While Syrian diplomacy is at work, the US gets an itchy trigger finger
33 replies, posted
[quote][B][U]Obama seeks support for attacking Syria while pursuing diplomacy[/U][/B]
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama tried Tuesday to sell a military intervention he never wanted to an American public that opposes it, telling the nation that he needed authorization to attack Syria as leverage in a newly emerged diplomatic opening from Russia.
Calling the United States "the anchor of global security," Obama offered moral, political and strategic arguments for being ready to launch limited military strikes while trying to negotiate a diplomatic solution to what he called Syria's violation of a global ban on chemical weapons.
"Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used," Obama said in making the case that the United States must act when dictators such as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "brazenly" violate international treaties intended to protect humanity.
The 15-minute nationally televised speech initially was planned as Obama's final push to win support from a skeptical public and Congress for his planned attack on Syria for what his administration calls a major chemical weapons attack on August 21 that killed more than 1,400 people in suburban Damascus.[/quote]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/10/politics/obama-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1[/url]
national security is definitely not at stake.
i'm not one to defend western imperialism, but of course the administration will seek approval for the strike in case diplomacy falls flat or the powers find another convenient excuse to attack.
[QUOTE=Aman;42150284]national security is definitely not at stake.[/QUOTE]
Fuel security affects National Security just as much as Global Climate Change, which is a lot.
[QUOTE=Swilly;42150293]Fuel security affects National Security just as much as Global Climate Change, which is a lot.[/QUOTE]
That is a stretch. With that train of that you can practically justify anything that affects the US as "national security"
I had hoped we'd listen to Russia (!) this time.
[quote=Obama]"Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used."[/quote]
Thus far it looks like the diplomatic route is working to ensure exactly this. I don't see anything good coming from military intervention, from anyone, at this point.
[QUOTE=Aman;42150299]That is a stretch. With that train of that you can practically justify anything that affects the US as "national security"[/QUOTE]
Anything dealing with gasoline prices for the global market is national security risk for every nation that uses fuel heavily.
Its not just the US. Its just the US who has the military capability keep things stable enough for fuel prices to not shoot up and down like a wild roller coaster.
[QUOTE=Swilly;42150313]Anything dealing with gasoline prices for the global market is national security risk for every nation that uses fuel heavily.
Its not just the US. Its just the US who has the military capability keep things stable enough for fuel prices to not shoot up and down like a wild roller coaster.[/QUOTE]
how does syria affect gasoline prices? afaik the syrian civil war would only have some effect on natural gas supply in europe.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42150322]how does syria affect gasoline prices? afaik the syrian civil war would only have some effect on natural gas supply in europe.[/QUOTE]
It makes the region in general unstable and unpredictable.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42150339]It makes the region in general unstable and unpredictable.[/QUOTE]
is there anything on how the syrian civil war has impacted oil prices since it started?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42150290]i'm not one to defend western imperialism, but of course the administration will seek approval for the strike in case diplomacy falls flat or the powers find another convenient excuse to attack.[/QUOTE]
I think negotiations will fall flat if authorization isn't given, since Russia's diplomatic solution only came about as a method to keep the US out of their Cold War turf. The problem we have now is that we can't bluff; we need to authorize in order to put pressure on Syria, but then if they still decide to keep their chemical weapons the administration will almost certainly lead us into a disastrous war. We can't just say "lol, jk" and be done with it after this point.
[url]http://www.ogj.com/articles/2013/09/market-watch-oil-prices-drop-on-news-syria-will-give-up-chemical-weapons.html[/url]
hmm apparently it has a fairly substantial effect.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42150339]It makes the region in general unstable and unpredictable.[/QUOTE]
The whole region is already unstable. Except for the Iron Monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42150372]The whole region is already unstable. Except for the Iron Monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Jordan.[/QUOTE]
Israel, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait and the Gulf states too.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42150391]Israel, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait and the Gulf states too.[/QUOTE]
israel is hardly stable what with the bombings and constant wars with gaza and the occupation of the west bank.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42150398]israel is hardly stable what with the bombings and constant wars with gaza and the occupation of the west bank.[/QUOTE]
The occupied territories are in turmoil but Israel proper isn't that bad.
[editline]10th September 2013[/editline]
Not perfect, though.
[QUOTE=Aman;42150284]national security is definitely not at stake.[/QUOTE]
Yes, Yes, let us neglect to mention the fact Taliban as well as al qaeda forces are fighting in this war, and the fact that some of those chemical weapons might just end up in their hands. I'm tired of people saying that national security isn't at stake from this. There are stockpiles of chemical weapons that could go missing and just so happen end up here, one way or another. it's not impossible.
