http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/....html?_r=0

Quote:Although Congressional leaders hailed his decision to seek the permission of lawmakers who had been clamoring for a say, the turnabout leaves Mr. Obama at the political mercy of House Republicans, many of whom have opposed him at every turn and have already suggested that Syria’s civil war does not pose a threat to the United States. His decision raises the possibility that he would be the first president in modern times to lose a vote on the use of force, much as Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain did in Parliament last week.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/te...z3sPkijIe2

Quote:“We certainly don’t have a dog in the fight,” Cruz said, calling it a civil war in Syria. “We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.”

Woulda, coulda, shouda. That train left a long time ago. Not important anymore.


Now, itiswhatitis.

The right thing to do would have been not to get involved with the civil war.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I actually think he did the right thing in staying out. We need to remain out.

(11-24-2015 08:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I actually think he did the right thing in staying out. We need to remain out.

Well, we stayed out of the ground war but still armed ISIS so he got it half right. We were better off with Assad having all the power. He was never a threat to us.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Nuke it

The right move was not to use language that implied an ultimatum that Obama wasn't willing to back up with US military force. Once he did, the only option available was to arm Syrian opposition forces which looks like turned out to be ISIS. I don't exactly think things turned out differently than Obama hoped, at least up until Russia got involved.

The solution: Let them annihilate themselves and then go in and pick up the pieces. Remember Russia at one time was in Afghanistan. What was the outcome in that? Same thing will happen and they will become part of the problem for Isis as the U.S. is now. The bomb in the Russian aircraft proved that to Isis Russia is the enemy also, which they weren't before.

(11-24-2015 08:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I actually think he did the right thing in staying out. We need to remain out.

By "he", I think you mean Obama. Popcorn is the right answer, but that's not what we've done. What we have done is so inconsequential that in the words of Obama, it will take years for the strategy to work (by which time, events will have run circles around our strategy).

(11-25-2015 07:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  The right move was not to use language that implied an ultimatum that Obama wasn't willing to back up with US military force. Once he did, the only option available was to arm Syrian opposition forces which looks like turned out to be ISIS. I don't exactly think things turned out differently than Obama hoped, at least up until Russia got involved.

The US didn't arm ISIS. The Iraqi army mostly did when they skedaddled after being attacked.

The right thing to do was to fight to win in Afghanistan. If Mullah Omar and bin Laden are both dead within one week of going to war, Saddam would decide very quickly to behave. Qaddafi did when he realized we were serious about Saddam. But then we went and helped overthrow him anyway.

(11-26-2015 09:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The right thing to do was to fight to win in Afghanistan. If Mullah Omar and bin Laden are both dead within one week of going to war, Saddam would decide very quickly to behave. Qaddafi did when he realized we were serious about Saddam. But then we went and helped overthrow him anyway.

Which tells the next dictator that, given the choice between giving up their nuclear arms aspirations or facing the wrath of the US, they should have clarity of thought.

In a broader context, it tells the world that you can last longer as an enemy of the US than you can as a friend.

(11-26-2015 10:28 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 09:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The right thing to do was to fight to win in Afghanistan. If Mullah Omar and bin Laden are both dead within one week of going to war, Saddam would decide very quickly to behave. Qaddafi did when he realized we were serious about Saddam. But then we went and helped overthrow him anyway.

Which tells the next dictator that, given the choice between giving up their nuclear arms aspirations or facing the wrath of the US, they should have clarity of thought.

In a broader context, it tells the world that you can last longer as an enemy of the US than you can as a friend.

Sigh…so true.

It seems like our government has been playing this whole foreign policy and international relations game as, quite simply, a game. No harm, no foul as long as our boots aren't on the ground and our flags aren't on the graves. That ish isn't going to cut it now, if it ever did. I think it is time for us to stop slinging funds and weaponry like we're the banker in some Earth-spanning game of high-stakes monopoly/risk/balderdash. Commit or don't. Full measures or shut up and sit down (no half). Don't draw lines in the sand and then kick them into the wind when challenged. Go isolationist if that means being true to your intentions. Just stop trying to tell the rest of the world that you're still willing/were ever willing to be world police with a hand in all problems and accepting of responsibility for any of it.

(11-25-2015 12:09 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Nuke it

yep....sans the nuke part....

the us gov't trying to legislate the world....what a cf of a foreign policy....

cracks me up just thinkin' 'bout it....

