The Excited States KNEW that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons(American companies supplied the deadly chemicals) that he was planning to use. STILL they supplied him with intel on Iranian troop movements. They didn't give two shits about chemical weapons against the Kurds.

Americans are, and always have been, a bunch of self serving bastards. They need wars to pay the bills.

"This is a historic humiliation for the presidency over the planned intervention, and the whole civil war has been handled stupendously badly since it began two and a half years ago. Don't try to spin this away. It's been a debacle and Obama deserves all the criticism he gets."

1. AGAIN, I'm 100% fine with criticism--you know I'd want to criticize the hell out of a President Romney in a Star Trek-esque Mirror Universe somewhere--but I DON'T think it's fair or even politically-sound to say you can do better when you have no evidence to say you can...it's the difference between my yelling at a baseball player for striking out and my yelling that AND saying "Pfff, you can't hit a 99mph fastball??? *I* can do better! ...I've never stepped into the batter's box in my life, let alone against a Hall of Fame pitcher throwing 99mph, but HA! *I* am awesome, *I* can do better!"

That's the distinction I'm trying to make--you can say Obama's struck out without touting yourself as a Babe Ruth who could do it better, as it were.

2. I'll agree that the Syrian situation has been fumbled, but I think that's been a fumble which the whole US federal government shares in...Obama's failed...his cabinet's fumbled the ball...Congress has been inept on the matter...Obama's "red line" gets a lot of press (an inordinate amount, but to be fair, he IS the President, so yeah, he should expect that sort of inordinate press attention, fair or foul) but I think others have contributed to this debacle just as much.

3. In closing...I DON'T think this is a "historic humiliation" for a US President...YET. I think the fact he's trying to do something (albeit late in the game) has staved that off, and history will decide...to me, a "humiliation" would be something like the Bay of Pigs, which this isn't...yet. This is still a situation he can still salvage, and certainly one he can keep from being a Bay of Pigs-style humiliation for the US. That Bay of Pigs reference does raise one other issue--we tend to remember Kennedy today more for his stellar Cuban Missile Crisis Performance, his Space Race initiative, his youthful vigor and his assassination than the Bay of Pigs or his early political problems in office or his ongoing sexual liaisons...

Granted Obama's in Year 5 and not Year 1, BUT Kennedy and Obama both have roughly the same amount of time left on the clock, 3 years post-Syria/Bay of Pigs...

I think Obama CAN be thought of as better on the whole in the Syrian situation IF he can resolve it successfully, military means or no.

History has a very selective memory, and it's not too late for Obama...

But it's the bottom of the 9th for him on Syria, and he's trailing--so the next few days and weeks could arguably make (or at least improve) or break his presidency.

"obi, is it safe to say, then, that you are horrified at Obama's claims, during Bush's Presidency, that he could do better?"

Horrified?
No.
Do I think that's a stupid thing to say?
Yes.

Would I have said it was stupid in 2008?

No...but then, I was a stupid young man MYSELF in 2008...as most boys on the cusp of actually taking the first steps into adulthood will be.

I'd like to think my politicians could show a bit more tact and common sense than a 17-year old doofus.

Then again...well...that's not happening, is it? ;)

Obi is just like the people in this video, only he means it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ

I DO think he's a better President than semck, though--

Albeit not by much, but I would still pick Obama over Bush any day.

He really is like those people. Too many are.

@dipplayer:

Tell me how this becomes World War III.

Go ahead--tell me how it gets THAT far.

You and quite a few others seem to be voicing that concern...

I think that's utterly ludicrous...I CAN understand the arguments against striking Syria (I disagree with them on the whole--unless we can resolve this diplomatically--but I at least understand where these people are coming from and can accede that they're making legitimate points, albeit ones I don't agree with)...

Tell me how a limited strike in Syria becomes the ending of Dr. Strangelove.

Please, lay out your doomsday scenario for us...

And I'm not like those people at all, Invictus!

I'm a college JUNIOR, almost a senior, not a freshman, thank you very much, and a ghostwriter for all the worst shit that doesn't work, not a barista!

