"
Barack Obama's plans for air strikes against Syria were thrown into disarray on Thursday night after the British parliament unexpectedly rejected a motion designed to pave the way to authorising the UK's participation in military action."
The White House was forced to consider the unpalatable option of taking unilateral action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad after the British prime minister, David Cameron, said UK would not now take part in any military action in response to a chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus last week.
Although Britain's support was not a prerequisite for US action, the Obama administration was left exposed without the backing of its most loyal ally, which has taken part in every major US military offensive in recent years.
France, another strong US ally, that could be expected to take Britain's place and join the United States in some form of coalition of the willing, it's support so far, seems sketchy.
French officials also are calling for a delay in action until U.N. inspectors conclude their report. “Before acting, we need proof,” said Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a minister and government spokeswoman, according to Bloomberg News.
The latest developments suggest that Washington’s allies will insist on waiting at least until next week before launching what initially appeared to be an imminent strike on Syria.
On the question of whether France would ultimately join the US military effort.
In an interview with Le Monde newspaper, Mr Hollande said the UK vote made no
difference to his support for action against the Syrian government.
He said that if the UN Security Council was unable to act because two of its
permanent members, Russia and China, were in opposition, a coalition would form including the Arab League and European countries.
"But there are few countries which can have the capacity
of enforcing any sanction through the appropriate measures," he added.
"France will be part of it. France is ready."
On the question of whether Germany, another US ally, would join the US military effort.
"There has been no request to us for a military commitment, and a German military commitment has never been considered by the government," Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, told reporters. Pressed on whether Germany might later participate in military action, he replied: "We have not considered it and we are not considering it."
Seibert pointed to "narrow limits" under German law to military commitments abroad, which need parliamentary approval. He also wouldn't be drawn on whether Berlin would consider it legitimate for other countries to launch military action without a U.N. mandate.
The Guardian,
Washington Post,
BBC
88 comments:
How many nations backed us up in Iraq?
This is not about how they feel about Syria and use of nerve gas; it is about how they feel about this administration leading them.
The mountain is high, the valley is low, and you're confused on which way to go. So I've come here to give you a hand and lead you into the promised land.
So . . . come on and take a free ride!
OT: TOP gettin' kicks insulting her readers again!
Awww...poor ittle obama....no one has his back. He drew a red line and now has no homies to help him.
Obama is the Rodney Dangerfield of world politics.
What Obama is about to do, take us into war without congressional approval, is blatantly unconstitutional, an impeachable act. That Boehner & Co. have done nothing and will do nothing renders the Republican Party dead.
EMD, She needs to kick 'em, while she still got 'em.
EMD said...
OT: TOP gettin' kicks insulting her readers again!
That's only because he dared insult her favorite special interest group. It's more of the same, but not chirbit-worthy because it was essentially ad hominem.
Wag the dog, pass amnesty, then amnesia about it all.
She needs to kick 'em, while she still got 'em.
Out here in flyover country we have a name for people like that. Actually several names....but I'll keep it clean.
Bitch.
Restrict Syrian arms to sparklers and glow worms, like they do in the US.
How many nations backed us up in Iraq?
40 Countries. via insta.
The more one learns about whatserface, the more one understands Mary.
Fireagra, for foreign policy impotence
Leftist I've checked, don't want an attack either.
Valerie Jarrett is conflicted: she does not know who to back, Hezbollah or al Qaeda.
Well, he's a good little nephew of his Uncle Saul, but, similar to ChoomCare, he will own this all by himself.
And the consequences.
Lem - 40. Wow. That's a lot of support. And congress said OK too.
hmmm.
How many nations backed us up in Iraq?
Yeah and having been burned once...
They were duped!
That's a good meme.
A little tired, but ya know... Whatever works.
Awww...poor ittle obama....no one has his back. He drew a red line and now has no homies to help him.
What nonsense. This isn't a problem for Obama. It's a problem for the United States. You can blame the previous administration.
"You can blame the previous administration."
It's Bush's fault!
I knew it!!
While I cant say I don't relish the idea of painting Obama with the same political broad brush he painted Bush with... there is the danger of the larger picture being damaged here.
