why is the u.s. suddenly crying about the use of chemical weapons?

[Guest American Woman]

In retrospect, I'm wondering if Obama said what he did hoping words would be enough; if his words, in light of U.S. actions in Iraq, for example, would be enough to intimidate. In that regard, I think it certainly it was worth a try. But now, having said the words, I think he will have to carry through in some way or it will strengthen the "paper tiger" idea, which will only embolden governments/organizations et al who do such things.

[sharkman]

I concur on Obama's strategy, hoping that words would be enough. And I suppose it's not in him to step up to a dictator(so to speak) and whisper murderous threats in his ear. But unfortunately walking softly and carrying a big stick that you're actually prepared to use is a time tested method that works. Too bad that Obama didn't walk softly on this one.

Edited August 31, 2013 by sharkman

[Argus]

Nobody cares about the people of Syria. Obama and Cameron can say whatever they like, they are lying. No military action has ever been started out of philanthropic reasons, never.

I would concur that nobody cares. Arabs killing Arabs brings a big 'meh' from western societies in general. I don't think that's the point of this exercise at all. The point is to make a pointed example, not only to Syria, but to the world at large that using chemical weapons is a VERY BIG DEAL. And that anyone who uses them is going to face some very harsh responses from world powers. Mind you, the US is pretty much the only world power these days, especially if you consider that no one in the governments of Russia or China would possibly care how many innocent people were slaughtered by their own governments or how they were slaughtered. In fact, Putin probably would have used chemical weapons on Chechins had he not feared world opinion.

So substantiating that world opinion, making it very painful for anyone to use chemical weapons, is a principle which the west has clung to for almost a century now. Apparently, a lot of people no longer care, though.

[-TSS-]

The bigger picture behind all this is beginning to emerge. As Syria has been a fairly stabilised country but very anti-Israel it is important to destroy its infrastructure in a war. Even though that means that the ones who become the new leaders of Syria after the previous government has been overthrown are the worst kind of Israeli-haters but as their country is in ruins they pose no challenge or threat to Israel.

[Argus]

The bigger picture behind all this is beginning to emerge. As Syria has been a fairly stabilised country but very anti-Israel it is important to destroy its infrastructure in a war. Even though that means that the ones who become the new leaders of Syria after the previous government has been overthrown are the worst kind of Israeli-haters but as their country is in ruins they pose no challenge or threat to Israel.

Ah, another Jewish conspiracy, eh? Ok.

[-TSS-]

Ah, another Jewish conspiracy, eh? Ok.

I'm not a friend of conspiracy theories or any tinfoil hat-stuff but the very blind devotion any US government has for that tiny state called Israel does raise some questions.

[sharkman]

That is a typical European assumption and I suppose it's been somewhat true historically. But Obama has distanced himself from Israel like no other president. Syria is not about Israel.

Edited August 31, 2013 by sharkman

[LonJowett]

But Obama has distanced himself from Israel like no other president.

Why do you say that? Obama's policy with Israel is the same as every other president.

[bud]

Ah, another Jewish conspiracy, eh? Ok.

ah, another attempt at stopping the conversation about the realities with accusations of conspiracy theories or anti-semitism.

israel wants assad gone because syria is in a pact with iran and hezbollah. stop pretending otherwise.

look at the list of people who wrote an open letter to obama, repeating what netanyahu and AIPAC are saying. these are israel-firster who also pushed for the war in iraq:

Seth Cropsey

James S. Denton

Paula A. DeSutter

Larry Diamond

Dr. Paula J. Dobriansky

Thomas Donnelly

Dr. Michael Doran

Mark Dubowitz

Dr. Colin Dueck

Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt

Ambassador Eric S. Edelman

Reuel Marc Gerecht

Abe Greenwald

Christopher J. Griffin

John P. Hannah

Bruce Pitcairn Jackson

Ash Jain

Dr. Kenneth Jensen

Allison Johnson

Dr. Robert G. Joseph

Dr. Robert Kagan

Lawrence F. Kaplan

Jamie Kirchick

Irina Krasovskaya

Dr. William Kristol

Bernard-Henri Levy

Dr. Robert J. Lieber

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman

Tod Lindberg

Dr. Thomas G. Mahnken

Dr. Michael Makovsky

Ann Marlowe

Dr. Clifford D. May

Dr. Alan Mendoza

Dr. Joshua Muravchik

Governor Tim Pawlenty

Martin Peretz

Danielle Pletka

Dr. David Pollock

Arch Puddington

Karl Rove

Randy Scheunemann

Dan Senor

Ambassador John Shattuck

Lee Smith

Henry D. Sokolski

Ammar Abdulhamid

Elliott Abrams

Dr. Fouad Ajami

Dr. Michael Auslin

Gary Bauer

Paul Berman

Max Boot

Ellen Bork

Ambassador L. Paul Bremer

Matthew R. J. Brodsky

Dr. Eliot A. Cohen

Senator Norm Coleman

Ambassador William Courtney

go on! cry conspiracy theory!

Edited September 1, 2013 by bud

[sharkman]

Why do you say that? Obama's policy with Israel is the same as every other president.

No it is not. Whenever an opportunity to support Israel comes up the guy flips a coin.

Here's Obama bitching about Netanyahu.

Here's Obama calling him a political coward.

Here's Netanyahu visiting US and Obama won't meet with him.

Here's US officials leaking Israel's secret staging grounds in an attack on Iran.

Now, I understand how Bud and various others will be unable to call a spade a spade here, and that is fine. Some people are unable to see around their biases to observe what is plainly obvious to an objective person.

