Moveon.org tells Obama not so fast on Syria

[ecofarm]

Did Godzilla and SmokeyJoe tell the US govt. has evidence?

Yes, that's who said so.

 

[head of joaquin]

Many conservatives are saying that Ted Cruz is a neoconservative plant.

Oh the weirdness that is conservative discourse!

 

[head of joaquin]

That's Funny.....seems the Progressives do. Wonder why they never clued you in? :lol:

The real reason not to intervene in Syria

Demands by politicians and pundits for intervention in Syria have become so strong that they now seem to be influencing U.S. policy. But are they right? The most emotionally powerful arguments came from the State Department former policy planning head Anne-Marie Slaughter. The Obama administration is in danger of letting genocide akin to the one in Rwanda in the 1990s occur, she wrote, in the Washington Post. The case of Rwanda haunts Democrats. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called not saving Rwandans her “greatest regret” from her time in office, “something that sits very heavy on all our souls.” U.N. ambassador Susan Rice has similarly expressed agony over U.S. failure to intervene in Rwanda.

Why are humanitarian interventions so difficult? Kuperman theorizes that when rebels are assisted by outside forces, they are unintentionally encouraged to become more reckless in fighting a regime or provoking it, resist negotiations, and expand their ambitions. Intervention can thereby produce a perverse situation of prolonging a conflict that results in more deaths. He calls this the “moral hazard of humanitarian intervention.” Even the expectation or the mistaken belief of outside support can encourage rebels to continue fighting or resist settlements.

Right now, the U.S. public is overwhelmingly hostile to military intervention in Syria. Kuperman speculates that what had previously been a nonviolent uprising in Syria in early 2011 became an armed rebellion when Syrians saw that the U.S. supported Libyan rebels. “I think the Syrians were looking at this and saying, ‘Hey, we’ve been peaceful and getting nothing while the Libyans got outside help,’” he says. As a result of the Syrian opposition transforming their methods from nonviolent to an armed rebellion, the death toll has increased approximately 15 times per week, estimates Kuperman.

It should also be noted that these are purely discussions of humanitarian interventions, divorced from considerations about American interests. For the U.S. in the Middle East, there are no good options: Non-intervention spurs resentment at perceived American indifference to suffering; intervention spurs resentment at perceived American meddling. Encouraging negotiations means discouraging grand ambitions; supporting one side means alienating another. The toxic history of American and Western imperialism in the Middle East means that for a long time, the U.S. is simply going to be disliked in the Middle East. As George Washington University professor Marc Lynch puts it in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, “In the Middle East, haters gonna hate.”

The humanitarian impulse is a noble one, spurred by good intentions. But good intentions, even if they don’t pave the road to hell, can sometimes take us a good way there. Those calling for intervention in Syria should seriously consider the possibility that outside interference may be counterproductive.....snip~

The real reason not to intervene in Syria - Salon.com

Exhibit A in how funny it is to watch conservatives trying to figure out how to respond to Obama's deliberations and caution.

I can just see you holding rightwing noise machine memo #1 in one hand and memo #2 in the other. #1 says attack Obama for not taking action against Assad because he's weak. #2 says attack Obama for taking action against Assad and being an imperial president.

You just don't know which one to use yet, so you're dithering.

 

[MMC]

Exhibit A in how funny it is to watch conservatives trying to figure out how to respond to Obama's deliberations and caution.

I can just see you holding rightwing noise machine memo #1 in one hand and memo #2 in the other. #1 says attack Obama for not taking action against Assad because he's weak. #2 says attack Obama for taking action against Assad and being an imperial president.

You just don't know which one to use yet, so you're dithering.

Right.....Salon telling Obama not to get involved is all due to what you call Obama deliberations and caution. :roll:

But don't worry.....one day you will actually learn what Politics is all about.

 

[Linc]

Not me.....I already gave that option for Obama and for covering Israel in some other threads.

Moreover it doesn't matter which wing of the same bird.....when it comes to the ME. One of the major problems has always been Rules of Engagement. Our politicians have been played. Thinking they got something in return. When they came home with nothing.

Just arrived in a Detroit suburb. Does everyone still think we are the only superpower? Must be forgetting China, Russia, the invisible India, what Israel could do to everyone, one billion Muslims and the emergence of Brazil. Sounds and looks like you guys think this is a game of RISK.

 

[Linc]

Right.....Salon telling Obama not to get involved is all due to what you call Obama deliberations and caution. :roll:

But don't worry.....one day you will actually learn what Politics is all about.

Quoting Salon makes you a pick-and-choose religionist.

 

[Linc]

Right.....Salon telling Obama not to get involved is all due to what you call Obama deliberations and caution. :roll:

But don't worry.....one day you will actually learn what Politics is all about.

I'm assuming you support Bill O'Reilly's talking points slamming "phony" cons since you line up on the con side of the ball.

 

[MMC]

Quoting Salon makes you a pick-and-choose religionist.

Nah.....it just goes to show ya I will check and see what the other side has to say. Sun Tzu.....Know thy enemy well! :lol:

 

[MMC]

I'm assuming you support Bill O'Reilly's talking points slamming "phony" cons since you line up on the con side of the ball.

