[QUOTE](Reuters) - Syria hailed an "historic American retreat" on Sunday, mockingly accusing President Barack Obama of hesitation and confusion after he delayed a military strike to consult Congress.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130901[/url]
They're so used to the executive having so, so much power that when ours defers to another branch it's weakness.
He only says this because he knows America won't actually do anything. A few expensive cruise missiles at a few weapons sights isn't going to cripple their regime.
It seems to me that making it decidable by congress is Obama's way of maneuvering out of his Red Line. Congress will deny him, then he can still say he tried and it isn't his fault.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;42045104]They're so used to the executive having so, so much power that when ours defers to another branch it's weakness.[/QUOTE]
It kind of is.
He doesn't need congressional approval for a limited air-strike, getting a vote is nice, but theres a good chance he will get a no and that opens up the possibility of him to say "lol we tried", which would be a way to off-load the PR hit to our credibility on us backing out against our word of the "red-line".
'"Obama announced yesterday, directly or through implication, the beginning of the historic American retreat," Syria's official al-Thawra newspaper said in a front-page editorial.'
'Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad accused Obama of indecision. "It is clear there was a sense of hesitation and disappointment in what was said by President Barack Obama yesterday. And it is also clear there was a sense of confusion as well," he told reporters in Damascus.'
Well, an official newspaper said it, but it's not the only or the biggest official newspaper in Syria (see Teshreen. Plus, al-Thawra's website is incredibly crappily designed and has barely any readers compared to Teshreen's) and the quote posted here could easily have been taken out of context or mistranslated. Plus, the only direct 'insult' from Syria's government is from a deputy foreign minister accusing the government of confusion.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];42045119']He only says this because he knows America won't actually do anything. A few expensive cruise missiles at a few weapons sights isn't going to cripple their regime.[/QUOTE]
You sure about that? Last time we intervened with cruise missiles in a foreign country, we deployed over a hundred of them. Each TLAM carries half a ton of explosive material. I bet fifty tons of explosives, delivered with precision, could do a lot of damage to a third-world country like Syria.
For once I'm actually happy Congress is a group of arguing idiots who can't make a decision. It means hopefully we won't get involved in Syria at all.
Edit: Why is this being rated dumb? Did Facepunch suddenly change their whole opinion on US and Syria? Should we really fuel a war more and bomb targets that potentially have civilians at them? (Yes, it may be terrible, but the regime could be keeping civilians, POWs, etc at bases to deter potential strikes.) Neither side really seems too trustworthy in this situation and we need to stay away from Syria.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];42045119']He only says this because he knows America won't actually do anything. A few expensive cruise missiles at a few weapons sights isn't going to cripple their regime.
It seems to me that making it decidable by congress is Obama's way of maneuvering out of his Red Line. Congress will deny him, then he can still say he tried and it isn't his fault.[/QUOTE]
Yep. It's Obama trying to make himself not look bad. He wanted into Syria, he was gung ho about it. Populous doesn't want it, UK doesn't want it, France will probably end up not wanting it, so instead of going through with it and making himself look like bush 2.0 he is going to let congress shoot it down so it doesn't reflect as badly on him.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];42045119']He only says this because he knows America won't actually do anything. A few expensive cruise missiles at a few weapons sights isn't going to cripple their regime.
It seems to me that making it decided by congress is Obama's way of maneuvering out of his Red Line. Congress will deny him, then he can still say he tried and it isn't has fault.[/QUOTE]
Even if this is true the fact of the matter is that asking for congress's approval is supposed the only way America is supposed to be able go to war. A "request for military action" is just a roundabout way of asking for executive power to do congress's intended job which is bullocks if you ask me. If we are going take "military action" it shouldn't be the president's decision in the first place.
Takes a special kind of person to laugh at imminent doom as it passes by
It's like pointing and laughing at a semi truck that almost hit you as you're standing on the street
[QUOTE='[sluggo];42045119']He only says this because he knows America won't actually do anything. A few expensive cruise missiles at a few weapons sights isn't going to cripple their regime.
It seems to me that making it decidable by congress is Obama's way of maneuvering out of his Red Line. Congress will deny him, then he can still say he tried and it isn't his fault.[/QUOTE]
but with about 2 weeks worth of sorties we systematically destroyed all of the anti-air defense, communications systems, and military centers of iraq which at the time was considered the most well defended airspace with both advance integrated radar/missle response systems as well as thousands of individual anti-air guns placed everywhere.
without airpower, or an airshield, the Syrian army will be crippled because thats their key advantage over the rebels
[QUOTE=catbarf;42045240]You sure about that? Last time we intervened with cruise missiles in a foreign country, we deployed over a hundred of them. Each TLAM carries half a ton of explosive material. I bet fifty tons of explosives, delivered with precision, could do a lot of damage to a third-world country like Syria.[/QUOTE]
Obama has explicitly stated that this isn't about regime change, it is about punishment for chemical weapon use (really it is about his popularity domestically.) All the evidence points towards him using just enough force to seem like he did something, we aren't going to be going into this like Libya with the goal of toppling the dictator. Assad has foreign backing and is already winning.
