Obama condemns Syria, uses strongly worded phrases

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's not really that simple. Once implemented, sanctions are unlikely to alter the behavior of a country, yes. There is a fair bit of evidence that the THREAT of sanctions can force less adamant actors to comply however.

It's a pretty interesting topic, but the conclusion is basically that actually using sanctions almost never works, but you need to implement the useless sanctions to retain credibility with the people that threats of sanctions will work on. (there's a good amount of debate on this issue, but it's a pretty fascinating topic)

Unfortunately the Syrian leadership knows that even threats of actions are pointless because of Chinese and Russian vetos. That leaves military intervention as in Libya or a covert action as the only real action left to the international community. That or do nothing. My opinion is that their action is calculated to force the Wests hand.

 

[Hacp]

Anything proposed/supported by the West will be blocked by Russia.

And has been demonstrated, sanctions just stiffen the resolve of leaders. When has a regime changed due to sanctions?

Theres a big reason why it will be blocked by Russia. Libya! What went from "protect the civilians" turned into bomb Libya back to the 15th century, then steal its oil. Expect any and all resolutions protecting civilians to be vetoed by Russia and China. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[fskimospy]

Unfortunately the Syrian leadership knows that even threats of actions are pointless because of Chinese and Russian vetos. That leaves military intervention as in Libya or a covert action as the only real action left to the international community. That or do nothing. My opinion is that their action is calculated to force the Wests hand.

Russia has made it explicitly clear that they believe NATO and the UN exceeded their mandate on Libya, and their current opposition is largely based on 'punishing' them for doing so. Russia has been a real dick at the UN lately, especially on the Syria issue as well as helicopters in South Sudan.

 

[PingviN]

Theres a big reason why it will be blocked by Russia. Libya! What went from "protect the civilians" turned into bomb Libya back to the 15th century, then steal its oil. Expect any and all resolutions protecting civilians to be vetoed by Russia and China. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Libya was already exporting it's oil to the west. Russia and China says no because if they don't they invite democracies to question their respective dictatorships. Dictators keeps on patting each others backs. Nothing to see here.

 

[MovingTarget]

Theres a big reason why it will be blocked by Russia. Libya! What went from "protect the civilians" turned into bomb Libya back to the 15th century, then steal its oil. Expect any and all resolutions protecting civilians to be vetoed by Russia and China. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Their stance is the UN isn't based on some humanitarian grounds, but in their own geopolitical self-interest. They stand to benefit being nations without qualms for trading with pariah states. Did we really bomb Libya that far back to the 15th century? How's that stolen oil working out for us?

 

[cybrsage]

Wait, so you are complaining about a lack of UN resolutions... but are dismissing sanctions? You think UN resolutions are more effective?

The claim I made was simply that, nothing more and nothing less. Sanctions do not work. The threat of sanctions work, but once you actually have to impliment them, they fail. The problem is that if you do not impliment them, then even the threat of them do not work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/26/resolution-syrian-crackdown-submitted-un

Sorry, it was the end of last May, not last June. This was submitted with US support, Russia vetoed.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10403.doc.htm

Resolution in October, supported by the US. Russia and China vetoed.

Please educate yourself in the future before opening your mouth.

From your link:

Unlike resolutions passed this year on Libya, the draft does not provide for UN sanctions or military intervention against Syria. But it urges states not to supply arms to Damascus.

Thanks for showing me correct.

 

[fskimospy]

The claim I made was simply that, nothing more and nothing less. Sanctions do not work. The threat of sanctions work, but once you actually have to impliment them, they fail. The problem is that if you do not impliment them, then even the threat of them do not work.

From your link:



Thanks for showing me correct.

You've really lost me now. I have no idea why what you bolded would show you to be correct in any way. It was immediately obvious to me that you had no idea what sort of UN action has been taking place over the last 7 months. You realize that the current resolution that led you to be happy that action was finally being taken contains no sanctions or threats of military intervention either, right?

Is this going to be another one of those things where you refuse to admit that you were wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence?

 

[Lemon law]

I may agree that sanction don't always work, but no sanction and no nothing against Assud is an outrage in MHO.

I don't fully understand the Russian reasons, but when Russia tried to offer some amendments, the UN basically disrespected Russia, and as a reward the UN got a big fat veto in the security council.

I only ask, was dissing Russia really that wise?

 

[sunzt]

They are FINALLY getting to the point where they are starting to talk about a resolution. Should have done that many months ago.

Since Syria is a Middle East destabilizing force (they fund groups on the US Terrorist list), and since they have been doing the same thing the Libyan government did, why the long wait?

It seemed like everyone was watching to see what the Arab League monitoring mission would accomplish. Unfortunately they didn't accomplish much and just ended up asking the UN for help which is where we are at today.

 

[cybrsage]

You've really lost me now. I have no idea why what you bolded would show you to be correct in any way. It was immediately obvious to me that you had no idea what sort of UN action has been taking place over the last 7 months. You realize that the current resolution that led you to be happy that action was finally being taken contains no sanctions or threats of military intervention either, right?

