Obama live on TV pushing for attack on Syria

[skateluvr]

Anyone listening? thoughts?

 

[Mathman]

Great speech! The man is so-o-o-o cool. He talks like a college professor. A pleasant relief from all the down home good ol' boys of the recent past. :yes:

 

[Tonichelle]

Didn't watch. I don't enjoy being lied to.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I watched recording. Once again, he has proved that he could make great speeches! I had almost forgotten how I dismayed these past a few days, almost.

However:

1. He didn't explain why it is a US national security matter since it has happened in another nation on the other side of the globe?

2. He didn't give solid proof for the claim that Assad regime did it.

3. I don't think Russia, China, or any other countries, are any less appalled than US about chemical weapons. Why can't US work with UN and let the UN take the lead?

4. If it was indeed the rebels who did it in order to draw US and international force to help them take over Assad, will Obama strike the rebels?

5. He said he doesn't want to be world police, but what he is doing and is planning to do next are just that!

6. How much longer Obama wants to keep Syria on the top of his to-do-list?

The conclusion: Dirty politicians!

 

[Johar]

We can't fix problems here in the USA so why should we try to fix problems in another country?

We can't afford to go to war.

We don't need to send out troops there.

Nobody would help us if we were in a mess.

 

[Olympia]

I got into an argument with a dear friend, who was really upset because children had been killed. How can we just stand by, she demanded. But I responded that I didn't seewhat help it will be to children if we send a missile somewhere. Won't it hit people? Has this tactic worked so far, in the last fifteen years? And do we even know who is who in there? In her defense, she's from the Balkans, and she was grateful for U.S. action in Kosovo. But the Middle East has its own laws of physics. How, after all these years, can we not understand this?

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

We can't afford to go to war.

Particularly after George Bush's multi-billion dollar Iraq War, eh....

Nobody would help us if we were in a mess.

It's incredibly short-sighted to say nobody would help the US if they were in a mess, particularly on the anniversary of 9/11. Hundreds of countries have given support in wake of the 9/11 attacks and to say that "nobody would help the US" is really inaccurate and a bit of a slap in the face to those who have helped. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/09/09/911-anniversary-obama-tha_n_955881.html -- how would the US citizens stranded in Canada felt if Canadians said, "Hey, the 9/11 attacks are your own problem... we're not spending our taxpayer dollars and manpower to feed and shelter your citizens."

Again, for this Syrian issue and other international issues, it's appalling that so many people's attitudes are: "It's not our problem, so why should we worry about it?" God forbid your lives are ever at risk, and somebody who could help you decides not to because they don't want to get involved.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Also, Obama wasn't entirely pushing for an attack on Syria in that speech... he was offering Syria a chance at diplomacy, if they relinquished their chemical weapons to international control. I'm not for militaristic strikes, especially with risk to civilians, but in the long run, if diplomacy fails (which I think it will) a military effort to mitigate the atrocities going on over there could save more Syrians than if the world sat by and did nothing.

 

[Bluebonnet]

So, I guess you'd prefer that Assad dies, Assad regime is taken down. Muslim Brotherhood controls Syria. After they finish Assad, then they could concentrate on US and Christians. Huh?!

The rebels are monsters, too!!!!!

The Syrian opposition was counting on US involvement. They couldn't wait any longer, and has already voiced their frustration on international resistance. How do you know that that was not Syrian opposition's bait for US to bite on?!

 

[Mathman]

I watched recording. Once again, he has proved that he could make great speeches! I had almost forgotten how I dismayed these past a few days, almost.

Yes, I agree. Just to concentrate in the speech (since we already have a thread going on the substantive issues regarding Syria), here are my reactions to the points you raised.

1. U.S. National Security. President Obama tried to make the point that once the "red line" is crossed, and everyone sees that it is OK to use chemical weapons without penalty, then pretty soon everyone will be doing it, including countries and terrorist organizations that can conceivably attack the United States a la 9/11.

2. Proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons. Obama asserted that the conclusions of much intelligence gathering by U.S. and international task forces left no doubt about it. Obama did not share with the public the details of U.S. intelligence operations, feeling obliged as usual to keep all this secret. (Where is Snowden when we need him? )

3. The United Nations. Obama has tried to beat the drum in the United Nations, but without success. Russia and China have vetoed resolutions in the U.N. security council (and Britain and France are not on board either). Before Russia's latest offer it looked like we go alone or not at all.

4. Would the U.S. attack the rebels if the shoe were on the other foot? It's hard to say, but I think we would have. Maybe not direct action, but some sort of support for Assad. When it comes right down to it, the U.S. has no reason to support either side in this conflict. Which is worse, a brutal dictator or crazy religious zealots?

As for the actual speech, Obama made it clear that anyone carrying out chemical attacks needs to be punished. But the speech aside, I think it is safe to say that Obama would not sit on his hands if Al-Qaeda started conducting chemical attacks. Our guy is a gangsta. Ask Osama Bin Laden.

