I like you slow but you should look at the bigger picture/context when assessing foreign policy decisions/tactics and try to not be so easily influenced by the general media. That said, I can’t recall (Obama included) where a US President hasn’t caused a few huge cluster fucks from a foreign policy stand-point while in office. Rep and Dem alike. That said, in all cases, 100% of the blame can’t be placed on the President himself. Even Bush Jr.
I have no problem with Obama really, my main beef is he can’t make a decision.
I have a long list of problems with Obama, and a main beef of mine is that he is making too many decisions (aside from whatever he chooses to do with Syria.)
Edit: Let me know if you guys want me to break up the two distinct topics in here: one for the Syria question, and another for domestic politics. Would be happy to do so. Otherwise, since this is just the general discussion forum, I’ll leave everything as is in this one thread.
My point is he is a puppet.
(To Valerie Jarrett, et al.)
They’re all puppets in the end.
I’m not placing 100% of the blame on Obama but I am looking at his cabinet of “progressive thinkers”. Obama in all honesty, is taking what his predecessor did and expanding on it. Point is, Americas time as a nation builder has long passed; look at where we fucked up:
Vietnam (similar to Iraq)
Nicaragua or El Salvador (can’t remember which)
Somalia
Iraq
Egypt
There are others where we have stepped in and attempted to “assist” and “build”.
What I like about Obama is his willingness to digest all available info before coming to some sort of conclusion, it’s just too bad that he never makes his own decision and allows his cabinet to think for him. Syria is going to be like another Kuwait. UN sanctions and political BS will happen, eventually the US will feel the need to act because its the right thing to do.
As I said in my last post, I don’t think the US should take the lead on this and should force the UN to step up and take action. I might get flamed for this but isolanist ideals aren’t that bad and I feel the US should take some cues from the pre-manifest destiny policies of yesteryears.
Axel, since I can’t go back to re-edit my post, I re-read what you said about big picture and thought of this; it ties into my views.
Do all remember your history class about Roosevelt’s Big Stick policy, remember the political picture?
It should now be a picture of Clint Eastwood sitting on his porch, in his rocking chair, with a shotgun (or an AR, for my gun nuts), rocking and watching the world pass on by, only to stand up and regulate people from stepping on his lawn or people getting attacked in his presence a la Gran Torino.
;D
America is no longer the young cowboy, she is now the salted Marine Vet that you do not cross on the bus or you’ll get an ass-whoopin.
Yeah, but if you don’t show up to the party, you lose control and the US hates losing control. They always want to be the leader and don’t want anyone else to make decisions for them. That’s understandable. The problem is how they go about doing it and it’s not always for the nation’s best interest which leads me to my next point. The main problem with the US is that the people running the politics are all doing it solely for personal gain (be it money or power or ideology). Reps and Dems alike are only looking at their agenda and want their views to be implemented.
The country is so divided it’s destroying them. The country is young but since it’s so big (and technology is advancing at break neck speed), the solidarity that founded the US is gone. Now it’s all about greed. Screw the people, screw the nation, screw everything as long as these politicians and conglomerates get what they want.
The three branches were created logically so no one branch would have excessive powers. They never took into account the possibility that these branches would put their own interests before the country’s interests though and therefore continually fuck each other over, regardless of the detrimental impact it has on the nation as a whole.
Every Democratic country gets there at some point or another. The US simply fast tracked that process.
The UN is incapable of doing anything. It is entirely corrupt and inept.
Good points; I have no rebuttal. ;D
The UN is a mirror-image of the US congress. It does nothing but bicker and hand out rations that barely solve problems but never is it held accountable for its actions or inactions. Unless my understanding of the UN is wrong, its not just a humanitarian organization, it also has the money and manpower to step up; it just needs a swift kick in the ass by the US and her allies.
The UN is primarily funded by the US. If we had any balls, we would pull funding and drain the swamp.
And it is not a mirror image of Congress.
I watched ‘The Distinguished Gentleman’ the other day. Slightly funny and predictable 80s comedy starring Eddie Murphy. Anyway, it paints a pretty good picture of what politics is really about. I don’t think people realise what a money grab it really is. It’s all just a big business deal.
Do we really care that Syria gassed a bunch of kids? Who gives a fuck…I mean that’s what we’ve been saying for the last 3-4 years while this has been going on. I watched videos of military snipers killing teenagers in Syria in 2009. On liveleak. Why did nobody freak out back then? Why no invasion? Because US wasn’t nearly as angry at Russia back then, diplomatically.
Now it’s all about US vs Russia. US being closer to energy independance is going to really annoy Russia further. I don’t think people understand what is going on with the shale oil and gas in the US. That’s going to be a revolution that saves your dirty, bankrupt little country. The rest of the oil producing world is not exactly happy about it.
Here…get a load of #2 (and #3). This is a couple of years old. It’s already looking dramatically different. Russia is now #1 in the world. America is hot on the Saudi’s heels…and that will grow exponentially over the next 10 years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Chart-of-Oil-Trading-Nation_inverse.GIF
“9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask”:
I think this is a really good summary of what exactly is going on in Syria, and just how dire the situation is.
Regarding the US taking action, the author argues that inaction would set a dangerous precedent for use of chemical weapons in future wars. Essentially, not punishing Assad’s violation of the Geneva Convention would incentivize the use of such weapons going forward.
