Oh HELL NO! :D

I have said many times that, if the POTUS needs to lie to us to protect MilOps, I won't have problem 1 with that..

So, yes.. Obama MAY be paying lip service to appease his base and all that crap and I will cheer him on...

IF........

If that is, in fact, what he is doing..

But Obama has proven beyond ANY doubt that he holds American military might and American prestige in utter disdain...

So, IF he is playing the PR game to protect the military operations, *I* will support such actions wholeheartedly...

BUT....

I will also be shocked as hell if that is actually the case....

Michale

OK, so here's another question: if you were president and followed this course of action, would you be talking about it in the press while it happened?

Something to think about, eh?

Heh.

-CW

Would Obama ever let the American people second guess him and HIS decisions??

Maybe on a cold day in hell..

You kind of dodged the question.

If you were the Decider, right now, what would you do? Details, please.

Not intentionally, I assure..

Given what I know (which admittedly is not much) I would blanket the area with covert kill teams and take out as much of the Syrian leadership as I could..

Once that is accomplished, "advisors" would be on stand-by and would fill the leadership vacumn, preventing radical Islamists from gaining power...

Once everything was stabilized, I would turn over everything to the Israelis and give them free hand..

OK, that last bit was more wishful thinking than anything else.. :D

Michale

Yeah, it does have the flavor of an amusement park ride. But then, I have to say, it is the most interesting "exhibit" I've ever seen in a presidential library, so I guess they deserve credit for at least attempting to make it user-interactive.

Not that I've ever been to a pres. library, though. Maybe there's some interesting exhibits in others...

-CW

You kind of dodged the question.

If you were the Decider, right now, what would you do? Details, please.

-CW

Bush may not be as good as I think..

But it's DEFINITE that he is not as bad as ya'all think...

Along those same lines, it's likely that Obama is not as bad as I think..

But it's ALSO definite that Obama is not as good as ya'all think..

And here's the rub..

*MY* opinions are based on reality and facts.. NOT political ideology.

As has been well-established, I *HAVE* no ideology. Political or otherwise....

No one here can make the same claim...

Michale....

To be perfectly frank, David, I don't think you are giving me any credit..

I have told you time and time again that, in SOME instances, I am a BIGGER fan of Obama than ya'all put together..

In other words, you are treating ME exactly like you accuse me of treating Obama..

True or false??

but I'm ending my participation in this conversation in order to focus on something more productive.

What could be more productive than defending His Great Exalted Highness Emperor Barack The First??

I mean, judging from how much ya'all do it, I figured that was Job Numero Uno around here... :D

Michale

You may continue with your anti-Obama rants, but I'm ending my participation in this conversation in order to focus on something more productive.

You keep saying you think Bush is a "nice guy", a "good person"..

Would a nice guy, would a good person try...

"to disappear from the public eye until such point in time as he feels people have forgotten the financial crisis or the media has been able to blame it on Obama."

Of course not..

Michale

And therein proves my point about your irrational hatred of Bush..

You take the WORST possible explanation and apply it as fact, without ANY supporting evidence whatsoever..

Michale

I hate everything Obama does...

Actually, even THAT isn't true because there are PLENTY of things that Obama does that I LOVE...

The difference between you and I as that ya'all refuse to give credit to Bush for ANYTHING, even though he has done plenty that he deserves the credit..

I have no such compunction on saying, "Obama done did good.."

Michale

BTW- I think a more accurate statement would be "Bush has tried to disappear from the public eye until such point in time as he feels people have forgotten the financial crisis or the media has been able to blame it on Obama."

Kind of like Romney's disappearance. He'll be back, but he wants to give people enough time to forget his forgettable run for President.

-David

Agreed.

Bush as a person seems pretty decent, I just didn't agree with his philosophy and 98% of his decisions.

While you seem to hate everything Obama.

-David

What do ya mean?? My bashing Obama??

Obama IS the current POTUS...

You can't compare my bashing Obama with ya'all bashing Bush..

ESPECIALLY since Bush has done the honorable thing and has gone OUT OF HIS WAY to not criticize Obama.

THAT is honorable no matter how you slice it..

No 9/11s have happened under Obama's watch,

Thanx to the policies of President Bush...

Obama actually got Osama bin Laden,

THANX to torture and other policies of President Bush...

the economy hasn't collapsed under Obama,

And it also hasn't recovered at all under Obama as well. Why don't you blame him for that??

and he hasn't taken us into any unjustified wars on a credit card.

Your definition of "unjustified" is skewed by political ideology..

Even Obama himself said that Afghanistan was the "right war"...

