Therefore, Assad must be taken down to insure the weapons do not fall in to the hands of the MB and/or AQ... WTF? To secure the weapons, we must take out the only point of control of the weapons? Once he set up that impossible construct he was done. Any red line became a red circle. That circle was drawn all the way around Obama's feet and meant that any step Obama made was going to make him cross his own illogical construct and be indefensible in his actions. Now, he is once again, after letting his mouth make up fairyland nonsense, left standing outside wondering why nobody is supporting him. He's not even supporting himself. TRG The real irony is that is the exact rationale Bush used to invade Iraq, and he got all KINDS of shit for it. Both of whom have much more justification than Obama did for Libya. And that, right there, is why this pushing it off onto Congress business isn't going to do him a lick of good. He can scream 'but CONGRESS told me I couldn't fo, so I'm not foing. It's THEIR fault!', and all the dissenters in Congress need to reply is: 'you fo'd in Libya without our sayso...why would this be different?' That he's got resistance from all corners of the political spectrum on this issue certainly doesn't help him, either. I believe what we're witnessing right now is a complete failure of foreign policy that actually started three or four years ago. This is what it looks like to have a leader who actually doesn't know what he's doing. Quite frankly, it's a bit terrifying. What other failures are already in the works that we're going to find out about in four years? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 2:01:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And that, right there, is why this pushing it off onto Congress business isn't going to do him a lick of good. He can scream 'but CONGRESS told me I couldn't fo, so I'm not foing. It's THEIR fault!', and all the dissenters in Congress need to reply is: 'you fo'd in Libya without our sayso...why would this be different?' That he's got resistance from all corners of the political spectrum on this issue certainly doesn't help him, either. I believe what we're witnessing right now is a complete failure of foreign policy that actually started three or four years ago. This is what it looks like to have a leader who actually doesn't know what he's doing. Quite frankly, it's a bit terrifying. What other failures are already in the works that we're going to find out about in four years? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In this particular case, while there are many valid reasons we may step into this or that conflict at such and such a stage, the entire (ENTIRE) reasoning behind whether we will wind up in Syria is because of our President's political image, period, dot. The "problem" is that the President made a nonsensical, and illogical, outline for his justification. His 'threat to the US and our allies was simply this: Bashar al Assad has chemical weapons. Assad used them against Assad's enemies (Muslim Brotherhood? Al Quaeda?). By demonstrating his possession of these weapons, and his willingness to use them, he opened the door for the weapons to NOT be in his control and taken by a third party (MB, AQ? Who knows?). Therefore, Assad must be taken down to insure the weapons do not fall in to the hands of the MB and/or AQ... WTF? To secure the weapons, we must take out the only point of control of the weapons? Once he set up that impossible construct he was done. Any red line became a red circle. That circle was drawn all the way around Obama's feet and meant that any step Obama made was going to make him cross his own illogical construct and be indefensible in his actions. Now, he is once again, after letting his mouth make up fairyland nonsense, left standing outside wondering why nobody is supporting him. He's not even supporting himself. TRG The real irony is that is the exact rationale Bush used to invade Iraq, and he got all KINDS of shit for it. Both of whom have much more justification than Obama did for Libya. And that, right there, is why this pushing it off onto Congress business isn't going to do him a lick of good. He can scream 'but CONGRESS told me I couldn't fo, so I'm not foing. It's THEIR fault!', and all the dissenters in Congress need to reply is: 'you fo'd in Libya without our sayso...why would this be different?' That he's got resistance from all corners of the political spectrum on this issue certainly doesn't help him, either. I believe what we're witnessing right now is a complete failure of foreign policy that actually started three or four years ago. This is what it looks like to have a leader who actually doesn't know what he's doing. Quite frankly, it's a bit terrifying. What other failures are already in the works that we're going to find out about in four years? He'll give cover to those dems that vote against him, and blame the repubs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 2:03:29 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He'll give cover to those dems that vote against him, and blame the repubs. I fully expect him to do so, but I still say it won't do him any good. Even hardcore liberals are saying that this is a fuckup of major proportions on the President's part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 2:03:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Absent a direct threat to our nation or interests, we should do nothing. We shouldn't be the world's police force.