5. Are we the world's policeman? Obama said that obviously it is not possible for the United States to solve all the problems of the world. On the other hand, he also pointed out that since the 1950s the United States has been the only world power with the means and the will to take decisive action, military and otherwise, to whip the bad guys into line. So, yeah, I guess we are, in Obama's view.

6. How long will Syria be on the front pages of U.S. newspapers? Obama didn't say, but I am guessing about another week.

 

[Johar]

Particularly after George Bush's multi-billion dollar Iraq War, eh....



It's incredibly short-sighted to say nobody would help the US if they were in a mess, particularly on the anniversary of 9/11. Hundreds of countries have given support in wake of the 9/11 attacks and to say that "nobody would help the US" is really inaccurate and a bit of a slap in the face to those who have helped. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/09/09/911-anniversary-obama-tha_n_955881.html -- how would the US citizens stranded in Canada felt if Canadians said, "Hey, the 9/11 attacks are your own problem... we're not spending our taxpayer dollars and manpower to feed and shelter your citizens."

Again, for this Syrian issue and other international issues, it's appalling that so many people's attitudes are: "It's not our problem, so why should we worry about it?" God forbid your lives are ever at risk, and somebody who could help you decides not to because they don't want to get involved.

I just feel at this time we need to focus on getting our country in better shape financially before worrying about other places. If we can't fix Detroit, what says we can fix another country?

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Yes, I agree. Just to concentrate in the speech (since we already have a thread going on the substantive issues regarding Syria), here are my reactions to the points you raised.

1. U.S. National Security. President Obama tried to make the point that once the "red line" is crossed, and everyone sees that it is OK to use chemical weapons without penalty, then pretty soon everyone will be doing it, including countries and terrorist organizations that can conceivably attack the United States a la 9/11.

2. Proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons. Obama asserted that the conclusions of much intelligence gathering by U.S. and international task forces left no doubt about it. Obama did not share with the public the details of U.S. intelligence operations, feeling obliged as usual to keep all this secret. (Where is Snowden when we need him? )

3. The United Nations. Obama has tried to beat the drum in the United Nations, but without success. Russia and China have vetoed resolutions in the U.N. security council (and Britain and France are not on board either). Before Russia's latest offer it looked like we go alone or not at all.

4. Would the U.S. attack the rebels if the shoe were on the other foot? It's hard to say, but I think we would have. Maybe not direct action, but some sort of support for Assad. When it comes right down to it, the U.S. has no reason to support either side in this conflict. Which is worse, a brutal dictator or crazy religious zealots?

As for the actual speech, Obama made it clear that anyone carrying out chemical attacks needs to be punished. But the speech aside, I think it is safe to say that Obama would not sit on his hands if Al-Qaeda started conducting chemical attacks. Our guy is a gangsta. Ask Osama Bin Laden.

5. Are we the world's policeman? Obama said that obviously it is not possible for the United States to solve all the problems of the world. On the other hand, he also pointed out that since the 1950s the United States has been the only world power with the means and the will to take decisive action, military and otherwise, to whip the bad guys into line. So, yeah, I guess we are, in Obama's view.

6. How long will Syria be on the front pages of U.S. newspapers? Obama didn't say, but I am guessing about another week.

A pretty good summary of the speech. I think point #1 is the one that speaks most to national security and why skeptics in America should support any militaristic action. After all, most people (not necessarily just Americans) will care about their own skins than somebody else's and if they are made to realise that a problem brewing in another country has potential ramifications where they live, they might be more inclined to take note.

 

[Tonichelle]

I just feel at this time we need to focus on getting our country in better shape financially before worrying about other places. If we can't fix Detroit, what says we can fix another country?

It's always an easy argument to say "well, Bush did it, and you didn't have a problem then."

No, we didn't have as big a problem (though some did)...however people do LEARN from DC's mistakes...

And at least in Bush's war we were fighting Al Qaeda - not joining them.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Yes, I agree. Just to concentrate in the speech (since we already have a thread going on the substantive issues regarding Syria), here are my reactions to the points you raised.

1. U.S. National Security. President Obama tried to make the point that once the "red line" is crossed, and everyone sees that it is OK to use chemical weapons without penalty, then pretty soon everyone will be doing it, including countries and terrorist organizations that can conceivably attack the United States a la 9/11.

2. Proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons. Obama asserted that the conclusions of much intelligence gathering by U.S. and international task forces left no doubt about it. Obama did not share with the public the details of U.S. intelligence operations, feeling obliged as usual to keep all this secret. (Where is Snowden when we need him? )

3. The United Nations. Obama has tried to beat the drum in the United Nations, but without success. Russia and China have vetoed resolutions in the U.N. security council (and Britain and France are not on board either). Before Russia's latest offer it looked like we go alone or not at all.

