How Bad is BHO gonna screw up in Syria?

• Tiernan

  A single isolated attack with no follow-up strategy will lost likely result in Assad seeking vengeance on rebel strongholds and since he's had days now to move and hide military assets, a single strike is even more of a waste.
• gut

  I've come to view foreign policy for POTUS as quite overrated. Policy is more or less dictated across administrations by career staffers.
  
  It's a fine line between success and failure. There hasn't been a "great" success in the Middle East in who knows how long (maybe Kuwait, but otherwise?). By the same token, no one has really and truly "stepped in it". And we've gone after it from almost every conceivable angle (including regime change).
  
  My expectation in Syria is a mediocre outcome that will be hotly debated as a success AND failure supported heavily with hyperbole and supposition.
• Tiernan

  The only success measurement can be removal of Assad...and I don't think Barry has the balls for that.
• gut

  Tiernan;1493664 wrote:The only success measurement can be removal of Assad...and I don't think Barry has the balls for that.

  We've done that in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya....you'd probably have a tough time arguing any one of those has been a success.
  
  Basically the players change but the results remain the same.
• Belly35

  

  Congress should tell Obama to pound salt mofo....
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  You all will be shocked by this....
  Obama has totally screwed this up.
  
  He should have just struck with cruise missiles, then come with the justification, an explain more is to come if Syria does not halt the use of chemical weapons.
  Instead, he dithered and now is screwed on options and losing support on all sides.
  And, he loses all credibility by waiting this long to strike.
• majorspark

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1493717 wrote:You all will be shocked by this....
  Obama has totally screwed this up.

  Not me. I never took you as an Obama leg humper.
  

  ptown_trojans_1;1493717 wrote:He should have just struck with cruise missiles, then come with the justification, an explain more is to come if Syria does not halt the use of chemical weapons.
  Instead, he dithered and now is screwed on options and losing support on all sides.
  And, he loses all credibility by waiting this long to strike.

  This would be a violation of the war powers resolution and the constitution.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  majorspark;1493724 wrote:Not me. I never took you as an Obama leg humper.
  
  
  
  This would be a violation of the war powers resolution and the constitution.

  Thanks.
  And every President has violated the War Powers Act in the strict reading of it.
  It mean nothing really, just keep Congress informed.
  
  If the President would have launched a strike, then did a prime time speech on tv saying why he did ala President Clinton in Desert Fox, then he would have more support. He would also have more of a hand to play.
  Now, he is short on options.
  He has literally boxed himself in a corner.
• gut

  ptown_trojans_1;1493717 wrote:You all will be shocked by this....
  Obama has totally screwed this up.

  He's maybe lost the war of words. But that's all he's lost. And that's about all that's ever truly at stake. The practical and significant implications of that are still nill. Seriously, what does "having support" really have to do with the correct decision? You've politicized politics.
  
  Like I said there will be plenty of arm-chair quarterbacking with all kinds of grand theories and great insights, and at the end of the day some of the players may change but the results never do.
• TedSheckler

  

  majorspark;1493724 wrote: This would be a violation of the war powers resolution and the constitution.

  He's going to start abiding by the Constitution?
• pmoney25

  

  Middle East policy has been screwed up since before Obama was born. He is just continuing a long line of failures and incorrect decisions. This idea that we will be ok with 100k people dying but now that 1000 are dead from a chemical weapon, we must act and punish Syria is just an excuse for the US and Israel to eventually go into Iran and destroy their Nuclear plants.
• BoatShoes

  ptown_trojans_1;1493717 wrote:You all will be shocked by this....
  Obama has totally screwed this up.
  
  He should have just struck with cruise missiles, then come with the justification, an explain more is to come if Syria does not halt the use of chemical weapons.
  Instead, he dithered and now is screwed on options and losing support on all sides.
  And, he loses all credibility by waiting this long to strike.

  Yeah man he totally should've just started firing cruise missiles when he has no authority to do so. Easier to ask for Forgiveness than for Permission mirite???
  
  I sympathize with the idea that there is a role for powerful and wealthy nations to intervene on the part of those who are massacred by dictators but it should be done with the full consent of the people through their elected representatives. As horrific as the slaughter of innocents with chemical weapons is, there was no attack on American forces that would necessitate unilateral executive action on the part of the commander in chief IMHO.
  
  On the contrary, he would lose all credibility if he just went ahead and authorized a strike without the support of Congress, our allies, the public, the Arab League or all of the above.
• BoatShoes

  pmoney25;1493786 wrote:Middle East policy has been screwed up since before Obama was born. He is just continuing a long line of failures and incorrect decisions. This idea that we will be ok with 100k people dying but now that 1000 are dead from a chemical weapon, we must act and punish Syria is just an excuse for the US and Israel to eventually go into Iran and destroy their Nuclear plants.

  I agree. We have an international norm against the slaughter of innocents with nerve gas but conventional weaponry is A-Ok! :thumbup:
• Manhattan Buckeye

  At the very least, he needs a new speechwriter:
  
  ""I’m prepared to give that order, but having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interest, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy," Obama said. "I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.""
  
  Stop using "I" and "my" so much, it does nothing to detract to the (IMO correct) view that he's a complete narcissist.
• majorspark

  

  Good to see Obama is going to obey the law and the Constitution and go about this the right way. Now he is going to have to make his case to congress.
• BGFalcons82

  

  majorspark;1493978 wrote:Good to see Obama is going to obey the law and the Constitution and go about this the right way. Now he is going to have to make his case to congress.