Obama is just a transitory figure head. Our national interest is not.
I hope and prey he comes to the right decision.
"The president is going to have to make a tough decision."
Bush 43.
Of course you can, because the poor little black homosexual muslim communist community organizer is responsible for nothing. Even his children are not his own.
It's a problem for the United States.
No, it really isn't. Syria isn't our problem. It's President Peace Prize's problem because he shot off his mouth last year, and now needs to act all butch to not look like Assad's bitch. World and US public opinion are both against him.
It will eventually become our problem.
But not until it has grown much worse.
It's high time for a "marriage equality" march on Washington.
Lem said ...
Obama is just a transitory figure head.
I agree. However, I don't think Obama agrees with that assessment. That hubris is the danger now.
Phx ... tell me how the prior administration impacts the Syrian condition we face today? If anything, wildly derivative of the loosening of the bonds on Shiites in Iraq by the Iraq invasion, that would make Bush 43 a sponsor of Hezbollah and Assad, not to mention Iran. Do you believe that?
I believe the Bush 43 administration fucked up royally by not crushing the Muqtada Al Sadr Madi Army at the outset. Iranian fundamentalists intervened at that point and we have what we have today.
rh posted a Belmont article in chick's grindstone piece. Re Boehner:
"Neither has Obama secured the consent of Congress for his planned operation. Speaker John Boehner wrote to the president, saying: “I have conferred with the chairmen of the national security committees who have received initial outreach from senior Administration officials, and while the outreach has been appreciated, it is apparent from the questions above that the outreach has, to date, not reached the level of substantive consultation.” Boehner wrote:
I respectfully request that you, as our country’s commander-in-chief, personally make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America’s credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy. In addition, it is essential you address on what basis any use of force would be legally justified and how the justification comports with the exclusive authority of Congressional authorization under Article I of the Constitution."
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/08/29/crow/
Lem, when this President starts acting in the interests of the United States of America, it will be the first time. War with Syria is completely counter to our interests.
How is it in the national interest to piss off the Russians and the Chinese in order to help Al Qaeda?
My impression is that once the war rhetoric gets cranked up, like the pollo grindstone, if you let it die down w/o taking action, then Obama is in even bigger trouble.
From what seems most important to him, the perspective of what matter to Obama the most, his image could take a bigger blow, should he once having threaten a dictator not act on that threat.
The press is no depicting it that way but if Obama doesn't act, the headline should read...
Assad Faces Down Obama.
phx said...
How many nations backed us up in Iraq?
Yeah and having been burned once...
Burned, how?
We won the campaign and the WMDs were there.
They're not going because of Little Zero.
Even AP says his presentation is not a slam dunk.
How is it in the national interest to piss off the Russians and the Chinese in order to help Al Qaeda?
Well, there's the trying to stop or hold to account whomever is gassing and napalming people. Trouble is, credibility and trust is shot over who is doing it.
And, if you sat in Rev. Wright's church long enough, you just might believe that al Qaeda was just chickens coming home to roost.
Well, there's the trying to stop or hold to account whomever is gassing and napalming people. Trouble is, credibility and trust is shot over who is doing it.
Yeah, that would be a problem. As is the problem of determining what kind of chemical agents were used. There's dispute on that front as well.
But even if all of those things are established: IT STILL ISN'T OUR BUSINESS. And I'll note that Saddam was known to have used chemical weapons, and Obama and all his vassals think that removing Saddam from power was the worst crime in the history of humanity.
So Obama's claims of a red line NOW are complete hypocrisy, as usual.
And, if you sat in Rev. Wright's church long enough, you just might believe that al Qaeda was just chickens coming home to roost.
Sadly, that doesn't even elicit a chuckle any more.
Lem, how about, 'Obama Whiffs on Syria.'
Lem, how about, 'Obama Whiffs on Syria.'
How about
Assad Punks Obama
-or-
Assad's Son: Obama is my daddy's bitch!
Oh, wait, that last one has already happened.
Lem ... I think you are giving Obama credit for a personality trait he doesn't possess. He's a punk of the type who doesn't mind starting a fight with rhetoric, then hides behind the table until the fight is over.
