• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Obama Being Shamed Into A Demonstration War With Syria?

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Having leaked to the world, and thus to Syrian President Bashar Assad, a detailed briefing of the coming U.S. air attack on Syria — (1) the source (offshore warships and perhaps a bomber or two), (2) the weapon (cruise missiles), (3) the duration (two or three days), (4) the purpose (punishment, not "regime change") — perhaps we should be publishing the exact time the bombs will fall, lest we disrupt dinner in Damascus.

So much for the element of surprise. Into his third year of dithering, two years after declaring Assad had to go, one year after drawing — then erasing — his own red line on chemical weapons, Barack Obama has been stirred to action.

Or more accurately, shamed into action. Which is the worst possible reason. A president doesn't commit soldiers to a war for which he has zero enthusiasm. Nor does one go to war for demonstration purposes.

Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose.

The purpose can be either punitive or strategic: either a spasm of conscience that will inflame our opponents yet leave not a trace, or a considered application of abundant American power to alter the strategic equation that is now heavily favoring our worst enemies in the heart of the Middle East.

There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel — that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration.

Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.

[Excerpt]


Read More:
Is Obama Being Shamed Into A War With Syria He Doesn't Want? - Investors.com


Obama and Bo's tail wagging the dog.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
President Portman will be able to blame everything ill in his tenure on Obama, so it could be worse I suppose.
 

Morality Games

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,156
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Having leaked to the world, and thus to Syrian President Bashar Assad, a detailed briefing of the coming U.S. air attack on Syria — (1) the source (offshore warships and perhaps a bomber or two), (2) the weapon (cruise missiles), (3) the duration (two or three days), (4) the purpose (punishment, not "regime change") — perhaps we should be publishing the exact time the bombs will fall, lest we disrupt dinner in Damascus.

So much for the element of surprise. Into his third year of dithering, two years after declaring Assad had to go, one year after drawing — then erasing — his own red line on chemical weapons, Barack Obama has been stirred to action.

Or more accurately, shamed into action. Which is the worst possible reason. A president doesn't commit soldiers to a war for which he has zero enthusiasm. Nor does one go to war for demonstration purposes.

Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose.

The purpose can be either punitive or strategic: either a spasm of conscience that will inflame our opponents yet leave not a trace, or a considered application of abundant American power to alter the strategic equation that is now heavily favoring our worst enemies in the heart of the Middle East.

There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel — that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration.

Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.

[Excerpt]


Read More:
Is Obama Being Shamed Into A War With Syria He Doesn't Want? - Investors.com


Obama and Bo's tail wagging the dog.
Nobody "wants" the war with Syria. Nobody wanted the Arab Spring either. It's unsettling a number of comfortable arm chair arrangements between wealthy business leaders and politicians. The fundamental principle of foreign relations with the Middle East is that the West support tyrants in exchange for lucrative trade deals. The Arab Spring exposes and parades these past misdeeds (when the West depends on its reputation as the driving force of human progress to facilitate our diplomatic efforts) in order to set up governments that are at worst actively hostile to secularism and Western values or at worst going to drive a harder bargain gas pumps (the avoidance of which was the purpose of supporting dictators all along) so that they can realize their own version of an egalitarian democracy. It's a nightmare situation that was decades in the coming.
 
Last edited:

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nobody "wants" the war with Syria. Nobody wanted the Arab Spring either. It's unsettling a number of comfortable arm chair arrangements between wealthy business leaders and politicians. The fundamental principle of foreign relations with the Middle East is that the West support tyrants in exchange for lucrative trade deals. The Arab Spring exposes and parades these past misdeeds (when the West depends on its reputation as the driving force of human progress to facilitate our diplomatic efforts) in order to set up governments that are at worst actively hostile to secularism and Western values or at worst going to drive a harder bargain gas pumps (the avoidance of which was the purpose of supporting dictators all along) so that they can realize their own version of an egalitarian democracy. It's a nightmare situation that was decades in the coming.
It can be said that President Obama while leading from behind has painted himself into a corner. It's taken too long for him to act. Now Obama is damned if he doesn't by his own words and damned if he does by his lackluster actions leading up to his unconstitutional and unilateral decision to attack Syria. Even Britain has refused to go along with Obama.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
wow wehr, mindlessly posting a Krauthammer editorial is really a step in class for you. Sadly though, just all the other editorials you post, chuck is unable to come up with anything honest or intelligent.

So much for the element of surprise.
that sentence works great on the weak minded. It seems Assad will no longer be shopping at Kroger thanks to all the warnings. Dang. It would have made it so much easier to get him. too bad we didn't have a secret vote in congress and at the UN like we did for Iraq.

