Syria: they're using chemical weapons...

[BigRob]

America has little credibility. That is a proven historical FACT. We lost it long ago. And as I stated and you appear to agree, our only credibility is due to our superpower military status. This is why any nation that wishes us harm, does not take action against us.

Many nations wish us harm, and take "action" against us daily. We do derive a great deal of credibility from our military, but if no one thinks we will use it, then that would be irrelvent now wouldn't it?

The word of any American politician is the opposite of credible. Would you believe promises made by idiots like John F-ing Kerry, Mrs. BJ Bubba Clinton, or Big Ears? If so, you are deluding yourself. All are proven to be serial liars....and I do not think an R administration is much better.

You are equating two things that are not equal. I have never said that President Obama or whoever has to maintain a huge degree of domestic credibility -- we are talking solely about the international system. As to why I would view the words of those people as "credible", it is simple. They control the military -- a thing in which you state we maintain our credibility. How is it that you can view the military as credibile, but not the person in charge of it -- keeping in mind this is solely in regards to international relations.

After what we did in Vietnam, no nation would EVER believe promises we make to them. So please stop with your silly credibility argument.

That statement is absurd. You are saying that because 40 years or so ago we left Vietnam that nothing else in the interim matters to any degree, and nothing can ever be done to overcome this. Does the 2nd grader who cheated on a spelling test lack all credibility for honesty forty years later? That is idiotic. Made even more idiotic by the fact that its different people in charge.

You don't think credibility matters? Why did Libya give up their weapons program when we invaded Iraq? Why did the NIE state that Iran halted their weapons program in 2003 (at the time)? What was going on in 2003? We did just what we said we were going to do, and the world responded.

 

[Gipper]

Many nations wish us harm, and take "action" against us daily. We do derive a great deal of credibility from our military, but if no one thinks we will use it, then that would be irrelvent now wouldn't it?



You are equating two things that are not equal. I have never said that President Obama or whoever has to maintain a huge degree of domestic credibility -- we are talking solely about the international system. As to why I would view the words of those people as "credible", it is simple. They control the military -- a thing in which you state we maintain our credibility. How is it that you can view the military as credibile, but not the person in charge of it -- keeping in mind this is solely in regards to international relations.



That statement is absurd. You are saying that because 40 years or so ago we left Vietnam that nothing else in the interim matters to any degree, and nothing can ever be done to overcome this. Does the 2nd grader who cheated on a spelling test lack all credibility for honesty forty years later? That is idiotic. Made even more idiotic by the fact that its different people in charge.

You don't think credibility matters? Why did Libya give up their weapons program when we invaded Iraq? Why did the NIE state that Iran halted their weapons program in 2003 (at the time)? What was going on in 2003? We did just what we said we were going to do, and the world responded.

The only credibility the US has is the ability to kill anyone it dislikes using it's massive military might. The world fears our military power and nothing else. Yes BO is in charge of the military and that is my point. He has credibility only because he has the power to kill whoever he wants and most foreign nations are powerless to stop him. He can say all sorts of things and make all sorts of promises. But until he actually takes military action, no one believes a word he says because he is known liar. So in conclusion, the word of any US leader and particularly one like BO, is NOT credible.

This military credibility is the result of numerous foreign interventions of the likes I have long railed against. The world knows the US will take military action when pushed by world opinion or our military industrial complex. This allows the world to use American lives and wealth to do the world's dirty work, while enriching the military industrial complex...aka the power elite. Much of the world is completely dependent on the US for military protection. I think this policy is stupid and self defeating.

I have never considered domestic credibility in any of the posts I have made in this thread. We are discussing the foreign policy of the USA.

 

[BigRob]

The only credibility the US has is the ability to kill anyone it dislikes using it's massive military might. The world fears our military power and nothing else.

So you agree with me then? We do in fact have credibility still?

Yes BO is in charge of the military and that is my point. He has credibility only because he has the power to kill whoever he wants and most foreign nations are powerless to stop him. He can say all sorts of things and make all sorts of promises. But until he actually takes military action, no one believes a word he says because he is known liar. So in conclusion, the word of any US leader and particularly one like BO, is NOT credible.

If people believe you are willing to take action, then you have credibility without actually having to take action.

This military credibility is the result of numerous foreign interventions of the likes I have long railed against. The world knows the US will take military action when pushed by world opinion or our military industrial complex. This allows the world to use American lives and wealth to do the world's dirty work, while enriching the military industrial complex...aka the power elite. Much of the world is completely dependent on the US for military protection. I think this policy is stupid and self defeating.

And I believe the benefit we derive from being a superpower far outweighs the cost.

I have never considered domestic credibility in any of the posts I have made in this thread. We are discussing the foreign policy of the USA.

Agreed.

 

[Gipper]

So you agree with me then? We do in fact have credibility still?



If people believe you are willing to take action, then you have credibility without actually having to take action.



And I believe the benefit we derive from being a superpower far outweighs the cost.



Agreed.