[quote]Here’s the deal: war is going to happen. It just is. But the reason that the world got together in 1925 for the Geneva Convention to ban chemical weapons is because this stuff is really, really good at killing civilians but not actually very good at the conventional aims of warfare, which is to defeat the other side. You might say that they’re maybe 30 percent a battlefield weapon and 70 percent a tool of terror. In a world without that norm against chemical weapons, a military might fire out some sarin gas because it wants that battlefield advantage, even if it ends up causing unintended and massive suffering among civilians, maybe including its own. And if a military believes its adversary is probably going to use chemical weapons, it has a strong incentive to use them itself. After all, they’re fighting to the death.
So both sides of any conflict, not to mention civilians everywhere, are better off if neither of them uses chemical weapons. But that requires believing that your opponent will never use them, no matter what. And the only way to do that, short of removing them from the planet entirely, is for everyone to just agree in advance to never use them and to really mean it. That becomes much harder if the norm is weakened because someone like Assad got away with it. It becomes a bit easier if everyone believes using chemical weapons will cost you a few inbound U.S. cruise missiles.
That’s why the Obama administration apparently wants to fire cruise missiles at Syria, even though it won’t end the suffering, end the war or even really hurt Assad that much.
[/quote]
While I think the author has a point, I still think the US has a more direct interest in launching a military strike. I.e., to prevent the spread of a known stockpile of WMDs.
While it’s not going to happen, I agree with you in principle. The UN has zero credibility, and we would be wise to put that ugly building in NYC to productive use.
Just one of many examples: Syria was re-elected to the UN’s human rights committee less than two years ago :o
It’s all a joke, and a sham.
I think this is the most compelling argument against a humanitarian-based intervention. There is no logical reason, from purely a human-suffering based perspective, to support military strikes now just because the method of murder is deadly chemicals rather than deadly bullets.
The other pro-intervention argument, which I happen to agree with, is based on the direct threat that Syria’s WMDs pose to the US.
What does attacking Syria do for us? Ok so we help a part of the world but neither sides are going to be allies with us, lose-lose situation…Obama has criticized Bush for going into into the middle east and even contemplating this decision is hypocritical on his part. America needs to stop giving out ridiculous amounts of foreign aid and policing the world. It’s not our job. Obama screwed up by making threats and flexing America’s muscles. This has been his foreign policy all along and someone is finally calling his bluff which has been long overdue. He is feeling the pressure now. Fuck Russia, they ain’t never been on our side at all, just scared of us. They are looking for a reason to nuke us.
We have WAY too much debt and have no legit reason to be involved. It’s an easy decision. Don’t get involved. And stop getting involved everywhere in the world, start focusing at home on JOBS! Since the 80’s, every time we get involved in something that isn’t our job we get screwed in the end. Even nukes on our homeland is a distant threat as we have the most advanced anti-missile defenses. We have by far the most advanced fighter jets, most advanced navy, etc etc…we need to stay focused at home as we are fairly safe here minus domestic attacks (increasing border strength rings a bell).
Now in all honesty, the only major threat to the US is China…past that we have the best military in the world, undisputable. Reserve that for when we actually need it. Period. It’s utterly pathetic IMO that Obama is even getting involved or trying to do so. Were this any other republican we wouldn’t hear the end of it in the media…
I believe America needs to tread very carefully and not be the instigators here. Syria is a pawn in the overall delicate match of world power, but doing things rashly here could have very dangerous consequences.
While our military is extremely capable, there is no telling what the Russians or Chinese have up their sleeves. They have surprised us before, and by that I mean scared the shit out of every military genius we have with their capabilities and secret projects. It wasn’t so long ago that the US was chasing the Russians for superiority and I think it is foolish to be dismissive of their threat. We certainly have our own skunk works type projects, but Putin doesn’t have the kind of bureaucratic handcuffs of more democratic nations to hinder him.
Bottom line, I think it’s a crapshoot, and I’m very weary of the President’s decision to call for a military strike. I vote no.
It’s all politics. Obama is only going to congress after he saw that England had a failed vote.
He is expecting the same result. He wouldn’t have come out and said what he did without first counting the votes.
I could be wrong, but that is my guess based on how delicate the situation is.
He wants to appear strong, but then be handcuffed by our congress.
I think the replies to this thread so far are very interesting - pretty sure I’m the only one in favor of military strikes. But perhaps it’s not all that surprising, given the state of war-weariness in the US and more generally in the Western world (after all, the US has had the assistance of many other countries in Afghanistan and Iraq, including France, Canada, the UK, Germany, Turkey, etc.).
50% of the US public is decidedly against any kind of intervention, and a staggering 80% believe that Obama must seek Congressional approval. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100999169
It all puts me in the very strange position of supporting Obama on this one. The question that I’ve asked several times now is “what is the cost of doing nothing?” I think if you take an objective look at Secretary Kerry’s two statements in the past few days, and Obama’s statement today, they make a pretty good case of why direct US interests are implicated. A world in which a dictator is free to indiscriminately gas his own people only leads to the further prevalence of WMDs.
Believe me, I share the war-weariness (and frankly I applaud Obama for seeking Congressional approval - it is, after all, a requirement under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution). But we live in a world where some seriously evil dictators are seeking the most devastating of weapons (biological, chemical, and nuclear). We can’t avoid that, and so I believe it is imperative that the US exact military punishment on those who would unleash them against the most innocent populations.
** Don’t think I don’t see the irony of Kerry and Obama arguing for unilateral action against a nation harboring stockpiles of WMDs. You could shear that with a knife.
I’m not against military strikes at all. I just think it’s a waste of time, and money (that the US doesn’t have) .
The wmd debate as it pertains to nukes I don’t buy. Everyone is terrified Iran and North Korea gets nukes because as I said, nobody wants to deal with them. As in business deal and diplomacy. Once they get them, you have to let them in.