There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel — that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration.
.
why is "blowback" only an issue when cons are instructed to be against something?


Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.
wow, he's already concluded that we will be perceived as weak and ineffective. oh my. we should definitely launch a thousand cruise missiles to show how tough we are. color me confused but making excuses and trying to blame Iran for saddam gassing the kurds didn't demonstrate our "machismo". Telling people to rise up against saddam after the first gulf war and then letting him slaughter his enemies didn't demonstrate our "machismo". methinks chuck has some 'man' issues he wants President Obama to solve for him. Here's me backing up my points.

"Suddenly the U.S. was responsible for all of those rebels answering Bush's call to arms. Yet at the Safwan negotiations, Schwarzkopf carelessly authorized the Iraqis to use helicopter gunships on their side of the cease-fire line. The Iraqi generals were so surprised by that concession—which permitted them to strafe and rocket Kurds and shi ites from the air—that one of the Iraqi generals incredulously asked: "So you mean even the helicopters that are armed can fly in the Iraqi skies?"

First Gulf War's Mistakes Explain U.S. Presence in Iraq - The Daily Beast

"the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces. "

https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal

P. Kersey

Banned
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
324
Location
30n x 90w
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
wow wehr, mindlessly posting a Krauthammer editorial is really a step in class for you. Sadly though, just all the other editorials you post, chuck is unable to come up with anything honest or intelligent.



that sentence works great on the weak minded. It seems Assad will no longer be shopping at Kroger thanks to all the warnings. Dang. It would have made it so much easier to get him. too bad we didn't have a secret vote in congress and at the UN like we did for Iraq.



why is "blowback" only an issue when cons are instructed to be against something?




wow, he's already concluded that we will be perceived as weak and ineffective. oh my. we should definitely launch a thousand cruise missiles to show how tough we are. color me confused but making excuses and trying to blame Iran for saddam gassing the kurds didn't demonstrate our "machismo". Telling people to rise up against saddam after the first gulf war and then letting him slaughter his enemies didn't demonstrate our "machismo". methinks chuck has some 'man' issues he wants President Obama to solve for him. Here's me backing up my points.

"Suddenly the U.S. was responsible for all of those rebels answering Bush's call to arms. Yet at the Safwan negotiations, Schwarzkopf carelessly authorized the Iraqis to use helicopter gunships on their side of the cease-fire line. The Iraqi generals were so surprised by that concession—which permitted them to strafe and rocket Kurds and shi ites from the air—that one of the Iraqi generals incredulously asked: "So you mean even the helicopters that are armed can fly in the Iraqi skies?"

First Gulf War's Mistakes Explain U.S. Presence in Iraq - The Daily Beast

"the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces. "

https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
Do you support attacking syria?
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
right now, no. do you?
Why did the 0 great one put himself [US ]in such a narrow box though? Maybe the folks around him should take up chess to develop some ability to see moves ahead, or even play some pool so we can set the cue ball up properly for the next shot. Or is that too much to ask?
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The problem I have is how no matter what President Obama decides cons will be instructed to think it was the wrong thing. I never got an explanation how cons could support Iraq 100 % and Libya 0 %.

Can one con explain why they supported invading Iraq to "get rid of a dictator who 'has' WMDs" but would not support any military action to "get rid of a dictator who actually has WMDs and has used them".
 

P. Kersey

Banned
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
324
Location
30n x 90w
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The problem I have is how no matter what President Obama decides cons will be instructed to think it was the wrong thing. I never got an explanation how cons could support Iraq 100 % and Libya 0 %.

Can one con explain why they supported invading Iraq to "get rid of a dictator who 'has' WMDs" but would not support any military action to "get rid of a dictator who actually has WMDs and has used them".
Using past bad behavior to justify present bad behavior is a juvenile tactic.

Are you in favor of attacking syria? If so, why?
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Using past bad behavior to justify present bad behavior is a juvenile tactic.
no, 'misparaphrasing' what I said is a juvenile tactic. I want a con to explain "how" they can mindlessly ignore their own values and rail against a possible military strike in Syria. We both know the answer is "because they were told to". Until 50 % of America stops parroting what they are told think we will never have an honest and intelligent conversation.

Are you in favor of attacking syria? If so, why?
I already told you "right now, no".
 

P. Kersey

Banned
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
324
Location
30n x 90w
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
no, 'misparaphrasing' what I said is a juvenile tactic.
That's not what I did.

