Obama will need Israel to sway votes in Congress

[WFFaithful]

 

[WFFaithful]

 

[BillBrasky]

The best part about the whole vote is that it's forcing the GOP and the Dems to divide and pick what they value more: their international views or their views on Obama. The GOP is split between guys who want to be so anti-Obama that they're going to withdraw from the world stage entirely while the Dems don't want to go to war with anyone yet Obama has said he wants to strike. Political drama at its finest domestically.

Not exactly. True conservatives should want to stay out of this completely, while also accomplishing the act of showing up a Democratic WARHAWK president.

 

[greekdeac2011]

If we do attack Syria, there will be boots on the ground. This thing could spiral into an all out WWIII if Iran/Syria decides to attack Israel in the process.

 

[Wrangor]

RJ and JDMH, Pelosi and Boehner...I've never been more sure that military intervention in Syria is an awful, awful idea.

This is pretty much the exact thought I had. Anything that can get those 3 sets of polar opposites on the same team must be a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[FuckmouthedRube]

When the smoke clears away, the Republican Party is going to be even more emaciated than it is now. And what continues to blow my mind is that for years & years, the Republican Party used to be so good at politics, constantly outmaneuvering the Democrats who could never get their act together. And now the GOP is the gang that can't shoot straight. Gotta be thankful for the Tea Party nuts in that respect. They've certainly done a number on the Grand Old Party! (Are they still on schedule to try to shut down the government over defunding ACA? I guess most of those new hotshots in the House weren't around in the 90s, the last time the GOP pulled that stunt.)

The Tea Party premise is that America is inherently conservative and the only reason Obama won twice is because "true conservatives" pouted and stayed home in 2008 and 2012 because McCain and Mitt were too moderate. That assumes that somehow conservatives sat out the GOP primaries too. The first step to purification is getting rid of all the RINOs. Smaller purist party means 20 Senators who can't pass or block anything. They'd rather cede control to people they disagree with 100% of the time than align with people they agree with 70% of the time.

 

[RacerDeac]

John Kerry, Pelosi and Obama the warmongers...not a surprise, but still so maddening that war and the lives of our soldiers and innocent civilians is really just a matter of politics and who is in charge.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/3/kerry-no-doubt-assad-used-weapons-civilians/

Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Tuesday that members of Congress who refused to authorize retaliatory strikes against Syria would be responsible when the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad gasses its citizens or when North Korea or Iran attempts to use nuclear weapons.

 

[RacerDeac]

BKF, you're doing a hell of a job discussing everything but the warmongering Democrats you've pledged allegiance to who want to march us into yet another nasty mess in the Middle East.

 

[TownieDeac]

BKF, you're doing a hell of a job discussing everything but the warmongering Democrats you've pledged allegiance to who want to march us into yet another nasty mess in the Middle East.

To me, it comes down to this. Things are overwhelmingly complicated. The methods in which we would attack are somehow a mix of counterinsurgency, conventional warfare, and modern methods. The sociopolitical aspects of it are almost more complicated than any we've ever faced before. The sides, intelligence, and plan all seem unclear.

And further complicating things is the fact that Obama seemingly painted himself into a corner in two ways. First, he campaigned on this notion of getting troops out of places they didn't belong, and cutting down on policing the world. That definitely goes against this way you're trying to paint him as a warmonger. But then he bluffed (in my opinion) with this whole chemical weapon red line business, and now that people want to hold his feet to the fire on it, he almost has no choice in the matter. Either he's overwhelmingly weak and sets an awful precedent about making threats to world bullies, or he's a warhawk going back on his old campaign promise.

And regardless of what move he makes, the situation in Syria almost certainly promises to turn into the next Egypt/Libya.

These are my naive thoughts.

 

[RacerDeac]

I mostly agree with all of your thoughts. Just having a chuckle at BKF's ranting about the Tea Party and Republican party on a thread about Obama and the Democratic leadership's attempts to rally support around bombing Syria.

 

[TownieDeac]

Sounds to me like you know pretty well where you stand on this, bob.

 

[RJKarl]

If we do attack Syria, there will be boots on the ground. This thing could spiral into an all out WWIII if Iran/Syria decides to attack Israel in the process.

This isn't Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz. Besides actually having fought in a war Hegel and Kerry and Obama, as CIC, understand sending US troops would unite all the factions against the US.

You have to tip your hat to the RW brainwashing machine at their success at getting Dems to stop being rational. The RWers have gotten gullible dems to think we will send troops when that will not happen.

 

[RJKarl]

How many times does Obama have to say he's not going to put boots on the ground in Syria before Dems believe him?

I understand Republicans won't believe Obama saying today is Wednesday.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

how can he guarantee no troops? while I can't say it's a lie, it's still fucking fantasy. plus what happens if this "involvement" drags on for 5 years of babysitting

 

[RacerDeac]

This isn't Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz. Besides actually having fought in a war Hegel and Kerry and Obama, as CIC, understand sending US troops would unite all the factions against the US.

You have to tip your hat to the RW brainwashing machine at their success at getting Dems to stop being rational. The RWers have gotten gullible dems to think we will send troops when that will not happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/john-kerry-boots-on-the-ground_n_3861860.html

"I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country," he said.

I think it's cute that you take Obama's word that he will never put boots on the ground...meanwhile, he's the same guy who said he would shutdown Guantanamo and who campaigned against interventionist policies and warmongering. He's a politician. He's just like Bush. Get your head out of your ass. Do you read what is being said?

