Tony Blair justifies himself by asking what the world would be like if Saddam Hussein were still in power today. If Saddam Hussein were still alive and in power today he’d be almost 80 years old.[/quote]
And Bob Mugabe is closer to 90. Your point???[/quote]
My point is that if Saddam Hussein were the leader of some country in Africa vigilantes with ulterior motives posing as selective humanitarians would little note nor much care what he did and he’d be a toothless septuagenarian pushing 80 today.[/quote]
Saddam Hussein had a unique history of causing trouble other than the chemical attacks on minorities in his own country during the Iran-Iraq War. He had successfully built a nuclear weapons station before Israel destroyed it in an airstrike. He took over Kuwait and was about to take over Saudi Arabia before the world stopped him the first time. He shot Scud missiles into Israel while we were stopping him. He was disobeying no-fly-zones thereafter as part of ongoing international measures to stop him. And it was thought he was disobeying those international measures preventing him owning chemical/nuclear weapons when we went in the second time (which evidence was never found there on the ground, but still speculated about) because he was playing around with Hans Blix not allowing his UN team inspect his facilities as required by international law as a result of the first Iraq War.
Granted Mugabe being in Africa, world-wide oil isn’t a concern there, which concern and potential for profit is the probable reason Saddam wanted to take Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Then again, Mugabe or other African leaders don’t go around taking other African countries like Napoleon; it’s mostly civil war stuff. Neither did Syrian president have an eye on other countries like Saddam (though a long history of proxy managing Lebanon), nor did thug Milosevic in Serbia, who was merely trying to keep his (Yugoslavian) country together – again, it’s civil war stuff.
How quickly people forget, it was the Americans themselves that gave the world a perfectly clear demonstration of the fact that countries are going to use whatever weapons they have at their disposal. The use of chemical weapons in the middle east is no more horrific than laying waste to two major cities. Right or wrong ( in my opinion clearly wrong, but that’s another debate entirely ) Assad is fighting a war. He is going to do what’s necessary to win that war. How childish of us to be criticizing the method of his killing. Like somehow the latest 1500 victims are more dead than the nearly 100,000 before them? Like somehow the rebels would not have done the exact same thing if they possessed the same weapon? And maybe the rebels did do it, who knows? Obama seems to know, but of course he won’t share that information with anyone else
Instead of focusing so much on HOW the killing is being done, why are we not trying to exercise a little brain power and address some issues about WHY the killing is being done?
I vote we stay the hell out of it. I’m not at all convinced it will solve any long term problems and I’m really not convinced the rebels are any better than Assad’s regime. If I was to be convinced to change my mind and support an attack, it won’t be because of anything to do with chemical weapons. It will only be because there are clear, rational, intelligent reasons why we think the middle east will be a better place after we bomb the crap out of them. So far, I haven’t heard any good reasons…
And despite what happens Asad will still be alive and in position as leader of Syria because it would be illegal to target him.
But it’s perfectly okay to kill a bunch of other people.
Roger Waters said it best.
[quote]Just love those laser guided bombs
They’re really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range[/quote]
Tony Blair justifies himself by asking what the world would be like if Saddam Hussein were still in power today. If Saddam Hussein were still alive and in power today he’d be almost 80 years old.[/quote]
And Bob Mugabe is closer to 90. Your point???[/quote]
My point is that if Saddam Hussein were the leader of some country in Africa vigilantes with ulterior motives posing as selective humanitarians would little note nor much care what he did and he’d be a toothless septuagenarian pushing 80 today.[/quote]
Saddam Hussein had a unique history of causing trouble other than the chemical attacks on minorities in his own country during the Iran-Iraq War. He had successfully built a nuclear weapons station before Israel destroyed it in an airstrike. He took over Kuwait and was about to take over Saudi Arabia before the world stopped him the first time. He shot Scud missiles into Israel while we were stopping him. He was disobeying no-fly-zones thereafter as part of ongoing international measures to stop him. And it was thought he was disobeying those international measures preventing him owning chemical/nuclear weapons when we went in the second time (which evidence was never found there on the ground, but still speculated about) because he was playing around with Hans Blix not allowing his UN team inspect his facilities as required by international law as a result of the first Iraq War.