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 2:04:20 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A (small L/international relations) liberal reason is because every use of chemical weapons makes future use easier, and the indiscriminate nature of such attacks adversely affects civilian populations far in excess of the military utility of such attacks. So attacking the users conventionally discourages their use in general. Of course, you need the international community to rally in order to actually make that work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Obama doesn't like your questions, you must be racist. The answer is obvious, when over a 100K civilians die from conventional warfare it's not a red line, but when 2k or less die from WMDs the red line has been crossed. Does that explain it? fair. but why? because chemical weapons make the use of US Ground forces harder to use anywhere, ergo, punishing their use makes it less likely they will do so? I am down with that. A (small L/international relations) liberal reason is because every use of chemical weapons makes future use easier, and the indiscriminate nature of such attacks adversely affects civilian populations far in excess of the military utility of such attacks. So attacking the users conventionally discourages their use in general. Of course, you need the international community to rally in order to actually make that work. Sorry my tablet ate my response. For a punitive response to work, it only requires effective force to discourage future behavior. The Iraq war was an effective punitive action. Not only did it prevent future use of chemical weapons by the Hussein regime, it also convinced Gaddafi to open to inspectors and end his weapons program. My redline is US interests. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 2:16:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was a stupid thing for Our Messiah to have said. Was this the equivalent of Eisenhower saying "falling dominoes"? Every day he acts more and more like LBJ. Gulf of Tonkin resolution, anyone? "Levantine Sea Incident" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2013 2:23:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<snip> The US getting involved in a protracted war with Syria WILL kill a lot more Syrian civilians than have been killed so far. (Estimated 10,000 to 100,000). Just to get an idea of how many, consider this, Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths during the 2nd Iraq war vary but are as high as 1,033,000!! Casualties of the Iraq War And that only covers the period from March 2003 till August 2007! And the Iraq war is still far from over! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is there no action by a sovereign government against its own population that warrants a response? <snip> The US getting involved in a protracted war with Syria WILL kill a lot more Syrian civilians than have been killed so far. (Estimated 10,000 to 100,000). Just to get an idea of how many, consider this, Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths during the 2nd Iraq war vary but are as high as 1,033,000!! Casualties of the Iraq War And that only covers the period from March 2003 till August 2007! And the Iraq war is still far from over! The Iraq war is a bad example, FWIW. There were essentially two wars going on at that time: US/MNF-I against the Iraqi Army then various INS groups and a civil war going on from FEB 06 (1st Golden Mosque Bombing) to now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2013 6:20:05 AM EDT
[#46]
BBC news article this morning talked about the irony of Obama's attack on Assad being a direct aid to Al Qaeda.
TRG |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2013 1:13:11 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BBC news article this morning talked about the irony of Obama's attack on Assad being a direct aid to Al Qaeda. TRG Now if only an American news organization would have the balls to actually report something like that, much less keep it at the top of a headline for a few days at the beginning of a week... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2013 3:39:23 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now if only an American news organization would have the balls to actually report something like that, much less keep it at the top of a headline for a few days at the beginning of a week... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
BBC news article this morning talked about the irony of Obama's attack on Assad being a direct aid to Al Qaeda. TRG Now if only an American news organization would have the balls to actually report something like that, much less keep it at the top of a headline for a few days at the beginning of a week... It's odd. Every morning I read the BBC and Foxnews on my cellphone. They both carry the same basic stories. BBC is always, without fail, going to take the more liberal stance. To see them point out the these 'rebels' are Al Qaeda was surprising. If you want to be convinced that Global Warming is an undisputed fact, the sea levels are rising, temperatures are soaring, climate change is the fault of greedy Republicans...read the BBC. And, even they acknowledge that we would only be letting AQ have chemical weapons if we topple Assad. AQ would then use these weapons to attack Israel. Not a peep about this from our own 'liberal' media. And scarcely a peep even from Fox about this reality. TRG |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2013 3:40:29 PM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2013 4:32:05 PM EDT
[#50]
I think it mean, If da brudda get a 30 round clip or not.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