TOTALLY different! :p

WWIII is a bad term, but it's pretty obvious to see how this could escalate. We bomb Syria. Who knows what happens next? Maybe Assad attacks refugee camps in Jordan. Maybe Hezbollah attacks Israel. Maybe Iran stages a terrorist attack here at home. Remember when they almost blew up a DC cafe with the Saudi ambassador in it? Maybe Russia sends ships with weapons to Assad even though we have a blockade of the coast. Do we stop them? What happens if we do? The Saudis have said they would go along with any strike we do. Just the threat from Iran that they'll launch missiles at any oil tankers going through the Strait of Hormuz will rocket up oil prices like we've never seen. There's no way to predict what will happen, and the plans Obama has presented so far just get us involved in a Middle East war with no criteria for victory or even a sensible way to get out.

Limited strikes won't stay limited for long. Syria has a vote on what happens here too, you know. As does its firm ally, Iran. You're so blind here, obiwanobiwan. It'd be funny if things weren't so serious.

Invictus, I hope you don't think that I'm like those people. I *didn't* vote for Obama, to start with. There are issues that can be bipartisan, you know.

Exactly. I don't. This is one of those bipartisan issues. Look at Congress! But you still get hacks like obiwanobiwan who have drank too deeply of the Kool-Aid to admit that Obama is handling this unambiguously horribly.

The Americans have no moral authority whatsoever to take issue with another nation's use/possession of weaponry.

It amuses me that the most dangerous nation EVER, with unlimited weaponry and a shameful history of world destruction, would express such outrage/concern at another nation's use/possession of weaponry.

So Invictus, you're worried that the US will draw Russia into a war to protect it's client state through limited strikes. Sounds a bit like Kosovo, no? That didn't spiral into a World War 3 or a larger conflict.

Iran won't act. The new President seems to want peace and our embargo is destroying the Iranian economy. Hezbollah will act regardless of whether we strike or not, because Lebanon is starting to come apart at the seams since the Sunnis there are pissed that Hezbollah is sending fighters into Syria.

@Invictus:

I can play the maybe game too, though:

Maybe we don't strike and Assad is emboldened,
Maybe he and Russia grow even closer and stronger as a result,
Maybe Russia arms Syria and Syria arms Hezbollah (not far-fetched),
Maybe Hezbollah attacks Israel from its Syrian/Lebanese holdings,
Maybe Israel responds,
Maybe Russia and the US fight a proxy war as we back Israel and they back the Arab States,
Maybe Iran gets involved and this whole thing becomes global,
Maybe then we put boots on the ground.

Or maybe it all blows over and we wait until the hammer really DOES fall.

You can play the "maybe game" all day long, and in both directions...

That sort of reasoning doesn't sway me.

"But you still get hacks like obiwanobiwan who have drank too deeply of the Kool-Aid to admit that Obama is handling this unambiguously horribly."

...I said he did a bad job...

In fact, the only thing I said differently was my criticism was BROADER than yours in saying Obama AND his staff AND Congress fouled this up (as most screw-ups this bad--let's be honest--are a team effort...and by a team effort I mean the result of a team that refuses to work together.)

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-renew-offer-supply-300s-iran-092836382.html

Oh yeah, we can just let Putin take care of Syria...

Yep, no need to say

THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE! THIS FAR, AND ON FURTHER.

Maybe citing Star Trek isn't the best academic source...but hey, it's Patrick Stewart saying those lines, I can't help it (and given the fact everyone's latching onto the "red line" comment, I think it fits.) :p

But seriously, those who don't see a need for intervention--

This isn't just about Syria.

It's about Iran, about Hezbollah, about Putinist Russia fighting a proxy war against us in the Middle East...

It was a pretty damn good speech.

+1 to Invictus.

Obama has not sent the bombs in yet, good for the World, bad for the US Arms Industry ...... he is like so anti-American business interests, his middle name is Hussein you know

I have often wondered what would happen if the hawks of this world got what they wanted and we actually acted before thousands of our preferred allies are either killed off or join the fundamentalists out of desperation. The compromise option of waiting until so many are dead that even our die hard supporters treat us with anger and suspicion and then joining in does us no favours.

And here we go again... Obviously there are still a handful of secular peace loving freedom fighting Syrians left or we would have done something. We can't possibly act until we have strung them along a bit longer with stories of military aid and imminent bombing campaigns, whilst their friends die in battle, their homes are destroyed, and families murdered. Only when they hate us as much as Assad will we end up doing something, and then wonder why they are ungrateful.

