The Red Line: Part Deux

#51
#51
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Yes, it is a UN issue but they will do nothing to get involved because of Russia & China. Owebama drew a line in the sand telling a dictator ruling country what they should NOT do to it's own citizens in this civil war of theirs & IF they cross that said line then WE (US) will be getting involved. So it looks like the POTUS has been called out now having to show just how big a threat his BS is. Now, he's caught between a bolder & a hard place to make a wiggle room decision. Does he show that he has some balls to slap Syria in the face w/some kind of air strike or use drones to do the dirty work for him? Are we arming those rebels that are fighting this civil war? Are we trying to throw Assad out of power and put a puppet in his place? What stake in Syria do we have because I've forgotten by NOW?
Click to expand...


Agree. By drawing a line in the sand Obama must now intervene in some way or the United States is going to be the laughing stock of the world as we were during the Carter years. Obama has been hawkish, why is he appearing weak against Syria? Is he afraid Putin will b***h slap him again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#52
#52
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Yes, it is a UN issue but they will do nothing to get involved because of Russia & China.
Click to expand...

It shows how worthless the UN is. The UN was set up for just this kind of scenario. I would be fine with NATO (plus others) stepping in. Just not unilateral world policing.

W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Owebama drew a line in the sand telling a dictator ruling country what they should NOT do to it's own citizens in this civil war of theirs & IF they cross that said line then WE (US) will be getting involved. So it looks like the POTUS has been called out now having to show just how big a threat his BS is. Now, he's caught between a bolder & a hard place to make a wiggle room decision.
Click to expand...

Dumb decision on his part. It was obvious that Assad was a desperate man with Russian backing (and possible Saddam chemical weapons).

W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Does he show that he has some balls to slap Syria in the face w/some kind of air strike or use drones to do the dirty work for him? Are we arming those rebels that are fighting this civil war? Are we trying to throw Assad out of power and put a puppet in his place? What stake in Syria do we have because I've forgotten by NOW?
Click to expand...

My guess would be all of the above in some shape, form, or fashion. My guess is that we were going/trying to arm the rebels and had second thoughts based on who they are. My guess is that they want to support the rebels (total) just enough to defeat Assad, then pick their faction to support and arm in the conflict afterwards.
 
#53
#53
Gramps said:
Agree. By drawing a line in the sand Obama must now intervene in some way or the United States is going to be the laughing stock of the world as we were during the Carter years. Obama has been hawkish, why is he appearing weak against Syria? Is he afraid Putin will b***h slap him again?
Click to expand...

Knowing this POS he doesn't want to offend Russia & China.....especially China or they will call for their $17 TRILLION dollars that's owed to them. China does have an upper hand in that.
 
#56
#56
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
So.....what is the amount?? The last time I saw that money clock thing it was ticking as fast as the speed of light.
Click to expand...

Last time I saw, we owed the Chinese about a trillion. Most of the 17 trillion is owed to ourselves.

Little reported though is that the Chinese owes us money as well.
 
#58
#58
volinbham said:
He can't - his supporters won't care. Meanwhile we lose a bit more influence globally.

Good thing or bad thing? I don't know but the problem with lines in the sand or red lines or whatever is that you have to back them up or future ones are meaningless.
Click to expand...

I think that showing this kind of weakness is what really puts us in danger as a target of terror. We piss them off with intervention, then show weakness, then they attack us thinking we may not come after them.

If we want to stay out we need to make it completely and totally clear that non-intervention is our objective. If we get attacked again, we put out a letter of marque and reprisal for the terrorists involved. We get justice. We prove we want to stay out of the Middle East. They'll run out of motivation to make us a target.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#59
#59
Anyone see videos of the aftermath of the attack? I saw a lot of people dead who bled out of the mouth and lying in constricted positions (fingers contorted from convulsions, etc). Lots of blood and foamy saliva coming from the mouths..they definitely got smacked with a nerve agent of some type. The symptoms for the survivors fits in with a nerve agent attack as well..can't see, hard breathing, nausea..
 
#61
#61
FLVOL_79 said:
Anyone see videos of the aftermath of the attack? I saw a lot of people dead who bled out of the mouth and lying in constricted positions (fingers contorted from convulsions, etc). Lots of blood and foamy saliva coming from the mouths..they definitely got smacked with a nerve agent of some type. The symptoms for the survivors fits in with a nerve agent attack as well..can't see, hard breathing, nausea..
Click to expand...

Yes sir & it was NOT pretty. This is really sad to say the least for a country to go to this low level on it's own citizens who are innocent in this tragedy.
 
#63
#63
Deploy humanitarian efforts/forces with orders to DEFEND the caregivers. Put every f'ing CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and FOX reporter on the ground in the affected area reporting to the world that wants to go. Give aid to the affected. Let them know that it is the US doing it alone. Tell the UN at the same time as we are doing it. Get in, give aid, defend as required, get out. One of the villagers that was interviewed said that no one in the world cared about them. Show care and leave. I realistically could give a **** about sovereignty in the use of WMD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#64
#64
82_VOL_83 said:
Deploy humanitarian efforts/forces with orders to DEFEND the caregivers. Put every f'ing CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and FOX reporter on the ground in the affected area reporting to the world that wants to go. Give aid to the affected. Let them know that it is the US doing it alone. Tell the UN at the same time as we are doing it. Get in, give aid, defend as required, get out. One of the villagers that was interviewed said that no one in the world cared about them. Show care and leave. I realistically could give a **** about sovereignty in the use of WMD.
Click to expand...