But I am curious...

What's your definition of "justified"...

Was it "justified" to enter WWII???

Would it be "justified" to oppose Syria in the brutal annihilation of their own people??

Michale

Michale

A quick round of applause ladies and gents. :)

-David

p.s. No 9/11s have happened under Obama's watch, Obama actually got Osama bin Laden, the economy hasn't collapsed under Obama, and he hasn't taken us into any unjustified wars on a credit card.

The problem is your idea of "poor" is based on a political agenda and NOT on reality... You only look at the worst and ignore the good..

Take the Iraq War.. Is this world a better place w/o Saddam Hussein??

Of course it is...

Personally Bush seems like an ok guy. He was just out of his league when it came to being President.

And yet, he kept this country safe from terrorism at a time when it was EXTREMELY difficult and EXTREMELY unpopular to do so...

THAT is the measure of a good leader..

And, apparently, it's something that Obama is incapable of measuring up to..

FIVE terrorist scumbags have reach their domestic targets in the US under Obama..

That's a stat/fact that you simply cannot deny..

Lighten up, Michale!

Tell ya what.. I will when you will.. :D

Constantly kicking a man when he is out of the picture, when he has gone OUT of his way not to slam our current incompetent POTUS is not what I would call being "light"...

Michale

Lighten up, Michale!

When someone claims he's the "decider" after making such poor decisions, it deserves ridicule.

Personally Bush seems like an ok guy. He was just out of his league when it came to being President.

-David

Well, I am sure glad that we have established that you don't HATE Bush... :D

I would hate to see how bad you savage and ridicule someone that you DO hate!! :D

Michale

I'm sorry, but I was unable to get past the part in your article where you mentioned the "Decider" room. Amazing ... sometimes you just can't make this stuff up.

I am thinking this needs to go a step further though and become a theme park with Decider rides. Picture the Decider roller coaster where you descend through the liberal press, flip-flop over some compassionate conservatives, and loop through a couple of wars. At the end, the roller coaster simply crashes into a giant wall labelled financial crisis.

There could be a Katrina whirlpool, a "heckuva job Brownie" Brownie concession stand, and the No Child Left Behind kiddie park ... Ok, perhaps the Katrina whirlpool is a bit in bad taste.

The possibilities are endless!

-David

How hilarious....

There have been no "firm" indications that chemical weapons have been used in Syria...

But, even if there WERE "firm" indications, the absolute "red line" has now became a vague "range of options"...

Get that?? "When" chemical weapons are used by Assad it will NOT prompt a firm action from the US, but rather Obama will sit down and discuss a range of options..

I long for the days when our POTUS had a matching balls and spine set... {{{sssiiigggghhhhh}}}

Michale

Jeezus!!

Lemme ask ya'all something..

Is there a course or class that Democrats attend to become proficient in Equivocation???

Or is it just an innate inbred talent???

Michale

That had ALWAYS gone just fine and dandy until politics overrode military decisions..

AND common sense...

But, you DO have it partially correct..

The old adage If you want something done right, do it yourself is definitely apropos here...

Michale

Sorry...

Reading over that, it came out WAY too snarky... I didn't mean it that way whatsoever...

Michale

Abso-frakin-loutly...

If a Republican had so emphatically established a Red Line, he would have abided by it..

With a Democrat, it must first be established what the definition of "is" is and then a testicular transfusion must be performed to make up for the lack of same in a Democrat.. :D

Michale

As for the options, none of them are great but international cooperation with the UN, Arab League and Turkey involved is almost certainly the correct way forward. The idea that the US, by itself, can continue to pick and choose which countries it wants to defend (hint: you must have oil to qualify) when they are in a state of civil war should have ended with the huge mistake that was Iraq (not to mention the many other times the US has gone it alone to arm/train people and this come back to haunt them).

First off, there really aren't any diplomatic options left.. Obama eliminated those options when he established his "Red Line". Any attempt to pursue a diplomatic option will be worse than Obama doing nothing...

So, if anyone is looking to blame Bush for this mess, you can stop looking.. It's all on Obama.. :D

NOW... Let's look at the military options..

TURKEY..

You hit the nail with this one. Turkey is VITAL, either by commission or omission (as an aside. To our resident Education expert.. Why is there only 1 'm' in omission, but commission has 2?? anyways....) to any successful Syria campaign...

If Turkey attempts to oppose any action in Syria, then the US has to decide how bad we want to take action in Syria. If we want to risk a region-wide conflict..

So, any military actions begins (and possibly ends) with Turkey.