In other words, a slew of embarrassments have hit him full in the face recently and not one stuck...he just lets it roll off and blow on down the road...until it is forgotten. He never gets his own hands dirty. He has no backbone.
If he starts lobbing cruise missiles in to Syria and Putin rings him up on the red phone and says succinctly, one more missile and we start sinking your ships ... he'd fold like a cheap tent in a light breeze.
The sad part is Putin would be right and he'd be a fool once again. It takes real genius to be that big of a fuck up. Obama is up to the task however. As always.
Syria has a much better looking first lady than us so I say we should go easy on them, in any event.
Was it Assad's giraffe neck that won over his lady?
Was it Assad's giraffe neck that won over his lady?
It was the relative length of Assad's ring fingers to his index fingers.
Mr Hollande said the UK vote made no difference to his support for action against the Syrian government.
Pres. Hollande has been in office a little over a year and his approval is already down to a record low of 31%. He campaigned in 2012 on an early withdrawal of French troops from Afghanistan.
This should work well.
My guy's messed up in dirty deals again
He's been arguing, drinking all kinds of crap,
I had enough of him and sent him packing,
And now I want someone like Putin
Someone like Putin, filled with strength,
Someone like Putin, who doesn't drink
Someone like Putin, who wouldn't insult me
Someone like Putin, who'd never desert me
I saw him on the news yesterday,
He was saying the world is at a crossroads.
With a man like that you can have fun at home or going out
And now I want someone like Putin
--"One like Putin" (2008)
Takogo kak Putin!
It's Bush's fault!
It sure the fuck is.
Assad Faces Down Obama.
New York Daily News chimes in:
Damascusin for Trouble!
Assad: Take me Syriasly!
Assad hits a nerve!
It sure the fuck is.
All future civil wars are undoubtedly Bush's fault.
To be clearer I think a key reason the British voted against Cameron is because of their experience with the war in Iraq under Bush and Blair.
I don't really know whether we should unleash our military on Syria or not, so maybe it's a good thing the Brits aren't going. Maybe it will keep Obama from doing something that won't be good for us. I don't know whether we should go or not - nobody does IMO. That's because war and military intervention is unpredictable. Particularly this scenario.
All future civil wars are undoubtedly Bush's fault.
I didn't mean Syria was Bush's fault. Good luck finding someone to blame for that.
What the Jug Eared Jesus is doing in Syria, Egypt and Lydia is "Bush's fault."
Dude you have a seriously mental problem.
That would be the same thing as Catherine Zeta Jones blaming her divorce on the fact that his first wife Diandra Douglas made him eat her out too much.....err....wait a minute....nevermind.
Seriously the Jug Eared Jesus has to own all of his efforts to aid the Muslim Brotherhood in establishing Radical Islamic regimes in nations of the Middle East that he could help destabilize.
Obama makes Nicholas Brody look like Nathan Hale.
What the Jug Eared Jesus is doing in Syria, Egypt and Lydia is "Bush's fault."
Argue against my actual position if you will. The vote in Parliament was largely a response to the debacle in Iraq that was engineered by Bush's team of neo-cons.
And for the record I initially supported Bush's intervention in Iraq. I believed it was a good plan initially. I'm just being transparent.
phx wrote
What nonsense. This isn't a problem for Obama. It's a problem for the United States. You can blame the previous administration.
That certainly does sound like phx took a swipe at Bush. Unfortunately, it's an old meme that Obama had best live down before he leaves office. Or maybe the meme will become that Obama was Bush's fault too.
You are seeing this through Obama colored glasses.
The reason they don't want to do this is that they don't trust Obama. Not anything that Bush, Reagan, Nixon or Jimmy Carter did.
If the Brits thought that Obama had this right they would be behind it. They know he is a bungler and will hang them out to dry. Throw them under the but. That is what he does.
And yes. I said colored.
And yes. I said colored.
You guys bring up race more than Al Sharpton at a Tawana Brawley fundraiser.
You are indeed being transparent. You can't admit that nobody but nobody trust Obama in foreign affairs. His policy is to dump on our allies and cosset our enemies.