Is this going to be another one of those things where you refuse to admit that you were wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence?

Obama condemns Syria, uses strongly worded phrases

If they had oil, he would have started the bombing long ago, like he did in Libya. It is good he is finally saying someone else should do something about it, though. It is certainly a step in the right direction.

What this requires you do to to prove me wrong is to show where the US requested the ability to bomb Syria to protect civilians. You know, what they did in Libya, just like I posted about.

It is rought, I realize, to actually respond to what I say not what you wish I said, but you should try it sometime.

 

[cybrsage]

I may agree that sanction don't always work, but no sanction and no nothing against Assud is an outrage in MHO.

I don't fully understand the Russian reasons, but when Russia tried to offer some amendments, the UN basically disrespected Russia, and as a reward the UN got a big fat veto in the security council.

I only ask, was dissing Russia really that wise?

Agreed, we need to work WITH them. The cold war is long over.

 

[cybrsage]

It seemed like everyone was watching to see what the Arab League monitoring mission would accomplish. Unfortunately they didn't accomplish much and just ended up asking the UN for help which is where we are at today.

That could very well be a valid reason. The Arab League backed the no fly zone, but was very much against the widespread bombing campaign which Obama said was not actually "hostilities".

I think that is why they were so slow in requesting UN help.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I may agree that sanction don't always work, but no sanction and no nothing against Assud is an outrage in MHO.

I don't fully understand the Russian reasons, but when Russia tried to offer some amendments, the UN basically disrespected Russia, and as a reward the UN got a big fat veto in the security council.

I only ask, was dissing Russia really that wise?

The UN estimates that 5400 civilians were killed last month by government troops and Russia wants to block any call for removing Assuds killers from the towns and cities where they've committed their slaughters. Kind of hard to find that a reasonable compromise.

 

[PingviN]

I may agree that sanction don't always work, but no sanction and no nothing against Assud is an outrage in MHO.

I don't fully understand the Russian reasons, but when Russia tried to offer some amendments, the UN basically disrespected Russia, and as a reward the UN got a big fat veto in the security council.

I only ask, was dissing Russia really that wise?

They did make adjustments, Russia still said no.

 

[fskimospy]

What this requires you do to to prove me wrong is to show where the US requested the ability to bomb Syria to protect civilians. You know, what they did in Libya, just like I posted about.

It is rought, I realize, to actually respond to what I say not what you wish I said, but you should try it sometime.

Now I'm wondering if you even read your own posts. This is the last time I'll lay out the basic facts to you. If you have even an ounce of honesty you will admit your error and move on. I smell another battle of attrition where you endlessly respond until everyone gives up on your childish behavior in frustration, but here goes:

Your OP that you quoted:

If they had oil, he would have started the bombing long ago, like he did in Libya. It is good he is finally saying someone else should do something about it, though. It is certainly a step in the right direction.

Nothing in that actually said your stated preference was for bombing Syria like Libya. That's what you might have meant, but that's not what your OP says. It simply says what Obama would have done if oil had been there, and that you believe a statement that action should be taken is step in the right direction.

When I responded that the US had been agitating for action for quite awhile you said this:

They are FINALLY getting to the point where they are starting to talk about a resolution. Should have done that many months ago.

Since Syria is a Middle East destabilizing force (they fund groups on the US Terrorist list), and since they have been doing the same thing the Libyan government did, why the long wait?

This statement was clearly a falsehood, as you stated they were finally getting to a point of starting to talk about a resolution. I corrected you, showing you that resolutions had been under consideration for about 7-8 months now.

There's no way out of this. You said something that was indisputably wrong. Just be a man, admit your error, and be done with it. There's no shame in not knowing a lot about this topic, but there is shame in refusing to admit it when shown better. So just say it for once: say "I was wrong about the UN resolutions". It's okay to be wrong on the internet sometimes.

 

[davmat787]

The UN estimates that 5400 civilians were killed last month by government troops and Russia wants to block any call for removing Assuds killers from the towns and cities where they've committed their slaughters. Kind of hard to find that a reasonable compromise.

I am somewhat embarrassed to say I have not been following the Syria-Russia relationship closely at all. Call it Middle East overload if you will.

But what do you think Russia's said and unsaid motivation for protecting Syria is? Does Syria buy a lot of arms and technology from Russia?

Thank you.

 

[Lemon law]

In many ways, The Libyan situation is very similar to Syria. With one crucial difference, Libya supplied significant quantities of oil to Italy and France. And when the Libyan army split into two factions, and Libya went into a state of protracted civil war, it was in the interests of Nato to end it ASAP. And once the Arab league said Gadaffi had to go, it was a paying proposition to side with the rebels thereby getting Libyan oil once gain flowing to Italy and France.