That is what sucks about being the POTUS. It is very easy for us to sit here and scream isolationism. It is quite another to have the power with the stroke of your pen to stop genocide from happening when the whole world willingly sits on their hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#65
#65
PKT_VOL said:
That is what sucks about being the POTUS. It is very easy for us to sit here and scream isolationism. It is quite another to have the power with the stroke of your pen to stop genocide from happening when the whole world willingly sits on their hands.
Click to expand...

It gets old being the "cause" of everything bad in the world when the people are doing it to themselves. We have had our share of foolish issues, but having everything in the world bad blamed on the US is just getting old.
 
#66
#66
PKT_VOL said:
That is what sucks about being the POTUS. It is very easy for us to sit here and scream isolationism. It is quite another to have the power with the stroke of your pen to stop genocide from happening when the whole world willingly sits on their hands.
Click to expand...

Not isolationism. Diplomacy and non-intervention. If we were free-trading partners we would have a positive and powerful influence over them. Opening communication channels would westernize them. Some times you have to look for long term solutions, no matter how difficult it is to stand by and watch this sort of thing go down. I know what you mean, though.
 
#67
#67
82_VOL_83 said:
It gets old being the "cause" of everything bad in the world when the people are doing it to themselves. We have had our share of foolish issues, but having everything in the world bad blamed on the US is just getting old.
Click to expand...

Being the superpower in the world, that would happen regardless (similar to the POTUS getting blame or credit for everything that happens).
 
#68
#68
n_huffhines said:
Not isolationism. Diplomacy and non-intervention. If we were free-trading partners we would have a positive and powerful influence over them. Opening communication channels would westernize them. Some times you have to look for long term solutions, no matter how difficult it is to stand by and watch this sort of thing go down. I know what you mean, though.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what "influence" one would have because you have stressed that we should not impose trade restrictions, embargoes, etc. Under your foreign policy, it would be business as usual regardless of the situation.

I'm not sure you would feel the same if you were one of the very few people in the world (POTUS) who had the power to stop genocide.

It is one thing to have a general, abstract ideology, it is quite another to have countless innocent (and powerless) lives via chemical weapons genocide on your conscience when you go to bed. Not to mention the precedence you would be setting.
 
#69
#69
PKT_VOL said:
I am not sure what "influence" one would have because you have stressed that we should not impose trade restrictions, embargoes, etc. Under your foreign policy, it would be business as usual regardless of the situation.

I'm not sure you would feel the same if you were one of the very few people in the world (POTUS) who had the power to stop genocide.

It is one thing to have a general, abstract ideology, it is quite another to have countless innocent (and powerless) lives via chemical weapons genocide on your conscience when you go to bed. Not to mention the precedence you would be setting.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be secticide? Not to be confused with insecticide.
 
#70
#70
PKT_VOL said:
I am not sure what "influence" one would have because you have stressed that we should not impose trade restrictions, embargoes, etc. Under your foreign policy, it would be business as usual regardless of the situation.

I'm not sure you would feel the same if you were one of the very few people in the world (POTUS) who had the power to stop genocide.

It is one thing to have a general, abstract ideology, it is quite another to have countless innocent (and powerless) lives via chemical weapons genocide on your conscience when you go to bed. Not to mention the precedence you would be setting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because we couldn't possibly have influence without the threat of sanctions. Makes sense.

It's not about my abstract ideology, it's about cost/benefit analysis. Intervening is a short term solution with very bad consequences. Once again, I'm looking for a long term solution. 6 decades of sanctions and interventions and the results are horrible. Turn your emotions off. You can't let them influence policy.
 
#74
#74
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, because we couldn't possibly have influence without the threat of sanctions. Makes sense.

It's not about my abstract ideology, it's about cost/benefit analysis. Intervening is a short term solution with very bad consequences. Once again, I'm looking for a long term solution. 6 decades of sanctions and interventions and the results are horrible. Turn your emotions off. You can't let them influence policy.
Click to expand...

Sanctions don't work when you do them half-assed. That is the problem. When you involve liberals in any process where human suffering (the inevitable cost of sanctions) can be used to garner votes, sanctions won't work.

I don't think that any kind of diplomacy will ever work with tribal warfare. That is all that Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any of the ME is. You generally have had tribal leaders fighting other tribal leaders for centuries. Now you just have the same thing on the "country sized" scale instead of the village sized scale.

Walk softly and carry a big stick.....too bad we haven't lived by that. Unfortunately, the liberals haven't let us do that. When you constantly pick at people, you are a bully. When you mind your P's and Q's in the global community and then whack the **** out of someone that needs it, you become a peacekeeper.
 
#75
#75
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, because we couldn't possibly have influence without the threat of sanctions. Makes sense.
Click to expand...

You have taken the economic and military options off the table. What the hell is left beside giving someone straight up cash money?

Diplomacy only works when you either have something to offer or something to be afraid of. Without such, you are just politely asking them to do something.

n_huffhines said:
It's not about my abstract ideology, it's about cost/benefit analysis. Intervening is a short term solution with very bad consequences. Once again, I'm looking for a long term solution. 6 decades of sanctions and interventions and the results are horrible. Turn your emotions off. You can't let them influence policy.
Click to expand...

I would normally agree. However, genocide is different. I imagine you think we should have sat on our hands during the Holocaust.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top