Plus he sent a complete DVD set of "The Jeffersons" as a baby gift. So of course the Brits are pissed at us.
It's called a joke phx.
As is your President.
It's called a joke phx.
Just sayin'
t's Bush's fault!
It sure the fuck is.
If that's so (arguendo), then you're saying that after more than an entire term in office, Obama has effectively done nothing to improve diplomatic relations with our allies, nothing of substance. I thought that was supposed to be his big foreign policy accomplishment: Obama ("leading from behind") has mended (or greatly rehabilitated) relations with our allies, and the rest of the world. His administration even "reset" relations with Russia! (Excuse me while I laugh, bitterly.)
Oh, he got a Nobel Peace Prize! But when the rubber hits the road, he's got-- nothin'. Not a single friend.
The reviled Bush, the terrible cowboy, was able to round up a coalition of the willing, for the long haul. Obama, it seems-- for a drastically limited mission, supposedly no muss no fuss-- can so far scrounge up: no one, no one at all.
(Even after we followed France's lead in Libya, France is playing hard to get.)
Our allies are not even giving O some pretext that would allow him to save face. He is-- and so the USA is-- out there on a limb, totally hanging.
Right now, we're a laughingstock in the eyes of the world.
Right now, we're a laughingstock in the eyes of the world.
And may I add-- to add to the hilarity-- the O administration itself has openly, explicitly admitted this is the case, as one of the reasons to go to war!
We have to engage in enough military action to not be "mocked." Not too much, not too little. To save face.
I mean... that's some crack foreign policy there, Barack.
I believed it was a good plan initially.
All plans are good ... initially.
You guys bring up race more than Al Sharpton at a Tawana Brawley fundraiser.
Are they still having those?
Right now, we're a laughingstock in the eyes of the world.
And may I add-- to add to the hilarity-- the O administration itself has openly, explicitly admitted this is the case, as one of the reasons to go to war!
Oh, please. Give us a quote.
The reviled Bush, the terrible cowboy, was able to round up a coalition of the willing, for the long haul. Obama, it seems-- for a drastically limited mission, supposedly no muss no fuss-- can so far scrounge up: no one, no one at all.
That's a complete false analogy. I don't have to point out all the problems with that, do I? How the situations are completely different missions from one another? How, after Bush and his team completely screwed up and burned everyone after getting his coalition together, it's hardly surprising that world leaders are distrustful of USA presidents?
And who said this was a no muss no fuss mission? That's foolish, military intervention is never no muss no fuss and I haven't heard anyone sell this as "easy". I'm very worried about the outcome - I think everyone is. The question is, is the outcome worse for inaction? Don't try to kid anyone that this is an easy sell or would be for any President. It's a tough job and anyone could get a good kick in the balls, no matter how competent they are.
Laughingstock. That's just disrespectful to the US. People are worried about us and our credibility. Given our recent past in Iraq and Afghanistan, I understand that. And you can't say Bush and his team has no role in that global perception.
Good to see you, Yashu. Hope you are well.
Are they still having those?
Well, she's started paying down judgment levied against her.
But actually, no.
phx, you really a lost cause, aren't you? Totally hopeless. The el supremo Obama apologist--against all facts, logic and reality..
Absolutely hopeless..
And you're basically a nice person if I read your digital personality right, so more's the pity...a lifetime spent as a useful idiot for people on the left that don't deserve two seconds of your attention..
Good to see you too, phx.
Give us a quote.
The relevant quote is here (in the LA Times).
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.
"They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," he said.
I was hyperbolic only insofar as this is not an official pronouncement from the White House, but I assume this "U.S. official" is a member of the administration, who must know he's speaking on the record.
I agree with you (very much) that no military action is no muss no fuss. And the consequences in this case, beyond the military outcome, are all cause for worry. But the Syria intervention is being presented by the White House as a drastically limited mission. After all-- if the POTUS feels there's no need to even deign to get congressional authorization for it, no need to speak to the American people on the subject, how big of a deal can it be? (I'm rolling my eyes, BTW.)
