More Kerry flip flopping: Kerry was a fan of Assad just 2 years ago

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: More Kerry flip flopping: Kerry was a fan of Assad just 2 years ago

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    1. Syria...no good will come from our intervention; it won't improve anything and it has the strong chance to be the final match to the powder keg that destabilizes the region and makes the current turmoil look peaceful.

    Why strong chance? The only noise that has been made was Iran's threat to attack Israel, which I'm not sure I find entirely credible.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do not trust assad/rebels who ever actuaally did it; to not use chemical weapons again and on a larger scale to continue deteriorating the regions security and to actually cause a larger conflict.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: More Kerry flip flopping: Kerry was a fan of Assad just 2 years ago

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [/QUOTE]

    Well in your scenario, it is further use of WMDs by bad guys that is causing the destablization and not our strike causing it. Joe was talking about the latter.

    [/QUOTE]

    True.

    Who ever initiated the chemical attack did so knowing it would like cause a military response from the west.

    So why give them one?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: More Kerry flip flopping: Kerry was a fan of Assad just 2 years ago

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]because the previous admin cooked the books

     

     

     

    Bing! Sorry, you just lost your credibility. There's a difference between getting incorrect (or dated) intelligence and running with it and "cooking the books." You can't be nuanced and diplomatic with the current administration while dropping all pretense of objectivity with the last one and not look like ACC.

    And you don't want that.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually I can, because when the time came to assess our prewar intelligence versus what was found when were in there, the results came back as negative.  Why is that?  Was it a deliberate or was it just a huge, monumental screw up, that cost the US 10 years of war, thousands dead on our side, over 100,000 dead on the Iraqi side, destabilized the region leaving Iran as the strongest Arab power (one with an actual WMD program, BTW), and a couple trillion dollars?  No, the previous admin doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because their error was big in scale that it can't simply be treated as inconsequential.  

     

     

    But the most important thing is that what happened then and what is happening now are not even close to being analagous if only for the fact that the president alledged WMD use, and we actually have concrete evidence that not only does the WMD 1) Exist but we also know Syria 2) used it, multiple times.  Just on those two points your analogy goes from "strained" to "incomprehensible".  

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Apparently being wrong on vitually every justification for war, along with accruing 90% of the casualties to 'dend enders' after declaring mission accomplished is considered 'good leadership' to the wingnut faithful.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, if it is a comparativeyou are after, compare and contrast what Bush did with drawing a red line, then declaring you would respond with an attack, then indicating the attack wouldn't damage anything, declare you have sole authority to do this, then toss the ball to congress to tell you to do it.

    Leadership, as I am sure you know, requires actually leading.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: More Kerry flip flopping: Kerry was a fan of Assad just 2 years ago

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:



    Well in your scenario, it is further use of WMDs by bad guys that is causing the destablization and not our strikecausing it. Joe was talking about the latter.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    True.

    Who ever initiated the chemical attack did so knowing it would like cause a military response from the west.

    So why give them one?

    [/QUOTE]



     Assuming for the sake of argument that the Syrian military did carry out the attack, the only point would be general deterence. Obama said he doesn't want to bother with regime change.

    Do we want to move from a world approach where WMD use is supposedly absolutely verboten to one where we start comparing conventional vs. WMD body counts when determining whether to act?

    Is it worth enfrocing an absolute no-WMDs rule, or are we going to start shrugging if a nuke is used to wipe out only a small city of 10,000? A virus that kills only 25,000? All because we tolerated 100,000 killed conventionally another time?

    [/QUOTE]

    There are a number of interests that would use lone US involvement as a way to further villify our being in the middle east.  Yes I understand the slippery slope use of WMD's, but our friends don't seem that concerned so why do we play the lone policeman here.  If you're alone you are a target, if your one of many it seems so much more righteous.

    If we could blow up thier saran arsenal with a pinpoiint strike with some of the experimental bombs that nullify saran gas that I read about last week then OK.  But regime change is wrong on many levels; the first one being that we know how Assad will react, but what if is some of the other Isalamist groups win in a destabilized Syria where does it spread then.  If our attack destabilizes the Assad regime and causes them to fall then watch out.  A good dicatator like Sadham at least kept order.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: More Kerry flip flopping: Kerry was a fan of Assad just 2 years ago

    kerry has an impossible job working for obama...cut him some slack...

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: More Kerry flip flopping: Kerry was a fan of Assad just 2 years ago

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comments


     Assuming for the sake of argument that the Syrian military did carry out the attack, the only point would be general deterence. Obama said he doesn't want to bother with regime change.

    Do we want to move from a world approach where WMD use is supposedly absolutely verboten to one where we start comparing conventional vs. WMD body counts when determining whether to act?

    Is it worth enfrocing an absolute no-WMDs rule, or are we going to start shrugging if a nuke is used to wipe out only a small city of 10,000? A virus that kills only 25,000? All because we tolerated 100,000 killed conventionally another time?



    the comment of "not about regime change" is just politics. Of course we want assad out but, I do not think we are very comfortable with certain aspects of the rebels either.

    If we hit the assad regime and the rebels win we can say "the people have overthrown their tyrant and its in the syrian peoples hands now"

    If we call for regime change and we help facilitate it then we have some obligation to assist that regime once in place.

    If assad still wins we can say "we were never about regime change anyway".

    I think we should lay out conclusive intel that proves assad used chemical weapons before striking.

    And, I th8ink we will or we wont strike.

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share