Granted Mugabe being in Africa, world-wide oil isn’t a concern there, which concern and potential for profit is the probable reason Saddam wanted to take Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Then again, Mugabe or other African leaders don’t go around taking other African countries like Napoleon; it’s mostly civil war stuff. Neither did Syrian president have an eye on other countries like Saddam (though a long history of proxy managing Lebanon), nor did thug Milosevic in Serbia, who was merely trying to keep his (Yugoslavian) country together – again, it’s civil war stuff.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that if Saddam Hussein’s regime were located on the Korean Peninsula instead and he was trying to build WMD, had attacked and threatened his neighbors and brutally starved and murdered more than a million of his own people he would die a natural death barely noticed by the brainwashed masses.
After this incident, whoever is responsible. there’s no way Assad will give up power now because the UN would get him for chemical weapons us. It’s really unclear who benefits from these chemical attacks it certainly wasn’t Assad from what I can see.
Tony Blair justifies himself by asking what the world would be like if Saddam Hussein were still in power today. If Saddam Hussein were still alive and in power today he’d be almost 80 years old.[/quote]
And Bob Mugabe is closer to 90. Your point???[/quote]
My point is that if Saddam Hussein were the leader of some country in Africa vigilantes with ulterior motives posing as selective humanitarians would little note nor much care what he did and he’d be a toothless septuagenarian pushing 80 today.[/quote]
Tony Blair justifies himself by asking what the world would be like if Saddam Hussein were still in power today. If Saddam Hussein were still alive and in power today he’d be almost 80 years old.[/quote]
And Bob Mugabe is closer to 90. Your point???[/quote]
My point is that if Saddam Hussein were the leader of some country in Africa vigilantes with ulterior motives posing as selective humanitarians would little note nor much care what he did and he’d be a toothless septuagenarian pushing 80 today.[/quote]
Saddam Hussein had a unique history of causing trouble other than the chemical attacks on minorities in his own country during the Iran-Iraq War. He had successfully built a nuclear weapons station before Israel destroyed it in an airstrike. He took over Kuwait and was about to take over Saudi Arabia before the world stopped him the first time. He shot Scud missiles into Israel while we were stopping him. He was disobeying no-fly-zones thereafter as part of ongoing international measures to stop him. And it was thought he was disobeying those international measures preventing him owning chemical/nuclear weapons when we went in the second time (which evidence was never found there on the ground, but still speculated about) because he was playing around with Hans Blix not allowing his UN team inspect his facilities as required by international law as a result of the first Iraq War.
Granted Mugabe being in Africa, world-wide oil isn’t a concern there, which concern and potential for profit is the probable reason Saddam wanted to take Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Then again, Mugabe or other African leaders don’t go around taking other African countries like Napoleon; it’s mostly civil war stuff. Neither did Syrian president have an eye on other countries like Saddam (though a long history of proxy managing Lebanon), nor did thug Milosevic in Serbia, who was merely trying to keep his (Yugoslavian) country together – again, it’s civil war stuff.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that if Saddam Hussein’s regime were located on the Korean Peninsula instead and he was trying to build WMD, had attacked and threatened his neighbors and brutally starved and murdered more than a million of his own people he would die a natural death barely noticed by the brainwashed masses.[/quote]
North Korea did attack the south at Stalin’s bidding, and we did engage them and conquered them successfully clear up to the Yalu River (if only the Chinese hadn’t come down to save them and lengthen the war to a stalemate for two years – yes, that’s right, the Korean War actually ended up being a proxy for “the Chinese War”). And we will again, which is why we have military there. North Korea is on a tight leash and they know it. They’re always trying to test how far that leash will go, and Obama’s leash is probably longer than most presidents; even so, North Korea is not a good analogy here. Japan is also very wary of their behavior helping us keep watch on them. If North Korea took South Korea, our military there might serve as no more than a speed bump, ending up dead or captured, which all but ensures US commitment to the region in that event.
Don’t you remember Bush’s axis of evil? Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Remember Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld warning North Korea during the Iraq War that we still got capable military that can engage in two wars at once?