4. Would the U.S. attack the rebels if the shoe were on the other foot? It's hard to say, but I think we would have. Maybe not direct action, but some sort of support for Assad. When it comes right down to it, the U.S. has no reason to support either side in this conflict. Which is worse, a brutal dictator or crazy religious zealots?

As for the actual speech, Obama made it clear that anyone carrying out chemical attacks needs to be punished. But the speech aside, I think it is safe to say that Obama would not sit on his hands if Al-Qaeda started conducting chemical attacks. Our guy is a gangsta. Ask Osama Bin Laden.

5. Are we the world's policeman? Obama said that obviously it is not possible for the United States to solve all the problems of the world. On the other hand, he also pointed out that since the 1950s the United States has been the only world power with the means and the will to take decisive action, military and otherwise, to whip the bad guys into line. So, yeah, I guess we are, in Obama's view.

6. How long will Syria be on the front pages of U.S. newspapers? Obama didn't say, but I am guessing about another week.

1. I don't think we should use military strikes undermine one side and help the other when both sides are monsters. Besides, Assad knows Obama's Red Line warning. Why should he cross it just to bring the US into killing him and his regime? Seems to me, it's illogical to say that Assad wants to commit suicide.

2. If it's indeed that US has the intelligence proof as Obama and Kerry said, no one knows. When you say you have them but don't show them, not even show them to UN security council, it is no difference from Bush going into Iraq - just an excuse to bring him down.

3. I have no doubt that Syria is a dice which balances the power between Russia, China and US, UK, and France. US wants to take more control of the world but Russia and China don't allow it. That's the reason that US finds it's difficult to work within UN. So US decided to go ahead and act alone for its own interest most of the times. I don't think the Russians and the Chinese are any less worried about the use of chemical weapons anywhere.

4. I don't know. So far, the word "Moral" is just a decorative hat that is capped on any actions that anyone wants.

5. More and more Americans have realized that the world policeman role has made US an enemy and a target to many many countries.

6. I hope so.

And at least in Bush's war we were fighting Al Qaeda - not joining them.

That's it. I think the Syrian opposition is actually the Muslim extremists who are more dangerous to us than Assad.

However, Assad is Russian's ally. So he is the thorn in US government's eyes.

 

[Mathman]

And at least in Bush's war we were fighting Al Qaeda - not joining them.

Not exactly. Saddam Hussein and his ruling Ba'athist Party did not cotton to terrorists and religious zealots. As long as Saddam was in power, Al-Qaeda was never able to gain a foothold in Iraq. Once we removed him in "Bush's war," all kinds of home-grown and foreign-supplied terrorist organizations were able to become active.

In Afghanistan it was a different story. Neither the Taliban nor their opponents had any control over the countryside, so Al-Qaeda and anyone else who wanted to could set up shop. The majority of Americans agreed that going into Afghanistan was a good idea (getting rid of the Taliban all by itself would have been a good enough reason, IMHO ), but were puzzled as to why Bush had a bee in his bonnet about Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. George W. himself famously said the reason was "He tried to kill my Dad" in the Gulf War (Google this phrase if you think I am making this up. )

 

[Olympia]

Yes, it's important to remember that in both Iraq and Syria, the Ba'ath party is secular (was originally Marxist, I think), and that Al Quaeda did not have much of a foothold in Iraq. And now they do, and the old community of Christians does not. Both of those changes are largely thanks to our interference. We need to know what we don't know before rushing into those parts of the world.

 

[Bluebonnet]

In NY Times plea, Putin cautions U.S. public against Syria strike

Though Russia is spearheading efforts to place Syria's large cache of chemical weapons under international control, Putin wrote in the New York Times, it was the rebels and not the government who were behind the deadly August 21 attack that left more 1,400 Syrians dead. They unleashed the nerve gas to "provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patron."

He warned of reports militants are now planning a chemical attack on Israel and said such reports "cannot be ignored."

Putin warned the American public of the faltering reputation their country enjoys in the world and said it is "alarming" U.S. military intervention has become "commonplace."

"Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan 'you’re either with us or against us,'" he wrote.

Putin criticized U.S. President Barack Obama's speech on Syria. He said he disagreed with calling the United States "different" and "exceptional."

"It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation," he wrote. "We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

"It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation," he wrote. "We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

Wow, I wonder if this extends to LGBT Russians. Hypocrite.

 

[Bluebonnet]

The complete version from The New York Times:

A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

 

[Mathman]

Goodness knows I am no fan of Mr. Putin. But he makes a thought-provoking point about the dangers that arise when a country strats thinking it is "exceptional."

We do not have to consult the opinion of anyone else, because we are exceptional. Whatever we do is automatically right because we are exceptional. The rules are for everyone else, not us -- we're exceptional.