Kerry later circled back to further explain that statement. "I don't want anybody misinterpreting this from earlier," he said. "This authorization does not contemplate and should not have any allowance for troops on the ground."

"What I was doing was hypothesizing about a potential -- it might occur at some point in time. But not in this authorization, in no way, be crystal clear," he said. "There is no problem in our having the language that has zero capacity for American troops on the ground within the authorization the president is asking for."

Key point: THIS AUTHORIZATION. It's politician CYA speak. But, since we know that bombing Syria is likely to escalate things, there will surely be another authorization forthcoming when Israel is attacked or another country gets involved. Stop pretending that this is a simple situation and that we're just going to drop some bombs, blow up some sites (from which the WMD's, if they exist, have already been moved anyway), kill a few innocent women and children, and then get on with repairing the US economy.

 

[RJKarl]

We didn't send troops to Libya or Tunisia.

To be honest a five year civil war in Syria helps us.It will weaken Syria. It will weaken Iran. It will weaken Hezbollah. It will weaken AQ. It will also create deep rifts in the extremists communities in the Arab World.

I will be absolutely flabbghasted if Obama sends a single armed soldier to Syria. The only possibility is a UN Peacekeeping Force that may have a few Americans. Those in charge will understand having Americans among them will put the others in danger. This group won't be shooting at people.

 

[RacerDeac]

To be honest a five year civil war in Syria helps us.It will weaken Syria. It will weaken Iran. It will weaken Hezbollah. It will weaken AQ. It will also create deep rifts in the extremists communities in the Arab World.

And it will give us more chances to blow up shit with drones!!!!

You make Cheney look like a pacifist at times with your love of drone strikes and hopes for prolonged civil wars where hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians will die.

 

[BillBrasky]

We didn't send troops to Libya or Tunisia.

To be honest a five year civil war in Syria helps us.It will weaken Syria. It will weaken Iran. It will weaken Hezbollah. It will weaken AQ. It will also create deep rifts in the extremists communities in the Arab World.

I will be absolutely flabbghasted if Obama sends a single armed soldier to Syria. The only possibility is a UN Peacekeeping Force that may have a few Americans. Those in charge will understand having Americans among them will put the others in danger. This group won't be shooting at people.

Yeah those millions of dead people will be awesome. And in no way will one (or both sides) find a way to blame us for what happens to them. Which is why we should once again just stay the hell out of it.

Has RJ and the other Obama dick suckers taken every possible position on Middle Eastern conflicts in the last ten years?

 

[ImTheCaptain]

We didn't send troops to Libya or Tunisia.

To be honest a five year civil war in Syria helps us.It will weaken Syria. It will weaken Iran. It will weaken Hezbollah. It will weaken AQ. It will also create deep rifts in the extremists communities in the Arab World.

I will be absolutely flabbghasted if Obama sends a single armed soldier to Syria. The only possibility is a UN Peacekeeping Force that may have a few Americans. Those in charge will understand having Americans among them will put the others in danger. This group won't be shooting at people.

lol yeah im sure we didn't have special ops in Libya. Also: Team involved in tracking Benghazi suspects pulling out, sources say

And the rest is speculation. There are no constants when it comes to warfare.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

First, he campaigned on this notion of getting troops out of places they didn't belong, and cutting down on policing the world. That definitely goes against this way you're trying to paint him as a warmonger.

He did, and he's certainly taken credit for the popular move of getting our troops out of Iraq, but in reality Obama tried to keep troops in Iraq and go back on the agreement the BUSH Administration signed with the Iraqis to withdraw our troops. For people to give Obama credit for ending US involvement in Iraq, particularly when he tried to prolong it, seems wrong.

President Obama’s speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: The troops aren’t being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They’re leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay.

Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq but had instead spent the past few months trying to extend it. A 2008 security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by the end of the year, but the White House -- anxious about growing Iranian influence and Iraq’s continuing political and security challenges -- publicly and privately tried to sell the Iraqis on a troop extension. As recently as last week, the White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the year.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop-withdrawal-motivated-by-iraqi-insistence-not-u-s-choice-20111021
Regarding Afghanistan:

more than twice as many U.S. troops have been killed there under Obama’s leadership (1,629 in four-plus years) than under Bush’s (630 in seven-plus years).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/08/obama_sidesteps_afghan_war_--_with_medias_help_119533.html
And don't forget the "successful" military intervention in Libya- so successful that the country seems to be descending into chaos.

But then he bluffed (in my opinion) with this whole chemical weapon red line business, and now that people want to hold his feet to the fire on it, he almost has no choice in the matter.

Of course he has a choice- I'd have more respect for him if he didn't bomb a country to save face. The people wanting to hold his feet to the fire are mainly people who have always opposed him- I would hope Obama doesn't stay up at night because Lindsey Graham said something mean about him.

Either he's overwhelmingly weak and sets an awful precedent about making threats to world bullies, or he's a warhawk going back on his old campaign promise.

And regardless of what move he makes, the situation in Syria almost certainly promises to turn into the next Egypt/Libya.

These are my naive thoughts.

Refusing to engage in another expensive and reckless military action is not a sign of weakness to me; it's a sign of sanity. Also, my guess is most of the world sees us as the biggest bully on the planet. And I think Syria can end up far worse than Egypt. Atrocities committed by the rebels are not typically shown by the US media- but you can look for them on YouTube, including a vid of a rebel soldier eating the heart of a government soldier. Assad is a horrible person, but the strongest elements that make up the rebel forces are worse IMO.