Are you saying that Obama is different? That he doesn’t got the will, nerve, or guts to engage North Korea. I don’t know, you could have a point. Just bombing stuff isn’t a hard “war” to manage, like Serbia.
Obama needs to keep his eye on Iran and their nuclear developments. That has more international repercussions than Syria. He’s slacking here. That’s the country that more likely needs bombing – their nuclear facilities.
Looks like the president, the leader of the free world, of the most powerful country in the world, has changed his mind. He took a walk in the garden with an advisor and decided, maybe it’s better to listen to Congress after all – we are a representative democracy and all that jazz.
After all that robust talk and promises to those depending on his word, that of the United States of America, Charles Krauthammer is saying he is flinching now, obviously, in front of the whole world, with repercussions.
Obama acts more like the leader of a banana republic than of the United States. He’s a rookie, he’s just flying by the seat of his pants.
[ul][color=#000080]A stroll around the White House grounds with his top adviser on Friday evening changed President Barack Obama’s mind about getting Congress to sign off on a military strike in Syria, senior White House officials told NBC News.
Obama had been leaning toward attacking Syria without a congressional vote for the past week, the officials said. Obama was convinced he had the evidence to back up a strike and as a result dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to make a passionate case for U.S. action.
But only hours after Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “a thug and a murderer” and accused his regime of using chemical weapons to kill 1,429 people, Obama changed his mind as he walked across the South Lawn with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the officials said.
Returning from that walk, the president called his advisers in the early evening to inform them of his new decision.
The plan was immediately met with robust resistance from a whiplashed Obama team who had listened to Kerry lay out the administration’s strongest case yet for action against Assad. “My friends, it matters here if nothing is done,” Kerry had argued. “It matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens.”
Obama’s National Security Council had believed since last weekend that requiring a vote was not even on the table and that “consultation” in the form of congressional briefings and behind-the-scenes conversation was all that would be needed before a strike. One senior official noted that no key leaders in Congress had specifically requested a vote on military intervention.
Officials said that after the president met with national security advisers on Aug. 24, they determined the evidence showed Syria’s Assad regime had used chemical weapons in an attack earlier this month. At that time, the president indicated he was leaning toward a strike.
But a growing number of Congressional members were beginning to question the administration’s strategy by the end of the week. And an NBC News poll released Friday morning showed that nearly 80 percent of Americans agreed that the president should seek approval in advance of taking military action.
Officials said Obama also was influenced by Thursday’s lively debate in the House of Commons, where Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote in Parliament to authorize participation in an allied strike against Syria. Cameron had been a staunch advocate of military action but was chastened in the wake of the vote. “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action,” Cameron said. “I get that, and the government will act accordingly.”
While Obama’s advisers argued Friday night in private that the humiliating defeat for Cameron starkly illustrated the risks of asking for congressional input, the president responded that the vote in Parliament demonstrated exactly why he should seek a vote on this side of the Atlantic, senior officials told NBC News.
And, the president insisted, seeking legislative backing was the approach most consistent with his philosophy. While debate within the administration continued into late Friday, by Saturday morning the senior advisers acquiesced.
Speaking to the nation early Saturday afternoon, Obama said he was “mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”[/color][/ul]
Most consistent with his philosophy? Ha ha. More consistent with his philosophy of opportunism. He waxes contemplative about Constitution, democracy, and balance of powers as a exculpatory rationale for his dithering (when he’s violated them many times before without conscience). So now he’s against going it alone before he was for it? What a rookie.
Last week somebody pulled David Cameron aside and told him you better go and get a vote passed in Parliament first before you start bombing Syria, if you make the wrong decision now come the next election you will be out on your arse. The consequent result of that vote has really ruffled Obamas feathers, as the guy says in the video 80% of Americans want a vote first before any action is taken so hes backtracked there to appease his voters, but its turning out to be a right hotch potch if only they had got their brains into gear before opening their mouths Cameron and Obama would look a lot more credible.