ARMING THE REBELS

Once again, you hit the nail on the head with the problems on Arming Rebels, either light or heavy. Any weapons given to rebels will likely be used against Americans in the future. And you can imagine how bad that would be for the Obama Administration (See FAST AND FURIOUS)..

So, it's problematic to be sure..

One possible option is to put "expiration dates" on all weapons going into theater.. While it's not widely known (and even LESS widely discussed, so don't tell anyone I told ya'all! :D) we have the technology whereas with mid-range and higher-end weapons we can disable them after a set time has passed... This technology is relatively new and not widely available. The question would be can we fit enough weapons with this technology that would give the rebels any kind of fighting chance. With my understanding of the technology, I don't think we could, to be honest.. But it IS an option..

NO FLY ZONE

The entire NO FLY ZONE option would encompass the next two (Bombing & Drones) options as well, and would not be as problematic as you might think..

With advances in targeting and ground-hugging radar, we could likely take out anything that the Syrians can field any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

Cruise missiles would be the order of the day for about a week or so while we decimate Syrian air defenses. By the time the Navy is finished with Syria, Assad will be lucky to deploy a sling shot.

We will have complete air superiority..

The next three options (Assassination, Secure Chemical Weapons and Boots On The Ground) would all likely involve covert ops teams and would also be highly successful. With the exception of Israel and Britain, no country can hold a candle to US Special Forces...

I do have to comment on the irony of Obama ordering an Assassination... I have to wonder.. Would that be a "red line" for ya'all?? :D

FULL SCALE INVASION

I agree that, for political reasons, this is the unlikeliest of scenarios. Obama and Democrats simply do not have the moral courage to make that call, even if that's the only call to make..

DO NOTHING

This is the most likely outcome of this entire debacle.. And it's the WORST possible course of action...

"Failure to make a decision is a decision in itself. And it is usually the WRONG decision to make."
-Captain James T. Kirk

Obama has proven without ANY doubt that he has never met a can he didn't want to kick down the road...

A lot has been made of Obama's pivot to Asia...

How many allies in Asia are going to stand with the US when we prove to them beyond ANY doubt that we have no balls??

ASK CONGRESS TO DECLARE WAR

Wars cannot be run by committee and they should not be declared that way either..

For better (Bush) or worse (Obama) we have ONE Commander In Chief..

And there is a reason for that...

I have to admit to some surprise, CW... I would have thought that the influence and/or participation of Iran and, to a lesser extent, Russia would influence your scenarios..

Are we looking at a future commentary?? Or may I indulge myself?? :D

Michale

I am constrained to point out that the Left AND Weigantians savaged and ridiculed Bush unmercifully for that statement..

Which I thought was extremely unfair because Bush demonstrated leadership far beyond ANYTHING this country has seen since at least Ronald Reagan if not Abraham Lincoln...

Hate Bush if the Left must, but they simply cannot deny that he made the hard calls and did so with the safety and security of this country his top priority...

As far as Syria goes, Obama's BIGGEST problem is that he made such a big deal out of his red line. After the Libya (and, to a lesser extent, Egypt) fiasco, Obama had to put on the big-boy pants and show he was still relevant to world affairs. So he got all big and bossy and said, "If Syria uses chemical weapons, we're gonna kick Assad's ass!!"

Once it was established that chemical weapons had been used (more on that below) Obama went, "holy shit, NOW what do I do!!??"

The point is, this isn't about Syria. This isn't about taking action in Syria. As callous as it sounds, this isn't even about all the people that have died in Syria and all the people that WILL die in Syria..

This is about one thing and one thing only.

Will our enemies (and, more importantly, our allies) believe us when we issue an ultimatum??

THAT's the only question of relevance here..

Because, if our enemies don't believe we'll respond, this world is going to become even MORE dangerous for Americans. Obama will have tatto'ed a bullseye on every American's forehead...

And, if our allies don't believe we have the testicular fortitude to back them up, they will abandon us in droves...

That is solely and completely what Syria is about.

Now, as to the question of whether or not chemical weapons have been used??

It's not a question at all..

Military and intelligence assets in FIVE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES (US, Britain, France, Israel and Qatar) have INDEPENDENTLY verified from SEVERAL different sources that Assad has deployed and used chemical weapons..

So, there is NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against it's own citizens..

The *only* question here is, "Is Obama going to have the courage to do the right thing, even if it isn't the popular thing.."

To be honest, I doubt it. He is no Bush, after all...

CW, your DECIDER options are meat and potatoes to me!! :D But I'll have to get to them later in the day..

Michale