I am not entirely convinced this is a "triumph of Reason and Diplomacy", but rather one of questionable fortune (Obama-America) and clever opportunism (Putin-Assad). To me it is more a case where a fool, not looking where he is going, falls into a pile of manure and climbs out of the muck clutching a Dollar coin. Yes finding the dollar takes some of the embarrassment out of the pratfall, but is the reward enough to go looking for another pile to jump into? Vlad the Imprisoner and Assad the Executioner are the winners in this, while President Touchy-Feely get a modestly honorable way out of being caught with his pants around his knee's while everybody quietly snicker's behind their hands. To be fair I prefer this to the President launching a missile strike with almost no support at home for the idea, but this plan has too many ways to blow up in our faces and it goes far to insure Assad's survival as the despot of Syria. I wouldn't be surprised if by this time next year if Vlad the Imprisoner isn't in the running for the Nobel Peace Prize. If that ain't a crock, nothing is.
I disagree. I think there are "good guys" in this fight. The problem is I think they exist on both sides although there are probably more on the side of the rebels. Certainly there are "bad guys" there as well. The trick for the US is figuring out how to encourage the former and discourage the latter.
There is no reason for such bitter despondency. Missiles will be launched, bombs will fall, I have no doubts about that. I said just that the reasons for attack are a bit odd. That's all.
Rep for your vivid description Belasar. Still I think there is a very good chance that these odious weapons will be destroyed which must benefit us all. This whole region seems be a re-run of our Catholic\Protestant wars of religion - but Sunni versus Shia. Assad father and son were\are vile creatures but it maybe that there are equally detestable ones on the other side and the longer this goes the more the moderates get pushed aside. I had thought that it would be better to divide Syria 20/80, on basis of the two major faiths but now seems more likely that Assad will win in the short term.
I too think that when all is said and done most of the stockpiles will be destroyed, but considering the players involved I suspect that more than one will "fall off the back of the truck" between now and then. Also I yet to see any provision for eliminating his ability to create new stockpiles in the future. Oh, and thank you for the salute. I don't do pithy often, but on occasion I do have my moments
There are those of us that do not wish to ignore...Just provide the proof...not you personally...and I'll be at the front of the queue to hit anyone...It surely is not above us in the west to provide that truth and proof if it exists...the old danger to scources bit is scurrilous..as if Cameron had such proof from Ayios Nik he would have used it...They don't seem to have picked up the same information the Israelis have provided...And yet Ayios Nik is watching, listening...and has the tech to leave the Isrealis in the dark ages where monitoring is concerned. And its no secret they are listening and watching...So provide the proof and then...we can take action...As no one from the RAF is willing to provide that proof then There is NO PROOF.
There certainly are good and bad on both sides...I personally will never side with anyone who cuts the heart out of his enemy in 21st century and eats it on camera...All hail the rebels then...
I'd like to think that the decision to not attack previously was less about the President making a wiser decision, rather- that the NSA after spying on Western emails, blogs, etc showed that there was very little support amongst the majority. The Pope [best. Pope. ever.] made an excellent argument against war, we should all heed his advice. What would cause more death/strife in the long run? -Let it run its' course yonder, or intervene with our guys/weapons?...I vote: let them hash it out yonder. Keep our noses clean. Let them suffer the consequences of their beliefs, their electing systems that selected the men [of course no women] who have caused the current situation. Live by that sword... Otherwise, civil war yonder, like we went through. In order that they create the place they want to live in, like we did. er, my handicap is showing again. dang
Great post Poppy! What a choice; Whom should Obama support: 1. Assadists 2. Jihadists or 3. Al Qaeda ??? Isn't that an odd choice? But the trick is that the question must be put in a broader context because there are many better ways to spend tax-payers money: education, health care, traffic safety etc. And, if they really want to fight until extinction, let them do so. Without them this world would be a better place. But if Obama really must make some decision, to show muscles, he should bomb them all: until extinction. For the same reason: to make this world a better place.
More none proof....Sky news making a big story out of Syria giving evidence to Russia this morning of who was culpable for the attack that has crossed the red line.. No news of what evidence provided or how...Just supposed to be evidence that the rebels did the deed... We await the proof...just like awaiting the proof that it was Assads animals... But if there is plenty of evidence...and no proof...then bugger em all....Can't see why one sides evidence is anymore proof than the other sides evidence...if we are to go to war...commit a war act...Do anything that may kill innocents...then provide the Bloody proof...Ohterwise...they can all go hang..
Indeed, evidence should support the need for any possible action, especially a military one, with serious consequences. But the report presented to the UN ignored evidence submitted by Syrian officials about previous attacks on August 22, 23 in 34. If the UN inspectors, headed by Swedish scientist Dr. Ake Salstrom were indeed impartial observers, they should have considered all available evidence. So, the UN "evidence" is just show-and-hide game. Western media ignores the existence of additional evidence too. Why? Here is the source.
Here is even more: fabrication of the truth: How the Western services fabricated the ’’chemical attack’’ of Ghouta
Of course not. He should mind his own business, not to drop bombs over foreign countries, which is not really the best way to make the world better place. But I don't think he is selecting targets randomly. There is some logics in that madhouse: for example: Afghanistan is already ruined, now it is Syria and the next will be Iran. I am 100% sure about Iran.
Interventions in Syria and Afghanistan are aimed to soften Iran before the ultimate attack. Not that long ago, some other regime used military force on soft targets in Europe too. PS: @merdiolu: today I am out of "salutes" but tomorrow I will first "salute" your post because you fully deserve it!
??? Seams like about every 2nd or third post you make I think "could he possibly say anyting more absurd" then a few posts later you illustrate that you can. I suspect it's going to take a while for you to top this one. If I'm catching your meaning right we can invoke Godwin at this point.
Let us be careful about calling any nation "Nazi" like or you lot may have to find another expired equine to abuse.
@belasar: Not really! I have made an implicit reference to Soviet use of military force after the WWII to subordinate weakened East and Central European nations and to divide Europe for decades. We should learn something from the past to improve our common future by preventing recurrence of unfortunate events.
Tamino, I think you are badly mistaken when you credit this administration with having any coherent foreign policy at all, especially any long range policy. They don't. They simply react to what other nations do, and that reaction is generally confused and contradictory. This is why Putin was able to manipulate Obama so easily - Obama had no idea what he wanted to do anyway, so it wasn't difficult to simply impose a Russian solution.