Of course Iraq/ Syria are different situations. But you didn't address my main point. If you recall, I started out by (hypothetically, arguendo) accepting your premise (though I don't actually accept it, in my comment I did).
You tacitly seem to admit the point. After more than a term of Obama in office, then, the USA remains as distrusted as (you claim) it was under Bush, after Bush. Obama has does nothing to change that. (IMO he's made things worse, but I'm not even arguing that here.)
Yet that's always been the centerpiece of Obama's foreign policy accomplishments. No?
phx, you really a lost cause, aren't you? Totally hopeless. The el supremo Obama apologist--against all facts, logic and reality..
Ha. I think it's the absolutists on all sides, who think they have a clear, defined and irrefutable grip on all facts, logic and reality, that are dangerous, atlhough mostly to themselves. Totalists.
Edited:
"that's always been the centerpiece of Obama's supposed foreign policy accomplishments."
And I'm not very much of an Obama apologist really. This could all go south quickly. If he mucks it up, the responsibility is his, I don't have a problem with that.
So far, I'm okay with how this extremely dangerous and uncomfortable situation has been playing out.
The reason they don't want to do this is that they don't trust Obama. Not anything that Bush, Reagan, Nixon or Jimmy Carter did.
Dude, you might be going too far. Carter was history's greatest monster, ya know. Before George Zimmerman, anyway.
You tacitly seem to admit the point. After more than a term of Obama in office, then, the USA remains as distrusted as (you claim) it was under Bush, after Bush. Obama has does nothing to change that. (IMO he's made things worse, but I'm not even arguing that here.)
Yet that's always been the centerpiece of Obama's foreign policy accomplishments. No?
In my opinion, and I'm pretty sure outside the hard right-wing universe I'm hardly alone on this, Obama has made things better.
You're seeing the residual damage to our foreign policy that was committed by Bush and the neocons. Thing have certainly improved, even at home a lot of us feel a lot more confident in our foreign policy, but you are underestimating the damage Bush did and how long it will take for us to get back where we were, if we ever can.
So, after four and a half years of Obama misrule, the British still aren't willing to stand with the US because Bush fucked up in 2003. Wow, what a concept. Even Black Jesus HisOwnSelf can't escape the tarnish.
The only problem is that the British and the US were partners (along with other nations) in the ouster of Qaddafi's government in Libya. So apparently the British just entirely forgot about the Bush years in 2011 and joined in, but now they're taking their meds again and remember that BOOOOOOSSSSHHHHH is BAAAAADDDDD. Oh, and they forgot what a resounding success Libya was. (I have yet to hear a single Obama voter claim that anything went wrong in Libya. Most seem to think the Ambassador getting ass-raped to death by towel heads is something that happens every day. I guess they think being an Ambassador is just like walking through a park in Delaware.)
Or, one could us Occam's razor and determine that the British don't think this operation is worthwhile for other reasons. Given that British experts have stated they DO believe nerve agents were used, this would imply that they don't trust coalition leadership on this operation.
This is the first time since 1782 that the British Parliament has not granted a PM's request for use of force.
And it is all BOOOOOSSSSHHHH's fault. Bad Bush, bad! Bad invade, you!
phx said...
You guys bring up race more than Al Sharpton at a Tawana Brawley fundraiser.
I think you must have missed the tongue in cheek fun poking at TOP over terms like "NIG" or "Black eye"...which she really did conflate with prejudice recently. So some of us had some fun with it, and Trooper still does...as he always does, ask Crack.
phx said...
This could all go south quickly. If he mucks it up, the responsibility is his, I don't have a problem with that.
You may not, but I do. I take unwarranted deaths seriously. Having killed some folks I am entitled to that emotion. Sissy Boy Obama is not. End of story.
Obama has made things better.
How?
Even Black Jesus HisOwnSelf
Did I tell you you guys bring up race more than Al Sharpton at a Tawana Brawley fundraiser?
In my opinion, and I'm pretty sure outside the hard right-wing universe I'm hardly alone on this, Obama has made things better.