You stated early in this thread that BO risked losing credibility because he was walking away from the "red line" he imposed on Assad. Your point, as I understood it, was BO made VERBAL statements that should Assad use weapons of mass destruction, America would take military action. He than risked losing CREDIBILITY by NOT taking military action. You went so far as to claim that America's credibility is paramount in it's foreign policy dealings. I concluded that you thought it wise to take military action because by not doing so, our president would lose credibility. Have I concluded your position wrongly?

 

[BigRob]

You stated early in this thread that BO risked losing credibility because he was walking away from the "red line" he imposed on Assad. Your point, as I understood it, was BO made VERBAL statements that should Assad use weapons of mass destruction, America would take military action. He than risked losing CREDIBILITY by NOT taking military action. You went so far as to claim that America's credibility is paramount in it's foreign policy dealings. I concluded that you thought it wise to take military action because by not doing so, our president would lose credibility. Have I concluded your position wrongly?

No -- I can agree with your statements, with the caveat that I don't automatically mean an Iraq style invasion when I say "action". By him making that statement, he now MUST do something since the "red lines" have been crossed.

 

[Cruella]

Assad is winning. There is a new problem now. Turkey. The current PM has been trying to take it back to a more ridged Muslim country and the more westernized citizens are protesting and rioting.

Thousands have been going into the streets and protesting. Three have died and thousands injured.

 

[dogtowner]

Assad is winning. There is a new problem now. Turkey. The current PM has been trying to take it back to a more ridged Muslim country and the more westernized citizens are protesting and rioting.

Thousands have been going into the streets and protesting. Three have died and thousands injured.

perhaos this might spur the muslim leadership to get a grip on their crankier factions.

yeah, im dreaming

 

[cashmcall]

Assad is winning. There is a new problem now. Turkey. The current PM has been trying to take it back to a more ridged Muslim country and the more westernized citizens are protesting and rioting.

Thousands have been going into the streets and protesting. Three have died and thousands injured.

And if they want it bad enough they will keep up the fight....one can hope..

 

[Centrehalf]

I would be watching Russian involvement and ultimately it is in our interest to make an effort to keep Russian influence out of the Middle East when possible.

The Middle East is one thing but do you think Syria applies in the case of the Russians? Russia/USSR has a historical relationship with Syria and with the Assad family and I'd much rather have them involved than not involved.

 

[BigRob]

The Middle East is one thing but do you think Syria applies in the case of the Russians? Russia/USSR has a historical relationship with Syria and with the Assad family and I'd much rather have them involved than not involved.

That is a fair point. It perhaps is wishful thinking, but I'd rather a Syria without Assad and far diminished Russian influence. Of course, I'd rather keep Assad than just create a power vacuum and then wash our hands of it all.

 

[Gipper]

That is a fair point. It perhaps is wishful thinking, but I'd rather a Syria without Assad and far diminished Russian influence. Of course, I'd rather keep Assad than just create a power vacuum and then wash our hands of it all.

Why would you like a Syria without Assad? What good would that do for America? How is it of interest to America?

Have you considered for just one moment, that whoever replaces Assad could be far worse?

 

[BigRob]

Why would you like a Syria without Assad? What good would that do for America? How is it of interest to America?

"I'd" (as in me) would rather a Syria without Assad because he kills his own people and apparently has used chemical weapons against them as well. In terms of how it might be good for the United States, it would depends on who takes his place, but it could further isolate Iran, it would all but eliminate major Russian influence in the Middle East, it could slow a flow of arms into Lebannon (that one is more complicated).

But, to be clear, and as I have said to you on this very board. I have no interest in going into Syria in some Iraqi style invasion. I had no interest at all being involved until President Obama promised to ruin all credibility in the region by ignoring his own red lines. But personally, yes, I'd like to Assad go.

Have you considered for just one moment, that whoever replaces Assad could be far worse?

Surely this question is a joke. I have probably asked this very question 50 times on this very board about every intervention that the United States considers. And I thought my comment that " Of course, I'd rather keep Assad than just create a power vacuum and then wash our hands of it all" seemed pretty clearly to indicate that this should be a major consideration. As it stands, Assad is probably better than most of the "rebels".

 

[Cruella]

There is no good choice in Syria. Either way it's a disaster. But seeing what's happened to Libya and Egypt with their dictators gone, they're worse off. Worse for the people living there and worse for us. Anyone heard anything about how Tunisia has been working out since their overthrow?

 

[Gipper]

There is no good choice in Syria. Either way it's a disaster. But seeing what's happened to Libya and Egypt with their dictators gone, they're worse off. Worse for the people living there and worse for us. Anyone heard anything about how Tunisia has been working out since their overthrow?

There is a good choice. Stay out of the conflict entirely. It is none of our business and nothing good will come from our involvement.

Now we are assisting the Syrian rebels, who are Islamists. America helping fanatics is crazy, but typical of our foreign policy these past few decades.

We have the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt whose president recently stated Israel and the USA are his nations biggest enemies. Al Qaeda running Libya and don't know about Tunisia...likely f'ed up too.

 

[Centrehalf]

Web browsers; they're wonderful things.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...emists-tunisia-struggles-two-years-/?page=all

Tunisia is grappling with immense security and economic challenges more than two years since pro-democracy Arab Spring protests toppled the government of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, leader of the Tunisia’s ruling moderate Islamist party said on Friday.