  But that's not what I heard him say. He's convinced he doesn't need approval from anyone to bomb and destroy as he pleases. This is what was described as a "Hold Me Back" leading-from-behind strategy. Congress will stop his bombing raids to save Syrian children and once again, he will be seen as the Washington outsider blocked by Assad-loving Republicans. Political nitwittery at its glorious zenith.
  
  What a fucking amatuer clearly way in over his head. But it doesn't matter as long as Miley, Paris and Brittany roam the planet to keep us entertained.
• IggyPride00

  

  Watching the news coverage right now and they are showing Syrian news channels that have officials from that country laughing at the American President that has shown himself to be impotent.
  
  The Israeli news channels were showing stunned commentators discussing how Obama has humiliated himself on an international stage by taking the cowards way out when boxed into a corner.
  
  In Iran the Ayatollah's are partying because of the realization that under Obama (fairly or unfairly) from here on out the U.S is a paper tiger that doesn't have the stomach for any more miliatry conflicts beyond lobbing a few cruise missiles to try and save face.
  
  Obama was bluffing hard with the "Red Line" comment if turns out, and Assad called his bluff.
  
  The world is literally laughing at us right now.
  
  I am not interested in a fight with Syria, but Obama badly badly damaged American prestige around the world with this whole episode as our entire foreign policy apparatus is a big joke at this point filled with goons that have no clue how to get anything done or advance American interests abroad.
  
  The world no longer takes any of these people seriously as they know they are negotiating with empty suits backed up by a feckless leader.
  
  This is an embarrassing episode in American history, and Congress is not going to bail Obama out like he is hoping for.
• TedSheckler

  

  If only Obama was this passionate about four dead Americans in Benghazi.
  
  Oh and...
  
  
• Tiernan

  Told ya he'd screw this up beyond all recognition. The FUBAR Prez.
• Glory Days

  

  TedSheckler;1494059 wrote:If only Obama was this passionate about four dead Americans in Benghazi.
  
  Oh and...
  
  

  So he joined the Navy to go around the world to help people who survived natural disasters and the such that has nothing to do with the US, but won't help people who are being killed by oppressive governments that actually may have more to do with the US (ie allowing terrorist to operate in their country or supporting terrorist organizations in other countries)?
• O-Trap

  

  Glory Days;1494575 wrote:So he joined the Navy to go around the world to help people who survived natural disasters and the such that has nothing to do with the US, but won't help people who are being killed by oppressive governments that actually may have more to do with the US (ie allowing terrorist to operate in their country or supporting terrorist organizations in other countries)?

  Perhaps he joined to defend our homeland. People do still join for that reason, I'm told.
  
  As for what they have to do with the US, I'm still not sure fighting alongside the Al Qaeda forces to battle against people who don't ask questions about people who train there isn't just cutting off our nose to spite our face. Or do you think that 12 years ago is ancient history to people in the Middle East?
• Glory Days

  

  O-Trap;1494584 wrote:Perhaps he joined to defend our homeland. People do still join for that reason, I'm told.

  We've done that what, like once in the past 200 years....we've gone and helped out countries more times than I can count. I think he needs to look in the mirror if he wants someone to blame.
• O-Trap

  

  Glory Days;1494591 wrote:We've done that what, like once in the past 200 years....we've gone and helped out countries more times than I can count.

  You're absolutely right. However, as I recall, the pitch I got was that of defending America. Was never pitched that the Army was another branch of the Peace Corp. or Feed The Children.
  

  Glory Days;1494591 wrote:I think he needs to look in the mirror if he wants someone to blame.

  I'd hardly think that an 18-year-old high school senior being hard marketed a sales pitch on saving America should be blamed for falling for the bait and switch.
• Con_Alma

  TedSheckler;1494059 wrote:...
  
  

  Why you joined is really irrelevant.
  
  Once you joined you took an oath to obey the commands of your superior officers. If the Commander-In-Chief sends you, you already agreed to go.
  
  I thank you for doing so. Best wishes sailor.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1494594 wrote:Why you joined is really irrelevant.
  
  Once you joined you took an oath to obey the commands of your superior officers. If the Commander-In-Chief sends you, you already agreed to go.
  
  I thank you for doing so. Best wishes sailor.

  I believe several members of the Third Reich tried to use "I was just following orders" (something they'd likely sworn to do) as a defense at Nuremberg, but it was not deemed a viable defense. Naturally, genocide and policing a sovereign nation state are not the same activity, but the logic that negates the defense of following orders in one case is no less viable in another, if both can be deemed unethical.
  
  And does not the oath conflict with itself, as it also holds them to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies?
  
  So what happens when the President becomes an enemy to the Constitution?
  
  Why you join can be ANYTHING but irrelevant if why you joined is motivated and shaped by the leadership you will be serving, only for it to turn into a bait and switch.
  
  If I'm told that I will be doing marketing upon being hired at a new job, but once I get there, they ask me to be a fluffer on a porn set, I daresay I have reason to be upset, regardless of what I agreed to.
  
  If these troops have made an oath under false pretense, I see no justification for calling why they joined irrelevant.