Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Apr 2017, 8:14 am

Was it rickyp or freeman3 who blithely said chemical weapons were no longer an issue in Syria?

I want to say it was rickyp who assured us that Kerry had put an end to it. I can't find the topic.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Apr 2017, 8:37 am

I am 100% sure it wasn't me. I am just wondering if Republicans are starting to rue that they put a guy like Trump in the White House for pretty inconsequential political reasons like immigration with the potential existential consequences of having a guy like Trump in the White House.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Apr 2017, 8:57 am

freeman3 wrote:I am 100% sure it wasn't me. I am just wondering if Republicans are starting to rue that they put a guy like Trump in the White House for pretty inconsequential political reasons like immigration with the potential existential consequences of having a guy like Trump in the White House.


Meh.

Re Syria: I'm 99% sure it was rickyp.

Re Trump: I think the neocon caucus is happy. I think the "Russia owns Trump" wing of the Democratic Party is having to re-tool its message a bit.

I'm not very upset that he wiped out an airbase in response to a horrific chemical attack.

I'm not very happy that he is committing troops to Syria without an any sort of stated goal.

Then again, I didn't vote for the guy.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 07 Apr 2017, 9:00 am

Doctor Fate wrote:Was it rickyp or freeman3 who blithely said chemical weapons were no longer an issue in Syria?

I want to say it was rickyp who assured us that Kerry had put an end to it. I can't find the topic.


Probably Ricky. He also talked about Russia being in a quagmire by moving in to Syria

I'm proud of Trump on this one. He did what Obama should have done. I don't expect that Syria will use chemical weapons again. I also look forward to China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other bad actors on the international stage to be more cautious.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Apr 2017, 9:26 am

I agree that a military response was appropriate. The problem is prior to this he was signaling that Assad had a free hand to do what he wanted even though he had a history of using chemical weapons. Wars start when you give mixed signals.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 07 Apr 2017, 9:33 am

freeman3 wrote:I agree that a military response was appropriate. The problem is prior to this he was signaling that Assad had a free hand to do what he wanted even though he had a history of using chemical weapons. Wars start when you give mixed signals.


Would you agree that Pres. Trump's predecessor gave mixed signals? How bad was the war that happened from that?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Apr 2017, 9:45 am

freeman3 wrote:I agree that a military response was appropriate. The problem is prior to this he was signaling that Assad had a free hand to do what he wanted even though he had a history of using chemical weapons. Wars start when you give mixed signals.


While I understand your comment here and even have some sympathy for it, I don't think it's so mixed.

Trump's leaning is toward not overthrowing governments and leaving chaos. In that sense, he's willing to leave the current Butcher in charge. However, even realpolitik has its limits. I think he wants Assad, Putin, and the Iranians to know there are genuine limits on their perfidy.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Apr 2017, 11:09 am

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to Brad but Obama not responding militarily when the red line was crossed was the worst mistake of his presidency. He was just too cautious, too concerned about the consequences. A tough response there might have dissuaded Russia from the shenanigans it has engaged in since then. I do like the fact that we have indirectly challenged Russia a bit by hitting their ally. Russia has got to stop playing chicken with us, thinking we are not going to do anything. I think they should understand that any attempt to do what they did in 2016 to interfere in our democracy will be very costly to them.

The reason I think the signals are mixed is that it is just odd to say that you're ok with his staying in power knowing his history of use of chemical weapons and other atrocities against civilians and then decide to attack him when he does it again. I get the Realpolitik idea that defeating ISIS is more important...but this seems to me to be more of a emotional response to troubling images rather than a well-thought out policy.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Apr 2017, 11:28 am

fate
Re Syria: I'm 99% sure it was rickyp.


Well your wrong.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 07 Apr 2017, 11:31 am

I am referring exactly to the lack of a "red line" response. It was not the worst mistake of his presidency, but right up there with a few others. Certainly his worst foreign policy one. I think that the mixed signals that were sent by Obama did NOT start a war, unless it was a war that is to come.

Pre-WW2 there were mixed signals as well. The lack of response early led to a war afterwards. I fear that bit of history may be repeating itself.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Apr 2017, 11:36 am

rickyp wrote:fate
Re Syria: I'm 99% sure it was rickyp.


Well your wrong.


So, you were skeptical that Syria had removed its chemical weapons? You didn't believe the claims of Secretary Kerry and National Security Adviser Rice? Really?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Apr 2017, 11:50 am

rayjay
I'm proud of Trump on this one. He did what Obama should have done.


At the time, Trump's advice was not to act. So? What was your stance in 2013 Ray?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald- ... al-n743756

At the time, Obama went to Congress to get support for military action. (Trump didn't).
Where was congress on the issue in 2013.
Opposed to any action.

http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/ ... -positions

At the time, Obama managed to get the Russians to agree on seizure of Syrian stockpiles of chemical weapons. And then did so...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us ... 7167f24187

The Russians have been complicit in allowing the Syrians to build more and use more chemical weapons.
I don't know whether the action Trump has taken is bad or good. I think it makes some people feel good, as if something has been done about Assads butchery. But really, what?

Its a one off.... Is this going to happen every time Syrian conducts bombing of civilians or just with chemical weapons?
If so, is it going to aid ISIL?
Are the Russians going to be warned every time (who then warn the Syrians).
What if they aren't warned or their forces end up being bombed anyway?
What happens if Russia decides to launch a strike against US forces?

rayjay
He also talked about Russia being in a quagmire by moving in to Syria

I did.
They are.
Is the US now joining in the quagmire?

Here's what I think might be a solution....
Step 1
Find someone who can reasonably form an interim reconciliation government. Preferably that Iran, Russia and the moderate Syrian opposition can agree on... (I don't even know if this is possible. but I think that Syria has to divide into a state based on religious/ethnic lines in order to end the conflict.)
Step 2
Inform the Russians that the US will begin attempting to kill Assad unless he steps down.
Step 3
Then start sending tomahawks into his locations until either he is killed or he publicly steps down. (Apologize for probable collateral damage in advance. Should make being around Assad an undesirable activity.)
Step 4
Install the provisional government. Offer to help in rebuilding the state once ISIL has been eradicated...
Step 5
Increase bombing of ISIL in Syria until ground forces secure their areas.... (Same as whats been going on in Iraq)

I think that the Russians aren't going to be happy with Trump over the bombing. Which means that if there are pee pee tapes.... we'll probably get to see them soon enough.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Apr 2017, 11:56 am

But, Trump is Putin's puppet! Collusion!

Yeah, sure, wait on those blackmail tapes . . .
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Apr 2017, 11:59 am

bbauska
The lack of response early led to a war afterwards.

Most historians agree that a military response to early Nazi aggression (like Sudetenland) would just have mean the war started sooner...

There was a war in Syria in 2013. Babies were killed in the hundreds in chemical attacks. Somehow the fate of those babies didn't drive Congress to want to act (or for that matter Donald J Trump).
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399

The fate of the civilian refugees has never seemed to much matter to Trump. He specifically wants to ban them from coming to the US...

Whats different today? What makes Trumps response right when the "lack of response" was the popular choice (And Congresses and Trumps) in 2013...
What has changed ?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Apr 2017, 12:02 pm

Fate
But, Trump is Putin's puppet! Collusion!
Yeah, sure, wait on those blackmail tapes . .
.
Up to 3 days ago Trump was pretty much playing along with Russia...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/ ... ad-turkey/

Now, the tapes may be more useful in general release then in a vault in St. Petersburg.
(If there are tapes.... and frankly I think its pretty likely there are...)