That's not to say i support direct military intervention- I'm still on the fence, But to say nothing is at risk is downright negligent.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42150415]The occupied territories are in turmoil but Israel proper isn't that bad.
[editline]10th September 2013[/editline]
Not perfect, though.[/QUOTE]
relatively stable. it's not really that stable if you compare it to a place like rural united states or something.
[editline]11th September 2013[/editline]
i guess in a lot of ways our cities are less stable than isreal though.
That's the major reason we're in the region. We don't even get oil from the Middle East, we get it from Venezuela and other nations. The majority of the oil from the Middle East goes to Europe. That's changing around funnily enough.
Unfortunately they don't have the capability to stabilize the region like the US does, or at least try to is the word I should use. We've hit a point where our market means jack shit if the rest of the world is a mess.
The closest equivilience I could think of to bring it terms for most US people is when our financial market melted down, everyone else's shit the bed as well, that's how intertwined everything is.
[QUOTE=Swilly;42150474]That's the major reason we're in the region. We don't even get oil from the Middle East, we get it from Venezuela and other nations. The majority of the oil from the Middle East goes to Europe. That's changing around funnily enough.
Unfortunately they don't have the capability to stabilize the region like the US does, or at least try to is the word I should use. We've hit a point where our market means jack shit if the rest of the world is a mess.
The closest equivilience I could think of to bring it terms for most US people is when our financial market melted down, everyone else's shit the bed as well, that's how intertwined everything is.[/QUOTE]
That's called global interdependence; if one country's economy crashes, it will sure as hell affect someone else's.
Go in-go out strike against Syrian military is definitely going to ensure US national security. Because military-grade chemical weapons possibly making it into Al-Quaeda's hands is such a great thing. I mean, it's not like Al-Quaeda might use it to do harm to America, right?
[QUOTE=gudman;42150682]Go in-go out strike against Syrian military is definitely going to ensure US national security. Because military-grade chemical weapons possibly making it into Al-Quaeda's hands is such a great thing. I mean, it's not like Al-Quaeda might use it to do harm to America, right?[/QUOTE]
No, it's ok cause the US has a 35000 troop contingency plan for that, because stopping terrorism overseas is their specialty....... National security..... 'Murrica..
Apparently no one in here actually watched the speech. If you did, you would know that President Obama has requested that Congress postpone their vote on military action, and that the President supports the diplomatic solution put forth by the Russian Federation. The original post (and the article from which is derives) ignores a very significant portion of the speech.
[QUOTE=Aman;42150299]That is a stretch. With that train of that you can practically justify anything that affects the US as "national security"[/QUOTE]
To be honest I'm pretty sure that's already how the US government views national security.
There wouldn't have been 5+ wars and conflicts in the last 60 years were that not the case, "proactive defense" is a huge priority for the US government.
Let's just bomb Spain instead. England can thank us later.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;42157664]Let's just bomb Spain instead. England can thank us later.[/QUOTE]
:C
[QUOTE=Swilly;42150293]Fuel security affects National Security just as much as Global Climate Change, which is a lot.[/QUOTE]
Guess we better start bombing the sun then before it's too late.
[QUOTE=Aman;42150284]national security is definitely not at stake.[/QUOTE]
It affects national security because it affects Obama's mood
[QUOTE=code_gs;42150681]That's called global interdependence; if one country's economy crashes, it will sure as hell affect someone else's.[/QUOTE]
Fuel prices, are closely tied to the every country.
Its every nations imperative to keep the Middle East stable. The US is doing something that no other nation really can do and that's maintain foreign bases.
Honestly fuck Obama. Stupid emotional theatrics he tries to pedal in that speech.
95% of casualties from drone strikes are unrelated civilians. Thousands dead. Obama has ordered [I]four[/I] times the amount of drone strikes and attacks than Bush ever did. Apparently the stat is like for every "terrorist" killed in a strike 30 civilians die if you divvy out the death toll equally. And to top it all of this is just willy nilly attacking foreign countries civilians with zero repercussions cause the countries can't do shit about it.
But nah, we don't talk about that none of that gets attention its alright cause think of the children guys! Let me do some pathetic appeal to emotion, think of the father holding his dying son! Don't think of the children in Pakistan or Yemen though...
If a strike gets approved I will be pissed. But what can I do, I'm not even American anyway.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.