What is the risk of doing nothing? - Page 2

Just one point of distinction Steve, before you write the USA off, totally. He said, "oldest ally, not "closest ally". I am sure we over here make it a big difference in the meanings, with no disrespect.

Beetree
Correct he did, but i wonder what his real meaning was, Anyhow its Sunday over here and there has been no action taken yet according to the News, and perhaps Mr Obama is waiting for positive proof from the weapons inspectors before taking any positive action, if so he is a wise man? pity our own PM did not wait a bit longer before recalling the M.P,s to vote on it then we would still be united with the USA on it. however his own M.P,s from his side of Government who voted against him should be named to the public of the UK, the people do not need weak kneed M.P,s to represent them or there cities etc.
also i said i have lost a lot of respect for the USA government, that does not include the people of the USA, it is nothing to do with those folk no more than it is for the people of Gr B they cannot control the M.P,s of a country unless there is an election then they have the chance, that is why the traitors of Mr Camerons party should be named now to let the people know who is supposed to be looking after there interests, Now i am off to the tracking field and then the club its gone 7;oclock in the morning over here, Hope you are keeping well
Steve1

Steve, I believe your view is a bit too simplistic, though it would be nice if the world worked that way. You have been one dimensional in your analysis, such that a "positive test" should equate to unilateral action, with any other course being misconstrued as "weak". Identify the real problems and issues, and the solution takes on a decidely different form. This isn't like sending Wellington down to save the Continent. I also cannot in good conscious entertain a conversation based on the sanctity of human life, wherein  that picture is one well defined through the centuries as a matter of convenience.

Ron Paul floor speech on Syria 6-19-12 

 

Carlin
What i think is no different than most i am talking as i see it. It is easy to jump in with both  feet, then live to regret your actions. i do not know if you have ever done any service i asked you but you decline to say? well if you have it is better that you do not jump in with both feet before thinking very hard at what you are doing in a sticky situation, least wise i did find that out several times. For the third time now i say why bother to send in people to inspect and gauge what happened to those poor people if you are not going to await there findings. We know they were delayed in doing so possibly evidence has gone by the time they do there job but i would think they will get a fair amount to say.  so the wise outcome is to delay any kind of action until they report back. Now, i have been away with the Dogs since 7 o,clock this morning and it is now gone three in the afternoon so i have not heard anything.
Has your government decided to use some kind of retaliation at this time of writing along with the French of course, or have they decided to hold back at the present time until they know a bit more.
If you want to know what i think then i will tell you now. if after they find out that some form of Gas was used then Yes, action must be taken to stop it happening again preferably to wipe out the ones connected to using it. I still say the Gr B Prime minister was far too quick to bring in a vote when he did using that cavalier attitude and that has done his reputation no good or that of Gr B as well, It is not a sign of weakness in a country it is a blatant sign of traitors in his own political party and they should be shamed in front of there countrymen for the cowards that they are, because i cannot see there being another vote on this subject regardless of what may be found out by the weapons inspectors, so now the government of Gr B has no more to say on the matter

Steve, I stand by an earlier post of mine when I offered that after all the world went through in dealing with Iraq and Hussein, even to his execution, and extended occupation of that country, similar acts of barbarism continue, and will. Your prescription is wanting in that it is a narrow one, largely condusive to the perpetuation of the problem.

Steve,
Glad you had a good day with the dogs. Mine had their morning romp with my DH. Until the thunderstorms struck! How did your racing pigeons fare this season, too? I don't think you ever said?

---

Well, I woke up this Sunday morning to this, it seems to be the news of the moment: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57600898/obamas-request-for-congressional-approval-on-a-syria-strike-marks-retreat-syrian-state-media-says/

Obama feels like he wants us all on the same page, so, he's going to Congress asking for their support. This is where we are going to discuss everything to death, resulting in plenty of fair warning if we do decide to do anything. So, I think the Syrian's can just get on with killing each other for the time being. If we do strike, It will be some bridges here or there, and we certainly have no plans to stay and get involved in another war with no end, or perhaps ever having a clear objective. 

As far as I can tell, it is all about being punitive. And it is cause for some derision by the Assad regime because they only care about their end result and a few bridges will hardly count.

John Kerry when asked by George Stephanopoulus would not even entertain the idea of not winning over the vote in Congress, and I thought that was bold and perhaps showing a bit of denial, to not even be prepared for an undesired outcome. We shall see.
 

So, I think the Syrian's can just get on with killing each other for the time being.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joT6kNTSbmE

Here's the caption for the video, a hearing on the genocide and crimes against humanity which dwarf what has happened in Syria.

"Ten years since the beginning of state-sponsored crimes against civilians
in Darfur, which the U.S. government found to constitute genocide, the human rights and humanitarian situation in the region remains dire. Civilians continue to face violent attacks by government forces, pro-government militias, and armed opposition groups, while humanitarian aid is severely limited for an estimated 2.3 million internally displaced persons. Some 130,000 Darfuris have been newly displaced in the first months of 2013 alone.

The state-sponsored violence and human rights abuses have spread to other areas of Sudan, resulting in a vast humanitarian crisis. The Government of Sudan's indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilians in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states and its continued blocking of humanitarian relief have created a crisis that is nearing famine conditions. Over 900,000 Sudanese are in desperate need of humanitarian aid. The United Nations and independent monitors have documented abuses by the Government of Sudan and armed groups it supports that "may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity." Nearly 200,000 Sudanese have fled to South Sudan, a young country that is poor, has virtually no infrastructure, and faces its own challenges of state-building while resolving inter-communal and ethnic armed violence.

This hearing addresses the humanitarian crises in Sudan and South Sudan, the human rights violations underlying the crises, and U.S. policy in the region."

 

"If we do strike, It will be some bridges here or there, and we certainly have no plans to stay and get involved in another war with no end, or perhaps ever having a clear objective."
 

How could a few bridges prevent further atrocities?  Any rational military strategist is faced with just that question, otherwise, such a contentious undertaking will be seen as a failure, making the political fallout far more destructive.  It's no secret who we support here, and I would be amazed if we did not use the "opportunity" to tilt the playing field significantly in favor of our pawn. 
 

John Kerry when asked by George Stephanopoulus would not even entertain the idea of not winning over the vote in Congress, and I thought that was bold and perhaps showing a bit of denial, to not even be prepared for an undesired outcome.

Kerry seems to inhabit a perpetual state of denial, dating back to his run for the executive.  Not that I have any great affinity for the woman, on the contrary, but I think Hillary is a more competent "statesman"  by far.

Here's a different take on the genesis of the use of chemical weapons.

 


I don't know who's responsible, and we may never.  Another question would be, exactly what the UN inspection team is able to determine.  Are they merely able to ascertain that chemical weapons were in fact used?  If that is all, do we then assume who it is that used them?   Many, I repeat many have questioned why it would be in Assad's interest to invite, enable, and otherwise catalyze the response of a coalition force given the fact that he is winning the conflict without such weapons, and stands little to gain by using them. 

1. There is no legitimate reason for the US to attack Syria except that people have to die for other people to get paid.

2. If Obama gets in a messy war, the Dem's have no chance in the next elections, both Midterm Congressional and the next Presidential.

3. John Kerry is a Traitor by definition.