I want a con to explain "how" they can mindlessly ignore their own values and rail against a possible military strike in Syria.
Anyone who is against attacking syria is a "con"? hmmmm..are you sure?

Let's try this, then;
I'd like a "lib" (is that the opposite of "con"?) to explain to me how they could be against attacking iraq, a sovereign nation who had done nothing to the u.s. (see obama and bidens comments prior to the attack) yet be in favor of now attacking syria, a sovereign nation who has done nothing to the u.s?



We both know the answer is "because they were told to".
Really? Are you sure, or is this an excuse to display bias and propagandize?

Until 50 % of America stops parroting what they are told think we will never have an honest and intelligent conversation.
This country is so polarized by people name calling and pushing their hyperpartisan agendas that there can't be "honest and intelligent conversation".

..and that's just how the politicians like it. Divide and conquer.
Anyone who thinks "their" side or "their" candidate is different is a tool and has been thoroughly duped.
The communists call them "useful idiots" I believe.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That's not what I did.

Anyone who is against attacking syria is a "con"? hmmmm..are you sure?
.
Not only is it exactly what you did, you did it again. No where in anything I posted can you conclude I said " Anyone who is against attacking syria is a "con". I asked cons a question about Syria. My statements are not vague but strangely you keep "misunderstanding" them.

and fyi, the country is polarized because one side refuses to engage in an honest and intelligent conversation.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Having leaked to the world, and thus to Syrian President Bashar Assad, a detailed briefing of the coming U.S. air attack on Syria — (1) the source (offshore warships and perhaps a bomber or two), (2) the weapon (cruise missiles), (3) the duration (two or three days), (4) the purpose (punishment, not "regime change") — perhaps we should be publishing the exact time the bombs will fall, lest we disrupt dinner in Damascus.

So much for the element of surprise. Into his third year of dithering, two years after declaring Assad had to go, one year after drawing — then erasing — his own red line on chemical weapons, Barack Obama has been stirred to action.

Or more accurately, shamed into action. Which is the worst possible reason. A president doesn't commit soldiers to a war for which he has zero enthusiasm. Nor does one go to war for demonstration purposes.

Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose.

The purpose can be either punitive or strategic: either a spasm of conscience that will inflame our opponents yet leave not a trace, or a considered application of abundant American power to alter the strategic equation that is now heavily favoring our worst enemies in the heart of the Middle East.

There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel — that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration.

Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.

[Excerpt]


Read More:
Is Obama Being Shamed Into A War With Syria He Doesn't Want? - Investors.com


Obama and Bo's tail wagging the dog.
Why did the Syrian government order a chemical strike on its own people? What was the end game? IMO, until we know the answer to that question, we ought to keep our noses out of it.

Here.We.Go.Again.
 

P. Kersey

Banned
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
324
Location
30n x 90w
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
the country is polarized because one side refuses to engage in an honest and intelligent conversation.
right..it's all somebody else's fault. "one side" is pure and blameless the other side is dishonest and unintelligent.. got it..

Bias noted. :roll:
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
President Portman will be able to blame everything ill in his tenure on Obama, so it could be worse I suppose.
do you honestly think Portman will win in 2024? and I think you meant Hillary, not Obama ...
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why did the 0 great one put himself [US ]in such a narrow box though? Maybe the folks around him should take up chess to develop some ability to see moves ahead, or even play some pool so we can set the cue ball up properly for the next shot. Or is that too much to ask?
careful, this could blow up in your face, like the killing of Bin Laden and winning two presidential elections did ...
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
right..it's all somebody else's fault. "one side" is pure and blameless the other side is dishonest and unintelligent.. got it..

Bias noted. :roll:
Lets sum up your posts
'misparaphrase' and deflect.

'misparaphrase' and deflect.

'misparaphrase' and deflect.

mission accomplished P, take the rest of the day off.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
do you honestly think Portman will win in 2024? and I think you meant Hillary, not Obama ...
God, I hope the democrats nominate Hillary. It will be a cake walk for Portman in 2016.
 

P. Kersey

Banned
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
324
Location
30n x 90w
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Lets sum up your posts
'misparaphrase' and deflect.

'misparaphrase' and deflect.

'misparaphrase' and deflect.

mission accomplished P, take the rest of the day off.
Weak dodge and dishonest.
Here..remember posting this?

vern said:
the country is polarized because one side refuses to engage in an honest and intelligent conversation.
definition of "one"; unique: used to indicate the only thing or person with a specific characteristic

opposite of "honest" is dishonest

opposite of "intelligent" is unintelligent.

Hoisted on your own petard. embarrassing, huh?
 
Top Bottom