Exotic weapons aim to destroy chemical weapons | Navy Times | navytimes.com
Will they use them? Will they work?
Any dictator worth his salt would have stashed the chemicals among the citizens.
I heard they have filled the military installations with prisoners. The attack on Syria is going to accomplish nothing other than assuage the ego of someone in the white house. A lot of people are going to die because of that ego.
When you draw a bright red line in the sand and someone crosses it, you don't move the line.
Exotic weapons aim to destroy chemical weapons | Navy Times | navytimes.com
Will they use them? Will they work?
When you draw a bright red line in the sand and someone crosses it, you don't move the line.
No, you keep your mouth shut about red lines in the first place. A U.S. President should never threaten. He should keep his mouth shut and act if and when action is indicated without telling the world what he is going to do in every detail.
Exotic weapons aim to destroy chemical weapons | Navy Times | navytimes.com
Will they use them? Will they work?
The Air Force has two Agent Defeat weapons, CrashPAD and the Passive Attack Weapon (PAW), according to Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman. Instead of explosives, these relatively low-tech weapons use metal rods or fragments to pierce containers holding toxic chemicals, allowing them to escape.
I heard they have filled the military installations with prisoners. The attack on Syria is going to accomplish nothing other than assuage the ego of someone in the white house. A lot of people are going to die because of that ego.
The main things to achieve are to punish Assad and all of the participants. The second aim must be that the US should not have to do these things alone. Most other countries are not helping. This will not work. So the US must show them this. I would have thought most of them had learned that from G W Bush. Of course some countries do not want R2P. If you have to crush resistance periodically at home, you do not want precedent of internationally coordinated preventive action and punishment.
A U.S. president should never threaten...unless he's ready to walk the walk.
[/QUOTE]Assad will get his punishment from the war crimes tribunal. It is pointless to engage in military action against a non existent threat to the U.S. that can accomplish nothing positive for either side. It is all about ego. Presidents should not threaten and should not draw red lines publicly. I believe the whole purpose of this action was to assuage that ego. It certainly has no practical purpose. As it turns out, Obama blinked and that is good. In my view it shows character.
The third thing is the Red Line. It is not a question of "ego". It is the question of how countries will react next time. If you think the other guy will make noise but do nothing?
No, Presidents should never threaten for any reason. Telling the world what you might do is downright stupid. One should do what one is going to do when one decides to do it without telegraphing strategy to the world. Walking the walk is what it is about, not talking the talk. I'm all for transparency in government when it comes to domestic issues. It is downright wrong in military issues. It appears the crisis has passed and, perhaps, Assad will think twice about using chemicals in future. Or maybe not.
Sometimes presidents have to threaten action. I agree that giving the bad guys your play book is a bad idea.
I disagree. They carry a big stick. If it is time to use it, then use it. Threatening to use it is unnecessary. It is understood that the US will defend itself.
It was understood...before Obama got elected.
There is no question, you are right that it seems to have been rash of Obama to have drawn that line. But it is now drawn. And we cannot change that.
The proven rule is that once drawn you pay heavily, if you do not carry through. It would be very bad for die country to let Obama back down.
As to the court? You need police to feed any court. The UN does not have such police. I am totally with you in that the US should not be the Lone Sheriff riding again. And I think strongly that we need a new approach immediately. And we can gladly discuss how the alternative organization of international security should look and what it needs to have in assets and do. But that is not the question right now.
I'll give you that point. Certainly Benghazi was a direct attack on a U.S. facility and our government did zero to prevent it, defend it or go after the perpetrators. We just turned the other cheek. Can't do that too many times without getting the other cheek slapped.
Sometimes presidents have to threaten action. I agree that giving the bad guys your play book is a bad idea.
Solution to that problem is to get out of the Middle East.
No they don't. They never do. The president is the bad guy.
Solution to that problem is to get out of the Middle East.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?