(11-26-2015 10:58 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 10:28 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 09:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The right thing to do was to fight to win in Afghanistan. If Mullah Omar and bin Laden are both dead within one week of going to war, Saddam would decide very quickly to behave. Qaddafi did when he realized we were serious about Saddam. But then we went and helped overthrow him anyway.

Which tells the next dictator that, given the choice between giving up their nuclear arms aspirations or facing the wrath of the US, they should have clarity of thought.

In a broader context, it tells the world that you can last longer as an enemy of the US than you can as a friend.

Sigh…so true.

I get the clarity of thought comment. I don't follow the last longer comment. If the message sent is the we kill you if you don't behave, but don't kill you if you do, then I'm not sure how you get there. Or maybe I'm misreading what you are saying.

Not everybody can be our friend, or wants to be. But as long as they all have clarity of thought, we should be okay.

(11-27-2015 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 10:58 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 10:28 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 09:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The right thing to do was to fight to win in Afghanistan. If Mullah Omar and bin Laden are both dead within one week of going to war, Saddam would decide very quickly to behave. Qaddafi did when he realized we were serious about Saddam. But then we went and helped overthrow him anyway.

Which tells the next dictator that, given the choice between giving up their nuclear arms aspirations or facing the wrath of the US, they should have clarity of thought.

In a broader context, it tells the world that you can last longer as an enemy of the US than you can as a friend.

Sigh…so true.

I get the clarity of thought comment. I don't follow the last longer comment. If the message sent is the we kill you if you don't behave, but don't kill you if you do, then I'm not sure how you get there. Or maybe I'm misreading what you are saying.

My comments are at least partly based on ideas that have been rattling around in my head, but I never expressed here.

Early on in the fight against the Assad regime, the US threw support behind the FSA and the Kurds in Syria (who the Turks classify as terrorists). The idea early on is that we support them, but would not give arms to the FSA because they could (and some subsequently did) turn toward radical factions, and that did in fact happen. I think we provided arms to the Kurds, but not severely restricted ammunition. After the rise of ISIS, US support for the FSA was that we'd provide arms and training, but only if they committed to only fight ISIS, not Assad. That's where the multi-million dollar program that produced less than 40 fighters led to (and some of those immediately changed allegiances after they returned to Syria).

So, the message to our enemies to have WMD or perish... the message to our friends is that we'll train you, but you have to fight with one arm behind your back, or we'll give you weapons, but you can't use them because we won't give you ammunition... all the while knowing that the alliance with the US makes them a target of all other factions on the ground.

We may not screw over all of our allies the way that we have done in Syria and Iraq, but seems to apply to how we handle non-state actors in the middle east.

(11-26-2015 09:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The right thing to do was to fight to win in Afghanistan. If Mullah Omar and bin Laden are both dead within one week of going to war, Saddam would decide very quickly to behave. Qaddafi did when he realized we were serious about Saddam. But then we went and helped overthrow him anyway.

Quadaffi also had issues with BP & Total which brought in the respective governments.

(12-01-2015 03:59 PM)I45owl Wrote:  My comments are at least partly based on ideas that have been rattling around in my head, but I never expressed here.
Early on in the fight against the Assad regime, the US threw support behind the FSA and the Kurds in Syria (who the Turks classify as terrorists). The idea early on is that we support them, but would not give arms to the FSA because they could (and some subsequently did) turn toward radical factions, and that did in fact happen. I think we provided arms to the Kurds, but not severely restricted ammunition. After the rise of ISIS, US support for the FSA was that we'd provide arms and training, but only if they committed to only fight ISIS, not Assad. That's where the multi-million dollar program that produced less than 40 fighters led to (and some of those immediately changed allegiances after they returned to Syria).
So, the message to our enemies to have WMD or perish... the message to our friends is that we'll train you, but you have to fight with one arm behind your back, or we'll give you weapons, but you can't use them because we won't give you ammunition... all the while knowing that the alliance with the US makes them a target of all other factions on the ground.
We may not screw over all of our allies the way that we have done in Syria and Iraq, but seems to apply to how we handle non-state actors in the middle east.

OK, I think I understand that you are being critical of our historic approach. I agree with that. I think you are correct that with our historic approach, you are better off being our enemy than being our friend.

I'm proposing a break with that. Treat our friends better than we treat our enemies. Or maybe, treat our enemies worse than we treat our friends. I presume that you would agree with that approach.