But here's a list just in case someone is curious about the Israel Obama situation. Obama, through his various underlings, is attempting to damage Israel's foreign policy and disrupt Israel's relationships with her allies. He doesn't think Israel should attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure and you may agree with him, that is fine. But he is giving away Israel's secrets to stop them, and that is unforgivable for an "ally" to do. Israel knows they can no longer trust the US and now doesn't tell him anything. This result is a chasm to their relationship.

The result is a US policy that is anything but the same as any other president.

In fact, nobody can name a president who has consistently harmed the relationship/ally the way Obama has.

Edited September 1, 2013 by sharkman

[bud]

No it is not. Whenever an opportunity to support Israel comes up the guy flips a coin.

Here's Obama bitching about Netanyahu.

Here's Obama calling him a political coward.

Here's Netanyahu visiting US and Obama won't meet with him.

Here's US officials leaking Israel's secret staging grounds in an attack on Iran.

lonjowett said his policy has been the same towards israel and he is correct.

who cares if obama doesn't like netanyahu. not many people do. the policy towards israel has been the same for decades. the only president in the past 30 years who mildly stood up to AIPAC and israel's policy was bush sr, when he threatened to hold back loans if israel didn't dismantle and freeze the settlements. AIPAC crucified the guy and he lost the next elections. bush jr. didn't make the same mistake. obama, even though he obviously doesn't like netanyahu, continues to give the yearly billions to israel (in fact, he has increased it), he has dropped his demand for israel to freeze the settlements in order to start talks (even though that is part of the road map policy) and obama continues to shoot anything down at the UN that may disrupt the zionist regime.

[bud]

oh and here is a link for you: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_03769.html

[LonJowett]

Exactly. Netanyahu and Israel are not the same thing, and as a former Israeli I find it offensive that anyone would make that conclusion.

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly. Netanyahu and Israel are not the same thing, and as a former Israeli I find it offensive that anyone would make that conclusion.

"Former" Israeli? You renounced your citizenship?

[Argus]

ah, another attempt at stopping the conversation about the realities with accusations of conspiracy theories or anti-semitism.

israel wants assad gone because syria is in a pact with iran and hezbollah. stop pretending otherwise.

Anyone who thinks this is about Israel has some pretty severe psychological issues, or is simply an anti-semite (which is pretty much synonymous with having psychological issues)

Edited September 1, 2013 by Argus

[LonJowett]

"Former" Israeli? You renounced your citizenship?

No. But I left in 1984 when I got the opportunity to come to Canada. I've been back twice, but I doubt I'll ever live there again.

[Guest American Woman]

No. But I left in 1984 when I got the opportunity to come to Canada. I've been back twice, but I doubt I'll ever live there again.

So then you're still an Israeli, as you're still a citizen; I wondered why you would renounce your citizenship.

Edited September 1, 2013 by American Woman

[LonJowett]

So then you're still an Israeli, as you're still a citizen; I wondered why you would renounce your citizenship.

Since I don't live there anymore and likely won't, I consider myself a former Israeli. But that's getting rather off-topic.

[sharkman]

Exactly. Netanyahu and Israel are not the same thing, and as a former Israeli I find it offensive that anyone would make that conclusion.

Isn't that a rather shallow look at those links I gave? Did you even read them? The leader of Israel comes to the US and Obama refuses to meet with him? That's an insult that a president would never, never do if he was maintaining the usual close relationship they had with Israel. That's because it's a different policy now.

And the US doesn't leak Israeli secrets to a magazine in an effort to subvert their policy toward Iran. Not unless they've changed their relationship toward Israel, that's all I'm saying here. I see you can't come up with another US president who has repeatedly harmed the relationship over 2 terms. That is because such a president does not exist.

I think your attitude toward Israel and that you consider yourself a 'former' Israeli even though you still are one is affecting your view on this matter.

Edited September 1, 2013 by sharkman

[-TSS-]

Now Obama is going to ask approval by Congress to attack Syria. Congress convenes on 9/9. Is Obama going to be that predictable as to launch the attack two days later for obvious symbolic reasons?

[LonJowett]

That's because it's a different policy now.

I love Israel and always will so don't try to bring that into it. Tell me how the policy is "different." Specifically, beyond the chumminess of the leaders, what has changed?

[Guest American Woman]

Since I don't live there anymore and likely won't, I consider myself a former Israeli. But that's getting rather off-topic.

No, it's not "off topic" since you brought it up; and since you felt it was relevant to the comment you were responding to, I feel as if your reference to "former" may be very relevant to what you've had to say. It's an odd choice of words, IMO, for someone who still retains their citizenship.

[sharkman]

I love Israel and always will so don't try to bring that into it. Tell me how the policy is "different." Specifically, beyond the chumminess of the leaders, what has changed?

I spelled it out for you in my above post. The US is actively trying to thwart Israel's efforts to bomb Iran if they deem it necessary. Again, name a US president that has done this.

Edited September 1, 2013 by sharkman

[Guest American Woman]

Now Obama is going to ask approval by Congress to attack Syria. Congress convenes on 9/9. Is Obama going to be that predictable as to launch the attack two days later for obvious symbolic reasons?

He'll launch the attack when and if he gets Congressional approval. I doubt if he would get approval that quickly, if at all. But ... another conspiracy theory in the making?

It may be 10 days or more before Congress votes on whether to approve use of military force against Syria.

[LonJowett]

No, it's not "off topic" since you brought it up; and since you felt it was relevant to the comment you were responding to, I feel as if your reference to "former" may be very relevant to what you've had to say. It's an odd choice of words, IMO, for someone who still retains their citizenship.

I don't think it's that odd considering I formerly lived there and don't anymore. Saying otherwise would suggest I still live there and I don't. I think it's more odd that you would latch on that at the expense of the topic at hand. What is it about my emigration 30 years ago that you think might be "very relevant?"