Not without a workable alternative executable within our means. Agreed. Thanks.
We supported the Rebels. I wouldn’t be surprised if we armed them.
Nor I, but to what end? There I have my doubts when closet anti-Semites like Zero and Hillary are involved. Well..., if you see the Islamic Spring for what I think it was/is, Zero and Hillary wouldn't object to providing arms.
If that was our policy, then wouldn’t it make sense to arm the Syrian rebels too? It may have been an unannounced policy, but it wouldn’t be out of line with our intent to help what some people must have perceived as “freedom fighters’.
Well, no. Syria is a rather different kettle of fish. (1) First of all Erdovan of Turkey hates Assad to pieces, and he is Zero's buddy. (2) Second, it is a Russian client State with a port open to them on the Mediterranean. So to go supporting the rebels there is stepping on Putie's shoes rather heavily. He reportedly called it a "red line in the sand." (3) I have little doubt he took a very dim view of it unless the Syrian "rebels" we were helping were hard line communists, which is always possible with this crew. (4) In either case, I wouldn't want to be risking WWIII just yet. (5) Third, Syria is at least nominally a secular state, as were Egypt and Libya before Zero got the Mubarak and Ghadaffi respectively. (7) The policy has replaced those secular thugs with religious zealots with messianic and eschatological aspirations. (8)
You were on a roll there. I'll touch on each point.
1. I totally agree with Syria being a different kettle of fish. You and I agree there. When I addressed this, I wasn't in the mode of touching on all aspecets Syria. I was simply addressing the issue of arms for percieved (by the political class in Washington) freedom fighters. You see, even if you and I are right, we have to realize this administration and many of our Congress critters aren't globally savvy. One thing that might put this in a differenct light though, is the idea that Obama may have been doing an end run since Congress would have disagreed, do to a point you're about to raise, the Russian connection. So was he hiding this from Congress, and therefore needing to hide it at all cost?
2. Then wouldn't arming the rebels in Syria play to Obama's preference? It seems to me it would.
3. Yes. Syria has indeed been a Russian client state for the last 60 years or so. Russia seemed to be reinvigorating that relationship around the second/third quarter this year too. I'm not a big fan of Putin, because I think he could have found better ways to move his nation foward than forming a relationship with China, and at that against the U. S. Fact is though, Russia has it's own relationships, and we shouldn't be seen to be taking on thier client states militarily. It would rightly anger Russia, and whether that comes back to haunt us in the short term, or the long term, they're not going to forget it. There are ways to woo a nation away from a former political partner. By force, toppling governments? Not a good idea. Do it with trade or by developing mutual goals and working together.
While we're on the topic, we have seriously screwed up by not pushing a closer relationship with Russia, and moving that along productively. I was seriously ashamed of the minimalist support for Russia after the school takeover and major loss of life. We could have managed this relationship far better than we have, and it's been a problem with both political parties here. We could still make things better, if we would just wake up and establish a working relationship.
I didn’t want us involved in these efforts from the get-go. Once we did, this natural progression seems reasoned from the opposing point of view.
Rationalized, yes, reasoned, no. I don't think it's reationalized or reasoned from your and my point of view. From those who see the rebels in Syria to be a sympathetic group, it probably is. I flat believe them to be wrong.
In this environment, I just don’t see the possibility of gun running to Syria to be all that surprising, or scandalous.
Then why isn't anybody in the press or in Congress addressing it? Here's why: the people getting the guns hate our guts, and have said so. They want us dead. Zero is running guns to our enemies, just as he did for the Sinaloa cartel. That's high treason. If it's small arms, I see it differently. If it's elevated arms, then there is certainly a case to be made, if those weapons could be diverted to take down Western aircraft or harm or kill our troops or Israel's.
The press? Our press? LOL, you're joshing right. Not to give you a hard time, but I think that part speaks for itself. CHA is the operative phrase here. Congress may see it as a matter of national security, not to be discussed in public. Then again, as mentioned earlier, we may be talking about an end run..
Oh, but these Islamic-terrorists-that-hate-our-guts aren't as bad as AQ! This is the Muslim Brotherhood, which of course makes them "our" friends (Huma, Huma, Huma). What with Morsi hanging in Gaza this week while they rain missiles on Ashdot, that should get your attention. I agree. I didn't think the rebels would be friendly after the government was over-thrown. That seemed a rather easy call to me.
I think the reason the consulate was attacked is that AQ wanted sole control over the use of those weapons. Yet there is also the possibility that they were acting on behalf of the Russians to S-T-O-P that flow and chasten the CIA but good. That's why I think Zero didn't respond while our people were dying. He didn't dare take that chance with Putie and knew that he had to take his lumps for his play on Syria. Stevens' visit with the Turkish ambassador was the delivery of the "goodbye and good luck" message. I would suspect Turkey was helping to move the weapons. Do you think they were warned off by Russia, thus the last minute meeting?
The whole thing including gun running seems a mistake to me, but scandalous? I’m not convinced of that.
Are you now?
When I reference scandal here, I'm addressing an issue that would shock the American people, so much so that Obama would be seen by them to be a scoundrel, and unfit to be president. If Congress knew, I don't think the public will see the arms provision as being owned by him. In this light, I don't see it as a scandal.
You have touched on some important points, particularly the Russian aspect. I agree with you there. I agree that it was a bad idea to side with the rebels. So from our point of view, I do see it as a scandal which could blow up in our face.
I see Obama as a guy who knows nothing, thinks himself a sage, and has surrounded himself with political figures that have a very skewed vison of world dynamics, and are totally incapable advising him in any meaningful positive way. They will nine times out of ten get it wrong. That is a scandal. It's also a scandal the American public seems incapable of comprehending.