The President changed his mind and you’re criticizing him for it? Shouldn’t we be applauding that? Don’t you want a President that is willing to make himself look like a bit of a fool in order to change his mind and do the right thing? I realize if it was Bush, he’d rather carry on and bomb the wrong country and kill countless innocents rather than simply change his original opinion, but Obama is not Bush. To me, him dialing down the rhetoric and coming back to reality is a strength, not a weakness. Good for Obama :bravo:
The President changed his mind and you’re criticizing him for it? Shouldn’t we be applauding that? Don’t you want a President that is willing to make himself look like a bit of a fool in order to change his mind and do the right thing? I realize if it was Bush, he’d rather carry on and bomb the wrong country and kill countless innocents rather than simply change his original opinion, but Obama is not Bush. To me, him dialing down the rhetoric and coming back to reality is a strength, not a weakness. Good for Obama :bravo:[/quote]
Well, it’s not over yet, Congress could go along with him. I personally hope they don’t.
First, there is criticism about the right strategy in Syria, which I think bombing is wrong. Then there is criticism about how he handles himself as a leader, even if he ends up doing what I think is right.
Bush would have thought about all the consequences and contingencies beforehand so that he wouldn’t get himself into pickles. Once he made a decision that was well thought out, he would go with it, minus extraordinarily unusual extenuating circumstances, which polls are not. For one thing, Bush made sure he had Congressional backing; he also took the time to cobble together an international coalition of around 50 nations, including Taiwan (if it were considered a nation).
I am criticizing Obama’s overall leadership lack of ability. His awkwardness, his untrustworthiness, his putting America’s word in derision. I believe process is important, the way a leader conducts himself, whether I agree with the policy or not. My belief that “the ends don’t justify the means” is the reason for my criticism.
[quote]Jotham wrote
Saddam wanted to invade Saudi Arabia[/quote]
Saddam had no intention of ever going into SA. This was nonsense spewed by Bush and the pro war media. Like the babies in incubators bullshit they lied about.
Kuwait was seen to Iraq as part of their country before the UK decided to make a new country. And the Kuwaitis were taking oil from Iraq. After getting what was perceived by Saddam as a green light from the US (he fell right into it) he invaded.
The worrying thing about Obama (who incidentally had drones bombing people while he collected his Nobel ‘peace’ prize) going to congress is that congress is filled with representatives that are bought and paid for by special interest groups and corporations. Obama can’t start something without their approval and that has to coincide with the interest of these groups. It is a shit setup as wars are approved for all the wrong reasons.
[quote=“cake”][quote]Jotham wrote
Saddam wanted to invade Saudi Arabia[/quote]
Saddam had no intention of ever going into SA. This was nonsense spewed by Bush and the pro war media. Like the babies in incubators bullshit they lied about.
Kuwait was seen to Iraq as part of their country before the UK decided to make a new country. And the Kuwaitis were taking oil from Iraq. After getting what was perceived by Saddam as a green light from the US (he fell right into it) he invaded.
The worrying thing about Obama (who incidentally had drones bombing people while he collected his Nobel ‘peace’ prize) going to congress is that congress is filled with representatives that are bought and paid for by special interest groups and corporations. Obama can’t start something without their approval and that has to coincide with the interest of these groups. It is a shit setup as wars are approved for all the wrong reasons.[/quote]
Saudi Arabia asked for military assistance before Dick Cheney went over there to discuss plans that Saudi Arabia okayed.
Looking at maps alone doesn’t give us intent of war plans; don’t be silly. They moved into Kuwait first because they didn’t think the world would care so much about the small country, then they waited to see reaction before moving in. Unfortunately for them, we reacted, and they saw it.
[ul][color=#000080]U.s. Intelligence Finds Detailed Plan To Capture Saudi Oil
September 24, 1990|By Los Angeles Times
DHAHRAN, SAUDI ARABIA — The United States has learned that Iraqi forces conducted secret military exercises for at least two years in preparation for their attack on Kuwait under a war plan designed ultimately to conquer the oil fields of eastern Saudi Arabia, according to U.S. officials.
Newly gathered intelligence indicates that the Iraqi plan, drafted by President Saddam Hussein as many as five years ago, envisioned no more than a strategic pause in Kuwait before Iraqi forces continued southward into Saudi Arabia, the knowledgeable officials said.