[editline]1st September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;42045283]but with about 2 weeks worth of sorties we systematically destroyed all of the anti-air defense, communications systems, and military centers of iraq which at the time was considered the most well defended airspace with both advance integrated radar/missle response systems as well as thousands of individual anti-air guns placed everywhere.
without airpower, or an airshield, the Syrian army will be crippled because thats their key advantage over the rebels[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of if we could, it's a matter of if that is what will actually happen. Everything points towards a FAR more limited intervention then that.
They used fucking bio-weapons.
It's a big mess, I think it's complete shit that chem-weapons were being used, but we can't afford another war, and we shouldn't be world police.
Not to mention going in to a war with no clear 'good guy' makes it incredibly hard when fighting. There is nothing to say we won't end up with the rebel regime turning onto some of our troops.
[QUOTE=LeeoryHarold;42045339]They used fucking bio-weapons.[/QUOTE]
bio weapons =/= chemical weapons, unless I've missed some latest piece of news
[QUOTE=LeeoryHarold;42045339]They used fucking bio-weapons.[/QUOTE]
Biological weapons are weapons that are biological in nature, such as engineered viruses or bacteria.
Chemical weapons are weapons that use chemicals that are harmful to the target and (possibly) non-explosive in nature.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];42045119']He only says this because he knows America won't actually do anything. A few expensive cruise missiles at a few weapons sights isn't going to cripple their regime.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Muammar_al-Gaddafi_at_the_AU_summit.jpg/220px-Muammar_al-Gaddafi_at_the_AU_summit.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Explosions;42045444][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Muammar_al-Gaddafi_at_the_AU_summit.jpg/220px-Muammar_al-Gaddafi_at_the_AU_summit.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
For the most part, didn't we only provide limited air support or evacuation surveillance?
[QUOTE='[sluggo];42045119']He only says this because he knows America won't actually do anything. A few expensive cruise missiles at a few weapons sights isn't going to cripple their regime.
It seems to me that making it decidable by congress is Obama's way of maneuvering out of his Red Line. Congress will deny him, then he can still say he tried and it isn't his fault.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if he fucks up, he can at least say "Well it was Congress' fault, they just gave me permission".
[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;42045609]For the most part, didn't we only provide limited air support or evacuation surveillance?[/QUOTE]
No. The U.S., U.K., France, and Italy bombed the shit out of him.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42045646]No. The U.S., U.K., France, and Italy bombed the shit out of him.[/QUOTE]
Yet only to be killed by rebels and have a knife shoved up his ass. :v:
You're poking an sleeping bear, Syrian regime.
[QUOTE=Auto Taco;42045654]Yet only to be killed by rebels and have a knife shoved up his ass. :v:[/QUOTE]
After getting his convoy exploded by a French bomber.
It's pretty crepy, I just watched Episode 4 of Season 1 of "The West Wing" and they are talking about whether or not to level a few military buildings in Syria or go all out war.
The series is from 1999
[QUOTE='[sluggo];42045119']He only says this because he knows America won't actually do anything. A few expensive cruise missiles at a few weapons sights isn't going to cripple their regime.
It seems to me that making it decidable by congress is Obama's way of maneuvering out of his Red Line. Congress will deny him, then he can still say he tried and it isn't his fault.[/QUOTE]
It would do a lot, if they target high value military targets, the rebels are waiting to take that opportunity. If we deal a lot of damage, it will give the rebels a slight upper hand in a way.
[quote] "If Obama is hesitating on the matter of Syria, then clearly on the question of attacking Iran - a move that is expected to be far more complicated - Obama will hesitate much more, and thus the chances Israel will have to act alone have increased," Israeli Army Radio quoted an unnamed government official as saying.[/quote]
someone's a little melodramtic
I think we should level them. Firing a few warning shots won't accomplish anything. Burning a good portion of assad's infrastructure to the ground might.
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;42045888]I think we should level them. Firing a few warning shots won't accomplish anything. Burning a good portion of assad's infrastructure to the ground might.[/QUOTE]
And how do you suggest we pay for that? We seriously can not afford another war.
I doubt Obama would hold back even if Congress disagreed to it.
He just wants to look good.
we have no reason to be in Syria. Middle east is a lost cause and we don't need to involve ourselves in any more of their bullshit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
