• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

The Syria Issue: Your Personal Stance Is Much Appreciated

It's amazing how just when a president thinks he's out of the foreign policy woods, he's pulled right back in. I'm noticing a lot of "unhappy warrior," and "reluctant warrior" president themed news articles as of late. More proof that history chooses the leader, not the leader choosing history. It's a shame to see Obama struggle with this. While I disagreed with W and his worldview, he at least had one. I'm not certain what Obama's would be other than one that can be described as muddling through.
 
SFG75 said:
It's amazing how just when a president thinks he's out of the foreign policy woods, he's pulled right back in. I'm noticing a lot of "unhappy warrior," and "reluctant warrior" president themed news articles as of late. More proof that history chooses the leader, not the leader choosing history. It's a shame to see Obama struggle with this. While I disagreed with W and his worldview, he at least had one. I'm not certain what Obama's would be other than one that can be described as muddling through.
Click to expand...

I prefer reluctant warriors, I'm sick of war.
 
Conscious Bob said:
I prefer reluctant warriors, I'm sick of war.
Click to expand...

Then we are in agreement. I'm heartily sick of violence being an option to conflict resolution. They are all going to HAVE to end up around the negotiating table at some point anyway. I can't see why the world can't just get to that being the first and only option.
 
I have a great idea for historical fiction.

Churchill and Roosevelt have supper with Obama and Cameron. It could be a hilarious comedy really. About how the former pair shake their heads and roll their eyes about the latter pair. Someone get me Gore Vidal...er...uh........someone else who is alive. Perhaps Tom Wolfe?.......yes, he will do.
 
SFG75 said:
I have a great idea for historical fiction.

Churchill and Roosevelt have supper with Obama and Cameron. It could be a hilarious comedy really. About how the former pair shake their heads and roll their eyes about the latter pair. Someone get me Gore Vidal...er...uh........someone else who is alive. Perhaps Tom Wolfe?.......yes, he will do.
Click to expand...

How about throwing a few other Heads of State into that mix? Russia? France? Spain? Germany?

The conversation between Hitler and Angela Merkel could be quite ...
 
Maybe we are seeing the prelude to 1914. Throwing in the other characters does make for an interesting chain of events....potentially. I'm not sure how we can *reason* with Syria for two main reasons:

1.)Bashar Assad is not reasonable
2.)The Russians don't care how many people are gassed, shot, or run over with tanks. They just want a warm water port and their ally Bashar allows them that.

So, how do you tell them what to do in light of that?

Wish I knew..........
 
I take my example from Jose Ramos-Horta, Nobel Peace Laureate and architect of peace in Timor-Leste, and he said, that everyone wants something. And getting people around the negotiating table is to acknowledge what they want. And he managed to get people to sit and negotiate peace who were killing each other face-to-face.

He also said “More courage is required to forgive than is required to take up arms.”
 
The American isolationist strand is very interesting to me. Right now, it is gaining prominence with libertarian leaning republicans. I'm shocked that the party of McCain, Rumsfeld, and Bush has seen the re-spawning of this phenomenon. Politics truly makes some interesting bedfellows.
 
I think it goes without saying that the Republicans are against intervention. Because Obama.

It also goes without saying that Libertarians and Teabaggers don't want intervention either.

The interesting thing is that none of my friends that are Democrats want intervention either.

Come to think of it, I have only run into one American who was all for intervention if only because "it's the job of the world's police [America] to go in there because that's what a superpower does -- act as the world's police".

So who/where are the Americans that want intervention?
 
sparkchaser said:
I think it goes without saying that the Republicans are against intervention. Because Obama.

It also goes without saying that Libertarians and Teabaggers don't want intervention either.

The interesting thing is that none of my friends that are Democrats want intervention either.

Come to think of it, I have only run into one American who was all for intervention if only because "it's the job of the world's police [America] to go in there because that's what a superpower does -- act as the world's police".

So who/where are the Americans that want intervention?
Click to expand...


And yet the news report I watched today seemed to have a number of supporters for the 'Ra-ra' brigade. Except the logic completely escapes me.

'America has enemies just waiting to pounce if we don't punish Syria' seems to be the gist of it - and HOW does one connect those dots exactly?
 
The people that would normally be all for going in and blowing up stuff are dead set against it because it's Obama that wants it.

So confusing.
 
sparkchaser said:
The people that would normally be all for going in and blowing up stuff are dead set against it because it's Obama that wants it.

So confusing.
Click to expand...

honestly who cares why they are against, so long as sane sensible heads prevail however that comes about.

I would vaguely suspect Obama of being extremely clever in his stance. A. if congress votes to take action it isn't all his fault when it goes wrong (and if past efforts in the Middle East along those lines are anything to go by it WILL go wrong) B. nothing consolidated opinions against it more than him saying he was for it.
 
That's not how American politics works. If Congress votes for action and Bad things happen, Obama will still be blamed (there's an election coming up in 3 years!)
 
This is a perspective that had not occurred to me.

So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago.

If this sounds like an improbable scenario I ask that you to ponder for a moment the potential outcome:

No war
Obama and America look strong and world leaders should not doubt Obama’s willingness to take action
Congress was made to do their job
Congress will take the responsibility of inaction
Republicans have to pretend they are anti-war
Americans comes out against any further wars thereby providing the beginning of the end to our perpetual war
Puts pressure on the UN to take other action
Suddenly the UN is eager to accept other harsh non-military actions against Syria

And there is even the added bonus that the GOP weakening the push to shut down the government over the debt ceiling will not proceed with the intense battle anticipated. Next week Congress returns for only nine days. Nine days to act on the Syrian War, the debt ceiling, immigration, the Voting Rights Acts and many other important issues.

Seeing they can barely rename a post office, Congress will not have the ability to once again play games with by demanding cuts and further tax cuts for corporations. It will have to accept a reasonable offer or be blamed for damage to our nation’s credit rating. Republicans are very aware they will face blame and backlash should this happen.

Tell me this isn’t the best outcome ever. And I honestly think this was Obama’s intention from the beginning. You know damn well if he didn’t do anything, Republicans would be calling him weak because of the corner he had painted himself in when he talked about the red line.
Click to expand...

:rofl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top