Posts on the Israeli Settlements have been split off to form their own thread to keep this thread on topic and coherent. They can be found in The stump under Israeli Settlements. Carry on.
Well I just heard the US administration praise its oldest Ally - La Belle France SO what does that make G Britain - let me see - well America's oldest er um... enemy!
This is John Kerry talking...It means nothing...Really! France was not our "oldest ally" in 1986 when we struck Libya. Nor were they our "oldest ally" in Gulf War II, I recall the media being quite critical of them at those times. I also recall during the beginning of Gulf War II that "French" fries were renamed "Freedom" fries. Political long-term memory only goes back about a month or so, anything that occurred before that timeframe is forgotten. Edit: Our "oldest ally" varies depending on the month and year.
Obama has in effect, canceled the strike. He now says he will obey the constitution and ask for congressional approval, after they return from recess. I don't think he has the pull to get congressional authorization since there is opposition in both parties.
Tiffin...cancelled....Never....they can take Syria...take our women...no please..do take our women...take our freedom...but they'll never take our tiffin or even elevenses...
That would be sensible decision for him. Pinprick air strikes would mean nothing , solve nothing , accomplish nothing except showing public "we are doing something" and gain political credit. Considering more serious Russian involvement it is not worth it. Just stick original NATO doctrine , protection of NATO allies territorial integrity (like Turkey ) or interests. Otherwise it would be another "coalition of unwilling" with USA going all alone and carrying main weight.
Thanks for your input, merdiolu. It's nice to hear an opinion from someone in the region, and I agree with your views on the international scene. However, I think you are wrong about any US political credit that Obama might get for such an attack. Obama has almost no support for going to war with Syria from the American public. A recent poll says that only about 9% of Americans favor attacking Syria - link below. Since taking office, Obama has dissolved any foreign policy credibility the US may have had. He has insulted allies and kissed the feet of enemies, and is now busily arming radical Jihadis across the region. No doubt, some of those arms and weapons systems will eventually find their way into your own country - a longstanding NATO member. They will be used against Jordan, Israel, and in Iraq. Opinion Poll: http://www.voanews.com/content/skepticism-grows-in-us-over-military-strike-against-syria/1740683.html
Oh, I should have added that the worst aspect of this, for American foreign policy credibility, is that he never should have made such a threat in the first place! This was a tremendous failure in front of the whole world. The British (wisely) bowed out immediately, the American public is solidly against him, the military is against any such action and so now, he throws it to congress - and with the lack of support in the US public, they will never vote a war powers resolution for such an action. Obama has surrendered before he even began.
The way I read this was that he intended more 'consultations' with Congress, but some form of formal declaration from them is not what he is after. This is dependent upon future actions by Assad. Another 'napalm' attack or worse and all bets are off. With the War Powers Act he does not need Congressional approval, they can only cut off spending after 60 days.
I think you may be misreading the latest move. He is in effect, looking for a way out. He shot his mouth off and was rebuffed by our allies, and by the American public. So, now he's punting it to congress. Congress has the same pressure from the public, so will never authorize any such action. He'll blame the republicans, as he does for all of his failures.
I believe you are at least partially correct Kodiak, but I also suspect a deeper game here by Obama. On Thursday I would have said strikes were at least 95% likely for a "Go", now I think they are still more likely than not, say 75% to 80%. Which in Washington is close to a sure bet as it gets. This is how I read their game plan. This Sunday their "heavy hitters" in the White house and Congress will blitz the news programs to structure the debate and firm up their support for strikes. During the recess phone calls will fly fast and furious to key members on Congressional committees, the purpose being to collect enough notable politicos on board. While this is in progress I suspect Obama expects, or hopes, that the UN inspection teams will provide a smoking gun or that Assad will escalate with some other form of attack that will provide new gruesome images that will tilt opinion further in favor of action. Indications are that the rebellion is widespread enough to make this quite possible. As for Congress, they will not thank him for putting this in their court and will do almost anything to be rid of this burden. Yes they will offer sound bites about why we shouldn't strike but they are loath to have their name next to an actual vote on yes or no. There is almost no possibility of any actual general vote on even a non-binding resolution, but more likely Obama will try to get key Committees to offer some form of support which is far easier to get. I suspect that a week to ten days from now their will be a ramp up of a probable strike occurring. Sooner if Assad is a complete idiot. Obama will promote that he "went to Congress' to "seek their council" and if he gets it (however obscure) fine, if not he will push the idea that as CinC events forced his hand and he had to act. Please note that I am not a supporter of the President, nor do I advocate the strikes, but I have seen this dance before from both parties and I'm a deep skeptic of official pronouncements.
See below. Now, that doesn't mean that Obama can't reverse himself yet again and go ahead with a strike. Yet, I think he's abandoned that idea - it's become political gamesmanship. He can let the matter die in congress, then hope to gain political capital the next time an atrocity occurs by blaming republicans for not allowing him to attack Assad. The media will play along with this. They've already ignored every Jihadi atrocity (and they have been far worse than Assad) and loudly attacked Assad for every atrocity that can be laid at his feet. Obama will still look like an idiot in the international realm, but he may be able to pull back a few credits with the lowest common denominator voters. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579046902682624072.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
Obama's boned either way. If he had launched, the far right would be screaming for his head. Now that he hasn't launched those on the far-right still don't pull any punches. Even political non-entity Sarah Palin, almost one-term governor of a state where next to nobody lives, has had this to say about the matter on her Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin
Except of course that's not the thought process. Just because the majority of people responding to a poll think that way doesn't mean that the majority of the decision makers think that way. Indeed I suspect a lot of people who said it's not in our interest and it isn't going to help would vote that way no matter what the military issue. What this does point out is that Obama hasn't made much of an effort to inform the populace on the issues. I suspect to a large extent because he was hoping to avoid being put in the position he's in now. Who says they would be "pinprick" air strikes though? Serious damage could be done to both the weapons stockpiles and the delivery systems. The loss of the latter along with air defense assets and the assets collocated with the above could have considerable impact on the Syrian regime. The Russian involvement might or might not be a long term negative. Indeed it looks to me like he painted himself into a corner and when several Congress men said that Congress should be making this decision or at least informed he seized on it as a way of out. Now whatever happens Congress gets a share of the blame/credit but since it's something he didn't want to do anyway he's not worried about sharing the credit.
For those with a low blood pressure only (thus : ...,.....,you have been warned) : on You Tube : cementary of British War Victims destroyed by Muslim mob .
Nothing new L...same done in Iraq...Been done in Egypt...And far east...S..t happens. Of course though if all these folk including Nato who are adamant that the Syrian Govt, did the chemical deed...then when they show the proof, I'm all for Brit action. Until that day, why the hell should I trust em anymore.