But with Syria, there is no such economic incentives to end the Assad regime. Even for moral reasons, everyone will cry crocodile tears of moral outrage, but when it comes to putting up the money to do the job, everyone cries a Henny Penny not me. Let someone else do it. Turkey is about the only country even stepping up to the plate to limit Assad. But the Assad military is still rather formidable and not enough of it joining the rebel side yet.

But maybe progress can be made in overthrowing Assad, if we look at Russian and Iranian interests. If Russia receives assurances that a post Assad Syria will still remain in the Russian camp, and Iran receives assurances that less strong embargo terms will result, the entire world can unite and force Assad out.

 

[cybrsage]

Now I'm wondering if you even read your own posts. This is the last time I'll lay out the basic facts to you. If you have even an ounce of honesty you will admit your error and move on. I smell another battle of attrition where you endlessly respond until everyone gives up on your childish behavior in frustration, but here goes:

Your OP that you quoted:



Nothing in that actually said your stated preference was for bombing Syria like Libya.

Had to stop you there. This is the point where you become stupid on purpose. No need to continue until you stop being stupid on purpose.

From what I can tell, you are not stupid, so I am left wondering why you act like you are stupid.

 

[cybrsage]

In many ways, The Libyan situation is very similar to Syria. With one crucial difference, Libya supplied significant quantities of oil to Italy and France. And when the Libyan army split into two factions, and Libya went into a state of protracted civil war, it was in the interests of Nato to end it ASAP. And once the Arab league said Gadaffi had to go, it was a paying proposition to side with the rebels thereby getting Libyan oil once gain flowing to Italy and France.

But with Syria, there is no such economic incentives to end the Assad regime. Even for moral reasons, everyone will cry crocodile tears of moral outrage, but when it comes to putting up the money to do the job, everyone cries a Henny Penny not me. Let someone else do it. Turkey is about the only country even stepping up to the plate to limit Assad. But the Assad military is still rather formidable and not enough of it joining the rebel side yet.

But maybe progress can be made in overthrowing Assad, if we look at Russian and Iranian interests. If Russia receives assurances that a post Assad Syria will still remain in the Russian camp, and Iran receives assurances that less strong embargo terms will result, the entire world can unite and force Assad out.

Agreed. We need to have discussions (private, behind closed doors type of thing where the Russian/Chinese ambassadors can talk candidly and we can ours) about what Russia/China want out of this. Why are they saying no, maybe we can work something out.

 

[fskimospy]

Had to stop you there. This is the point where you become stupid on purpose. No need to continue until you stop being stupid on purpose.

From what I can tell, you are not stupid, so I am left wondering why you act like you are stupid.

I just want to pat you on the head right now, because this is pathetic. I won't argue this anymore, because I know you'll keep posting until you wear your keyboard down to nubs before admitting fault. I also know that you realize you were wrong though, and that's good enough for me. Baby steps, you know?

 

[fskimospy]

Agreed. We need to have discussions (private, behind closed doors type of thing where the Russian/Chinese ambassadors can talk candidly and we can ours) about what Russia/China want out of this. Why are they saying no, maybe we can work something out.

Gee, I'm sure we haven't done that at any point in the last 8 months. Good plan.

 

[davmat787]

Is it just me or is this thread thick with the sexual tension between Eskimo and Cybrsage?

 

[Hacp]

In many ways, The Libyan situation is very similar to Syria. With one crucial difference, Libya supplied significant quantities of oil to Italy and France. And when the Libyan army split into two factions, and Libya went into a state of protracted civil war, it was in the interests of Nato to end it ASAP. And once the Arab league said Gadaffi had to go, it was a paying proposition to side with the rebels thereby getting Libyan oil once gain flowing to Italy and France.

But with Syria, there is no such economic incentives to end the Assad regime. Even for moral reasons, everyone will cry crocodile tears of moral outrage, but when it comes to putting up the money to do the job, everyone cries a Henny Penny not me. Let someone else do it. Turkey is about the only country even stepping up to the plate to limit Assad. But the Assad military is still rather formidable and not enough of it joining the rebel side yet.

But maybe progress can be made in overthrowing Assad, if we look at Russian and Iranian interests. If Russia receives assurances that a post Assad Syria will still remain in the Russian camp, and Iran receives assurances that less strong embargo terms will result, the entire world can unite and force Assad out.

Why take sides in a civil war? Assad is one side. The rebels are another side. We should be neutral and not support either side. Rest assured, if the rebels had all the guns, they would be doing exactly what Assad is doing.

 

[feralkid]

Is it just me or is this thread thick with the sexual tension between Eskimo and Cybrsage?

So you want in on a 3-some?

 

[cybrsage]

I just want to pat you on the head right now, because this is pathetic. I won't argue this anymore, because I know you'll keep posting until you wear your keyboard down to nubs before admitting fault. I also know that you realize you were wrong though, and that's good enough for me. Baby steps, you know?

It is not my fault you are being stupid on purpose. I know, you are used to blaming others for your failings, but it sure is a silly thing to do.

I also know you are eager to feel my body in your hands, but like I told you before, you need to win and dine me first.