3 ms·

Kinda crazy that the Europeans have decided that Obama is war mongering considering there is no possible American interest in getting into this mess, and just a

by jordanb 13y ago

Kinda crazy that the Europeans have decided that Obama is war mongering considering there is no possible American interest in getting into this mess, and just a few weeks ago the administration was arguing about the finer points of the meaning of the word 'chemical.' EDIT: Ok so with respect to your insinuation about "American interests," honestly, I'd like to hear what you think they are. Obama called the situation in Libya a "shit sandwich," and as far as I can tell Syria is a shit hoagie. So I'd really like to know what can be gained in Syria other than brownie points from knowing we upheld the R2P. With respect to Powell and Iraq, I'd observe that Kerry is not Powell, Obama is not Bush, Syria is not Iraq, and the evidence at hand isn't curveball and yellowcake. Bringing up Powell and Iraq while ignoring the particulars of that event and this event is sloppy reasoning. I haven't personally seen any evidence that Obama "rushing to bomb" anyone. I've seen months and months of the Obama administration trying to figure out how they are going to wipe their hands of this mess, and a week of them deciding that they can't. But on the whole I agree that you can't "un-bomb" someone, but you also can't spool back a massacre, and you can't uphold the R2P after-the-fact. We learned that in Rwanda.

jacquesm 13y ago
I'm pretty sure not all Europans have decided anything. Let's just say at least I'm not in a hurry to bomb places, that's something that you can always do but never undo and I recall a speech by one Colin Powell in front of the UN that turned out to be a little less than honest afterwards. Wars are easy to get into hard to get out of, you break it you own it. What American interests are is sometimes harder to see than one would wish and the eagerness with which wars are entered into is something to be suspicious of in and of itself. Breaking trust is a tricky thing, it's hard to mend afterwards and nothing better to distract from politically inconvenient news than a good old war. There is no B3 bomber. Regarding your edit: I'm just advocating caution and not rushing to conclusions here until the facts are in and properly verified. You seem intent on pushing me into one camp or another, I have no dog in the race but I have an innate distrust for overly convenient and otherwise hard to explain occurrences. I have a very hard time believing that Assad would not be aware of what the consequences of gassing his own people would be, as well as of some of the hard to verify facts around this particular instance. It's true that a massacre can't be unwound but I feel that if we're going to go in based on that case that we should at least have the patience to wait until the ink on the report documenting that case has dried. Syria is a flashpoint in the middle-east bordering Israel, Turkey and Jordan, has strong Russian and Iranian support. The Iranians have an absolutely enormous army that sits a mere stones throw away. Igniting a war there rather than what is right now a civil war could have far reaching consequences and might make the Iraq war look like a picnic. If the gas attack was real and orchestrated with the support of Assad then the Russians and the Iranians will likely drop their support. If a war gets started (potentially making it impossible to ever find out what happened beforehand) it could easily get out of hand.
mladenkovacevic 13y ago
Let's take a look at some facts about the chemical attack that was supposed to have been the "red-line" - Assad is in this region winning against the rebels - without the use of chemical weapons (he is aware that using chemical weapons would get US involved) - Timing: this is happening in sync with UN inspectors arriving to investigate chemical attacks - Rebels have previously used chemical weapons in this conflict (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels...) and there are videos of them experimenting with using sarin on dogs. - Obama and the war machine are synchronously beating the war drums and committing to an attack before the UN inspectors have even had a chance to conclude their investigation of the chemical attack site

by jordanb 13y ago

jacquesm 13y ago

I'm pretty sure not all Europans have decided anything. Let's just say at least I'm not in a hurry to bomb places, that's something that you can always do but never undo and I recall a speech by one Colin Powell in front of the UN that turned out to be a little less than honest afterwards. Wars are easy to get into hard to get out of, you break it you own it. What American interests are is sometimes harder to see than one would wish and the eagerness with which wars are entered into is something to be suspicious of in and of itself. Breaking trust is a tricky thing, it's hard to mend afterwards and nothing better to distract from politically inconvenient news than a good old war. There is no B3 bomber. Regarding your edit: I'm just advocating caution and not rushing to conclusions here until the facts are in and properly verified. You seem intent on pushing me into one camp or another, I have no dog in the race but I have an innate distrust for overly convenient and otherwise hard to explain occurrences. I have a very hard time believing that Assad would not be aware of what the consequences of gassing his own people would be, as well as of some of the hard to verify facts around this particular instance. It's true that a massacre can't be unwound but I feel that if we're going to go in based on that case that we should at least have the patience to wait until the ink on the report documenting that case has dried. Syria is a flashpoint in the middle-east bordering Israel, Turkey and Jordan, has strong Russian and Iranian support. The Iranians have an absolutely enormous army that sits a mere stones throw away. Igniting a war there rather than what is right now a civil war could have far reaching consequences and might make the Iraq war look like a picnic. If the gas attack was real and orchestrated with the support of Assad then the Russians and the Iranians will likely drop their support. If a war gets started (potentially making it impossible to ever find out what happened beforehand) it could easily get out of hand.

mladenkovacevic 13y ago

Let's take a look at some facts about the chemical attack that was supposed to have been the "red-line" - Assad is in this region winning against the rebels - without the use of chemical weapons (he is aware that using chemical weapons would get US involved) - Timing: this is happening in sync with UN inspectors arriving to investigate chemical attacks - Rebels have previously used chemical weapons in this conflict (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels...) and there are videos of them experimenting with using sarin on dogs. - Obama and the war machine are synchronously beating the war drums and committing to an attack before the UN inspectors have even had a chance to conclude their investigation of the chemical attack site