Among the “multiple” exercises now understood to have served as trial runs for the long-planned invasion was a mid-July dress rehearsal in central Iraq in which elite special operations forces practiced for the helicopter-borne assault on Kuwait City that launched the Iraqi invasion Aug. 2.
The sources said that the years of preparation also appear to have helped an advance party of Iraqi commandos make their way into Kuwait immediately before the invasion by posing as a sports delegation on a long-arranged visit. Instead, the “athletes” guided Iraqi helicopters to their targets.
By contrast, the United States was so ill-prepared for the invasion that U.S. warships dispatched hastily to the region after the attack had to wait four days before maps of Kuwait and Iraq could be prepared and loaded into computers used for guiding weapons, the officials said.
The new findings, circulated by the U.S. intelligence community, provide what the officials said was compelling evidence that the surprise Aug. 2 attack was in fact the product of a long-drafted plan aimed at winning control of half the world’s supply of oil…
Similarly, the source said that while intelligence officials now believe that the plan Hussein launched on Aug. 2 called for his forces to continue through Kuwait and into Saudi Arabia, it remains unclear whether his “strategic pause” at the Saudi border “was for military reasons or to determine whether he could get away with it.”
Arab diplomats previously told visiting U.S. Congress members of similar indications that Hussein had planned to continue southward, including reports that he offered to divide the spoils of his land grab with other Arab leaders.[/color][/ul]
[ul][color=#000080]On August 2, 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been making threats against Kuwait for some time, but his actual invasion caught most of the world by surprise. The magnitude of the invasion also was a surprise. Those who had expected an attack, such as the commander of U.S. Central Command, Norman Schwarzkopf, expected a limited attack to seize Kuwaiti oil fields. Instead, within a number of hours, Iraqi forces had seized downtown Kuwait City and were headed south toward the Saudi Arabia border.
Word of the Iraqi attack reached Washington, D.C., as Iraqi forces assembled at the Saudi border. The Pentagon had plans in place to aid the Saudis, and U.S. forces went on standby for the Saudis’ request. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and General Schwarzkopf met with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to brief him on the plans, which he approved. Within minutes of the meeting, orders were issued, and thus began the largest buildup of American forces since the Vietnam War. Within a short period, members of the 82nd Airborne Division, as well as 300 combat aircraft, were headed for Saudi Arabia.[/color][/ul]
SA has had a few economic booms. One was post OPEC in the 70’s with Aramco (Standard Oil to Arabian American Oil). The next major one was the first Iraq war on Saddam supplying the war effort. When it comes to American foreign policy, oil, and Saudi Arabia, I don’t think you can couch anything in adversarial terms. I.e., they asked, therefore,… like you are making some sophomoric argument. It’s not like that.
SA has had a few economic booms. One was post OPEC in the 70’s with Aramco (Standard Oil to Arabian American Oil). The next major one was the first Iraq war on Saddam supplying the war effort. When it comes to American foreign policy, oil, and Saudi Arabia, I don’t think you can couch anything in adversarial terms. I.e., they asked, therefore,… like you are making some sophomoric argument. It’s not like that.[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand your point. I was responding to Cake, who quoted some propaganda 911 theory kinda website that said Cheney wanted war with Iraq so he successfully strong-armed and convinced the Saudis that the Iraqis had intentions against them. I’m saying historically, the Saudis were already skittish and asked for American military intervention before Cheney met with them and told them their military plans, which they okay at that meeting. (It’s ridiculous they wouldn’t have asked for military intervention after the meeting).
The Saudis contributed a hefty share for the war in costs, perhaps some 40%?
I think the USA should drop a couple of nuclear bombs on Damascus. That will teach Assad that he can’t go around killing innocent civilians with weapons of mass destruction.
For sure, and the logic being presented by Putin, a Kurdish rebel leader and I’m sure others–why would Assad use chemical weapons in a war he’s winning with inspectors around when he knows it can only severely hurt him–while not ironclad, looks pretty convincing next to our own record of disingenuity. I don’t think that will pass unnoticed in Congress either.
