Breaking:Obama says he has made no final decision on Syria, but is considering 'limited narrow act'
Source: AP Mobile Breaking 2:31Pm EDT
AP Mobile
Breaking (2:31Pm EDT): Obama says he has made no final decision on Syria, but is considering a 'limited narrow act'
No link yet.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)- K&R
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)msongs
(67,199 posts)cstanleytech
(26,085 posts)What first matters is who did it, the Syrian government or the rebels?
If the government then there are a number of options from an embargo on any goods to the government to blockading their ports also they could institute a no fly zone over the country.
If a military strike is the decision they could limit it to military air fields and or missle sites.
If the rebels did it though then the only option imo should be to cut off any and all aid because chemical weapons designed to kill should not be used by anyone regardless of the reason.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Berlin Expat
(946 posts)if the "narrow and limited" action in question were, let us say, blowing Assad to kingdom come, I'd think that might change the situation on the ground to some extent. Particularly if his military commanders happened to fall victim to a "narrow and limited" action as well.
A decapitation stroke could be easily defined as "limited and narrow" military action.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)They're so peaceful and prosperous today.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)neverforget
(9,434 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)Al Queda. Worst case, one of Assad's generals, who now is hell bent on revenge, and decides to attack Israel to get it. Isreal retaliates. Iran attacks Israel to protect Syria.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)How moral of us that would be.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)..."let's say" is there any doubt?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)But the poster I replied to seems confused.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)Berlin Expat
(946 posts)trying to explain that Pentagonese and diplomatese can be used in many ways to reveal and simultaneously obfuscate an issue.
For instance, instead of saying, "We're gonna take out that SOB _____________!" one could say, "We're thinking of a narrowly focused and limited duration action that will effectively and permanently neutralize the _____________ regime's ability to threaten its own citizens as well as those of neighboring countries in the immediate region."
You've basically said the same thing, but the latter is far more vague. As far as assassinations go, we've been doing that for a long, long time, though generally through proxies. We prefer not to get our hands dirty.
Ask Patrice Lumumba. Oh wait.....never mind. Then ask Salvador Allende. Oh, crap.....one of our proxies bumped him off too. I don't like it, but it's the way of the world. It always has been, and it always will be.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)What I don't get is the attitude that "it's the way of the world...always will be."
Nothing ever changes with that.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)That kind of "decapitation", the effective assassination of another foreign Head of State?
Libya is a hotbed of liberalism these days, thanks to Obama.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)disabling their communications and intelligence wont effect the civil war or his ability to use weapons at a ll.
how could we all be so silly?
I mean, what country needs its military infrastructure to wage a good war ?
I mean come on it didn't work I a country that wasn't asking for help (Iraq) why would it work for one that IS asking for help from the outside world?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)red dog 1
(27,648 posts)I wonder what it will be called tomorrow?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)no wait, that was where he started.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)The sort of response that stains the burial shrouds a nice deep Kerry red.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)they were so prepared for a "WAR!!! WAR!!! WE'RE AT WAR!!" pronouncement from Obama,
that they kept uber-hyping all the details of US war-preparedness they know about ("4 WAR SHIPS
w/ 200 missles already loaded with target information, etc." reported breathlessly, just like
Wolf Blitzer covering Iraq invasion.
They were NOT expecting.. "well, we're still thinking about this..."
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Also, please provide a detailed explanation of how.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,283 posts)and, what will it accomplish? Shock and Awe, baby! Black and green images from night-vision video cameras.
It will be condemned as too violent by much of the international community.
It will be condemned as "too little, too late" by McCain and Graham.
It's a "lose-lose" attempt to "do something".
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Each Tomahawk cruise missile fired costs $1.4 million.
It think it's obvious that this isn't a "lose-lose" situation. Lockheed-Martin and General Dynamics clearly win.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)moonlady0623
(193 posts)NO
is not being heard?????
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)think_critically
(118 posts)This guy needs to seriously learn to stop talking like a damn professor. What the fuck is a limited narrow act? He just sent Kerry out to talk about how bad Assad is and his response will be a "limited narrow" act. He cannot seem to grasp the fact that sending out conflicting messages does nothing but make you look like you don't know what you are doing. He needs to get it together.
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)"I KNOW BETTER THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HAVE MORE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS THAN HE DOES AND HE IS JUST LIKE BUSH."
think_critically
(118 posts)He's making the best out of bad situation but it's the optics that matter. I don't have a problem with the substance but he has this disdain for the media that causes him not to think about the public perception problems that are sometimes caused by what his administration does.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Assad's a bad dude. Doesn't mean we have the right to airdrop Marines into Syria and start nation building again.
cstanleytech
(26,085 posts)and do nothing because they "arent americans so its not our problem" either.
The fact is we are part of this lone small world and when we can we should render aid to those in need and we should always do what we can imo to send a message that some shit just wont be tolerated by anyone like for example the use of chemical weapons on civilians.
And no I am not saying we should respond with military force either, there are many options of which our military is one of them and all of them should be examined so that hopefully the best one is used that causes the least amount of disruption.
rug
(82,333 posts)There is nothing limited or narrow about military action in Syria.
Chemisse
(30,793 posts)I think he has pie on his face now that the US is the ONLY country willing to bomb Syria.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,029 posts)Chemisse
(30,793 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)OneCrazyDiamond
(2,029 posts)Do you have a link?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)He should read his own speeches.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)A limited strike will not eliminate chemical weapons nor prevent their use. It has no strategic or tactical benefit. It will merely provoke a tit-for-tat response from Assad...one that will escalate the conflict and possibly spread it across Syria's borders. Pretty fucking stupid.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)David__77
(23,220 posts)And every bit of scorn and ridicule will be well-earned.
mountain grammy
(26,571 posts)quadrature
(2,049 posts)100 1000?
I want to know how my tax dollars are being spent.
I want to see the faces of the people I am
paying to have killed.
I want to know the names of the people
in Nevada that are pulling the trigger.
I want to know the names of the ships/
submarines/air-groups that participate.
Perhaps these people should be awarded
the Silver Star for their valor.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)With all due apologies to Rudy Giuliani, who owns the registered trademark on shoehorning 9/11 into everyday conversation. The check is in the mail, Rudy: no need to have your replacement send the stormtroopers in to beat the necessary licensing fees out of your humble narrator.
Wolf Frankula
(3,595 posts)I don't have much information on Syria's capabilities. I don't know if they still have the Yakhont supersonic antiship missiles. I do know they have a considerable antiaircraft capability.
What if Syria shoots back and damages or sinks the US naval vessels? They would claim they are defending themselves against an act of foreign aggression. Does the conflict escalate?
Mr. President, you are about to involve the US in a war. Think.
Wolf