"You can play the "maybe game" all day long, and in both directions...

That sort of reasoning doesn't sway me."

The point isn't to think of crazy scenarios, obiwanobiwan. It's to demonstrate that we can't predict what will happen in the aftermath of our intervention. Given the high risks and really negligible rewards at this point, intervention looks like a horrible idea.

If you weren't such an Obama hack you'd see how dumb an idea it is to just lob a few bombs at Assad and think it'll all be over when we say it is. As soon as the first missile explodes we will own this conflict, which has real potential to become a regional war. Your argument for going is basically "it might not escalate, so let's just do it." That's very irresponsible. The sad thing is it's not too far from the administration's plan, such as there is one.


"In fact, the only thing I said differently was my criticism was BROADER than yours in saying Obama AND his staff AND Congress fouled this up"

The staff gets some blame, of course, but it really all does come right back to him. The decision to go to Congress was a spur of the moment decision by Obama and his chief of staff. No one else. The "red line" was an off the cuff remark at the press conference by the president and the president alone. And on and on. I really don't understand how you can blame Congress for this debacle at all. It doesn't shape foreign policy. There's plenty to hate Congress over, but this mess is not theirs at all. The only reason to think so is if you are, again, an Obama hack who just can't acknowledge how completely he's failed as a leader over Syria.

"As soon as the first missile explodes we will own this conflict"

Which is why I think it's such a good idea to have Russia remove Assad's chemical weapons. Russian troops will be attacked while doing the removal, and it will be Russia's conflict.

That's better than making it an American conflict. If they choose to make a war out of it, they can. But it's much more likely that Assad will simply buy the weapons back and we'll be back to square one. Either way, avoiding an American conflict is our priority and avoiding a conflict altogether is our priority after we ensure there is no American conflict.

He can't buy the weapons back because he's signing a treaty renouncing chemical weapons. Up until now, Syria was one of 7 nations not on the treaty. I mean, even Russia is complying with the treaty (though at their own pace....but to be fair we're stalling too)

We've been stalling since the 1940s. So have they.

Out of curiosity, who else isn't on it?

How can you just affirm we're stalling and not even know who else isn't a party to the treaty? In fact, we've been the point of the spear against chemical weapons since Nixon. We only keep a stockpile for response in case of a chemical attack on ourselves. We haven't made new ones for almost fifty years.

"Which is why I think it's such a good idea to have Russia remove Assad's chemical weapons. Russian troops will be attacked while doing the removal, and it will be Russia's conflict."

But that's just it. Russia won't really take the weapons. They'll just talk about taking them, and as talks go on America can't act and Assad can continue to fight the rebels without outside interference. Assad's regime cannot survive without these weapons and Putin wants Assad to survive, as should be abundantly clear by now. This is just a stalling tactic to make American intervention impossible and allow Assad freedom of action to crush the rebels with Russian and Iranian aid. This is no victory for the United States at all.

" Putin craves world attention and craves legitimacy. With the world spotlight on him now, he *can't* renege on any agreement that will be forged in the next few weeks. And Syria will finally sign a treaty that would prevent them from using or possessing chemical weapons."

I just started reading thread...this is the *stupidest* most naive post so far. I'm sure many will rival it as I continue to read, though.

"nvictus I remember people who said during Bush's residency that anyone who criticizes the President was a traitor and should be shot."

Who said this? What *legitimate* person said this...not morons on internets forums, but what actual media personalities or government officials? I'm calling you out on this.

ON the contrary, there were calls FOR Bush and Cheney and friends to be brought up on war criminal charges, they were openly called liars and murders by Democrats **in office** no less...I think you must have lived in a different country, Celtic

I remember several fox news people saying that as well as Conservative talk radio. It went both ways Krellin.

"Also it's notable that the US have avoided the Syrian issue for two years, there are now millions of refugees and a deepening humanitarian crisis, it's a bit Johnny-cum-lately to forget the first 100,000 deaths and then worry about the next 1400."

No shit...yes, to Obama, death by bomb, gun, DRONE, sniper, starvation, and sort of random genocidal violence