White House blames OBAMA for Syrian chemical weapons atrocity

[ScottL]

I guess over the years I've become hardened to the point where atrocities
like this don't phase me. I've seen up close and personal what war can do
a person. The human species is flawed in so many ways that it goes beyond
comprehension. I will say this, the only solution I see is extermination
of the enemy, whomever or whatever it may be.

I liken it to an infestation of termites, if you don't kill them all they
will multiply and eventually destroy your house.

I'm all for being humane when it comes to dealing with our fellow man but
when it comes to dealing with people who are nothing more than animals they
have to be put down or you risk your own demise.

I hope Trump makes the right call.

Thanks for sharing that Dave. We all have different reactions to horror. If you are somewhat desensitized or less appalled for whatever reason I have no issue with that. Our goals are the same, a response that will strengthen the security and influence of our own nation. If it is one that leads to the protection of innocents so much the better.

These bastard dictators IMO only understand blood. When they cause a bloodbath and get no response it emboldens them and others like them..... I love the image of Saddam being pulled out of the earth, ticks in his beard. Then hung.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Thanks for sharing that Dave. We all have different reactions to horror. If you are somewhat desensitized or less appalled for whatever reason I have no issue with that. Our goals are the same, a response that will strengthen the security and influence of our own nation. If it is one that leads to the protection of innocents so much the better.

These bastard dictators IMO only understand blood. When they cause a bloodbath and get no response it emboldens them and others like them..... I love the image of Saddam being pulled out of the earth, ticks in his beard. Then hung.

Speaking of Saddam Hussein don't you just love what he said when he was captured.

I am Saddam Hussein. I am the president of Iraq and I am willing to negotiate,
The response from the US soldier was: President Bush sends his regards.

The shmuck still thought he had some sort of leverage.

 

[PatsFan1283]

Here's what should have happened, but the Jew-hating world doesn't have the stomach for it.

In 2013 after the first Assad mass slaughter the IOF should have waited for the next day that Assad took his family out to dinner, or whatever. While they were away Israel should have leveled his presidential palace. Then Obama should have called Asad and said, "That was my idea, Fucker. Your next move is to get the Fuck out."

Assad may not have left. But he would not have responded either. Nor would have Iran. And Russia wasn't even there yet.

Other than inconvenience him, what do you think this would do?

US would be nuts to get involved in Syria. It sucks but that is a brutal civil war that is going to happen one way or another. You've got Turkey, Iran, ISIS, Russia and tons of sectarian groups battling there. There aren't any good options.

What is the upside? The power vacuum gets filled by a dictator that is 5% more benevolent than Assad?

 

[ScottL]

Other than inconvenience him, what do you think this would do?

US would be nuts to get involved in Syria. It sucks but that is a brutal civil war that is going to happen one way or another. You've got Turkey, Iran, ISIS, Russia and tons of sectarian groups battling there. There aren't any good options.

What is the upside? The power vacuum gets filled by a dictator that is 5% more benevolent than Assad?

I didn't figure it taking that long for me to be confronted on my statement. But actually with different reasons than you raised. It certainly would have been a bold, unconventional, possibly even reckless move. But I already answered some of your question above, when I wrote -- "When they cause a bloodbath and get no response it emboldens them and others like them."

Now in your scenario above you may have missed I was turning back the clock. Turkey was not involved, except for its leaky border. Russia wasn't over there yet. ISIS was more entrenched in Iraq than in Syria at the time. There is actualy a power vacuum in Syria now moreso than then. Assad will never be able to consolidate power over all of Syria even if we, Russia, and Iran decided for whatever reason to back him.

As far as another dictator taking over, it's a possibility but the ruling party of Assad's Alewite faction was only 10% of the population when the war began. Other world leaders were more concerned that Asad's removal would lead to an Alewite genocide. They've abused the majority population for generations.

 

[PatsFan1283]

I don't think it is a possibility, I think it is just reality that there would either be a dictator filling the vacuum or a brutal civil war.

What makes anyone think that place can do better than Assad? It is hell on earth. All these rebel groups that have a common enemy right now will turn on each other in an instant if the throne is up for grabs.

I don't know what the fallout would be from removing Assad 3 years ago, but I have a hunch it wouldn't be peaceful democracy.

 

[PatsFan1283]

My guess is we'll probably bomb them, maybe lean on Russia to step aside and tell them to destroy the chemical weapons. I guess that would be a feel good victory after what happened. Maybe even Assad steps down.

But any type of intervention I don't see ending well or changing the status quo of Syria. Qaddafi is probably the example that works best for this, it made us feel better for a year or two until we realized it didn't do much for Libya.

Not a foreign policy expert or anything but that's how I see it at this time.

 

[Acebb]

This hot take from the "smart power" set really held up well.