Well, it looks like the Senate Republicans and Democrats are the one that are all tally-ho, hip hip and all full of Hurrahs and whatnots. Their the ones that thinks its a party and not a jack.

 

[Linc]

Nah.....it just goes to show ya I will check and see what the other side has to say. Sun Tzu.....Know thy enemy well! :lol:

The enemy within. Got it. Especially when you agree with someone on our team, even if for opposite reasons. That's what you're missing, our big tent. If you do force Obama out, who should Biden choose? Or will Joe also be taken out so Boehner can take over? 2ND amendment remediers led by Palin

 

[MMC]

The enemy within. Got it. Especially when you agree with someone on our team, even if for opposite reasons. That's what you're missing, our big tent. If you do force Obama out, who should Biden choose? Or will Joe also be taken out so Boehner can take over? 2ND amendment remediers led by Palin

No need to force Obama out.....another 3 more years of this and the Entire Country's last thought will be about putting another Democrat in the Oval office. Course in 2014 now.....we will solve that problem with the Senate. While still holding the House.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

No need to force Obama out.....another 3 more years of this and the Entire Country's last thought will be about putting another Democrat in the Oval office. Course in 2014 now.....we will solve that problem with the Senate. While still holding the House.

DYWB

do you wanna bet?

 

[MMC]

DYWB

do you wanna bet?

I'm not a gambling man.....but one thing is for certain. Those on the left best start praying it doesn't happen. Otherwise you know just how obsolete and isolated Obama becomes.

All to fitting of a fate.....so I doubt he will be forced out.

 

[Linc]

You don't keep a very close eye on the senate I see. Just for poopers, look at their four mod/con women in LA, GA, KY and NC. 3 out of 4 would be +1. Repubs are fully capable of picking loons in GA, LA and NC, with Turtle DuD getting sliced up by the TEAwing. And please take beating Begich and Pryor for granted. Both Clintons are still very popular in Arkansas.

No need to force Obama out.....another 3 more years of this and the Entire Country's last thought will be about putting another Democrat in the Oval office. Course in 2014 now.....we will solve that problem with the Senate. While still holding the House.

 

[Linc]

When will you guys get over yourselves? With Nixon's Watergate and Reagan's Iran-Contra, both of your guys were guilty of felonies. Are you really willing to let the all-white KGB agent Putin win to get back at the mixed-race guy. Does "Barack the magic Negro" ring a bell. And no Repubic walked it back.

I'm not a gambling man.....but one thing is for certain. Those on the left best start praying it doesn't happen. Otherwise you know just how obsolete and isolated Obama becomes.

All to fitting of a fate.....so I doubt he will be forced out.

 

[MMC]

You don't keep a very close eye on the senate I see. Just for poopers, look at their four mod/con women in LA, GA, KY and NC. 3 out of 4 would be +1. Repubs are fully capable of picking loons in GA, LA and NC, with Turtle DuD getting sliced up by the TEAwing. And please take beating Begich and Pryor for granted. Both Clintons are still very popular in Arkansas.

:Oopsie Guess you haven't been keeping as close of an eye out on it.....huh?

Republican odds for winning Senate next year just improved

It's the biggest storyline heading into next year's midterm elections: Will Republicans succeed in taking control of the U.S. Senate?

Republicans argue that an announcement over the weekend vastly improves their chances. Democrats vehemently disagree.

The news from Montana's former Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer. The man known for his signature bolo tie said he would not run for Senate next year, as many Democrats had expected.

Schweitzer captured nearly two-thirds of the vote in his 2008 re-election as governor of the red state and was seen by many as the best chance for the party to keep the seat of retiring Sen. Max Baucus blue.....snip~

Republican odds for winning Senate next year just improved - CNN.com

 

[Linc]

That news is literally MONTHS old. Please catch up. You're much better at the Bears.

Besides, former Repub gover D. Rehberg was a very good Governor and worked to build coalitions, an anomaly on your team. MT, WV and SD are Dem losses.

:Oopsie Guess you haven't been keeping as close of an eye out on it.....huh?

Republican odds for winning Senate next year just improved

It's the biggest storyline heading into next year's midterm elections: Will Republicans succeed in taking control of the U.S. Senate?

Republicans argue that an announcement over the weekend vastly improves their chances. Democrats vehemently disagree.

The news from Montana's former Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer. The man known for his signature bolo tie said he would not run for Senate next year, as many Democrats had expected.

Schweitzer captured nearly two-thirds of the vote in his 2008 re-election as governor of the red state and was seen by many as the best chance for the party to keep the seat of retiring Sen. Max Baucus blue.....snip~

Republican odds for winning Senate next year just improved - CNN.com

 

[MMC]

That news is literally MONTHS old. Please catch up. You're much better at the Bears.

Besides, former Repub gover D. Rehberg was a very good Governor and worked to build coalitions, an anomaly on your team. MT, WV and SD are Dem losses.

Not really. :lol:

Mon July 15, 2013....snip~

 

[American]

A conservative asking for evidence is like a saguaro cactus asking for water. . .

CIA And M16 Spy Agencies Knew Iraq Didn't Have WMDs Before 2003 Invasion - Business Insider

This is why most don't engage you in discussion, because you introduce irrelevant points.