Yes, so the British were willing to side with us in 2011 to remove someone from office who was NOT using poison gas on his own people, but they are NOT willing to help us two years later. Because of something that happened in 2003? Wow, the British have all gone completely senile, to have memories come and go like that. Or perhaps they're time traveling, and in 2011 the year 2003 hadn't happened to them yet?
It's all perfectly clear.
How?
For one thing by scuttling the American Exceptionalism foreign policy espoused by Bush and the neocons.
I think the rest of the world is starting to realize we don't all believe we have the right to break things no matter what anyone else says because God gave America that right.
the damage Bush did and how long it will take for us to get back where we were, if we ever can.
Yes, Bush was so monumental a world figure that the US will be forever tainted by his stain. The Germans got over You Know Who, but neither we nor anyone else can ever get over Bush.
Christ Allmighty, how can we ever combat such intentional stupidity as this?
I mean, is there any evidence that Obama has improved relations with our allies?
Or is this just an obvious assumption to make, because he's Obama, Nobel Prize winner, and not Bush the cowboy? No evidence needed.
What countries, specifically, do we have better relations with now?
(Gotta leave the discussion right now, anyway cheers phx, I'm OK, hope you're well, too.)
What countries, specifically, do we have better relations with now?
The New York Times had a nice little article with all the Obama people bad-mouthing Britain because of the lost vote in Parliament. Surely that is a sign of how improved relations are between these two old allies, yes?
Let me elaborate....let Obama and Gen Twinkle Toes Dempsey lay out a positive objective that intervention will accomplish. Until then, keep their dainty fingers off the triggers.
Skip the "genocide" trope. If that was cause for unilateral action (and I am not saying it isn't morally) where were Democrat Clinton's troops during the Rwandan conflagration (1994+)...oh, wait...they were all busy saving some very white Muslims in the Balkans, right. Technically, the slaughter, such as it is, in Syria isn't even genocide...it is sectarian and political.
My of my friends and acquaintances just have no idea how it irritates me to hear decisions like the Syrian question bandied about like a Chess move strategy.
Face some bullets, be under some artillery or some bombs, then come tell how it works. There are others here who've experienced it, some far worse and longer than me, so for that part of us, I am preaching to the choir.
This sorry puke of a President can't save 4 men in Benghazi and yet he considers killing far more on his own initiative. Jesus fucking Christ on a pink pony...this is insane.
I should also point out that the Libya operation was much bigger and more open ended in scope (with the end goal of regime change in mind) than the proposed operations in Syria. The idea that the British were willing to partner with us on the much bigger Libya operation but aren't on the Syria operation because of Iraq is just so incredibly ridiculous, just so incredibly dishonest, that it beggars the mind that anyone could make that argument with a straight face.
How can a moderate not recognize that this President has been a disaster in foreign relations. That he has destroyed our close relationship with Great Britain. That he has screwed up the friendship that Bush fostered with India. That he ignores the good works that Bush did in Africa with the Aids crisis to take credit for stuff he didn't do. That he continual positions the United States to do with is best for the Muslim Brotherhood and not what is in the US best interest.
He will ultimately rest in the bottom five of US Presidents along with James Buchanan, Jimmy Carter, Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore.
A moderate would not place any blame other than where it belongs on a President who has been President for almost five years.
The statute of limitations has lapsed on blaming the Bush administration.
If he attacks Syria without complying with the War Powers Act he should be impeached.
He won't be because Obama can commit any crime and he will never be held accountable.
"Laughingstock. That's just disrespectful to the US. People are worried about us and our credibility. Given our recent past in Benghazi, Libya in general or Egypt I understand that. And you can't say Bush and his team had a role in that global perception since their administration was five years ago and is as relevant to the perceptions of the world today as the administration of Harry Truman. We just refuse to acknowledge this because the Jug Eared Jesus can do no wrong."
Wasn't the foreign relations re-set button pushed early in Beloved Leader's first term? You know, so America would once again be respected around the world?
Yeah 40 countries supported us in Iran. And we paid 95% of the cost in lives and money.
But look at the bright side, after bombing and killing a couple thousand people in Syria, we can then let 200,000 Syrian refugees into the USA.
End result: More diversity, which we know is always a good thing.
Post a Comment