Topic: Dylith, Iraq, Kurdistan, and so forth - page 5. (Read 3716 times)

You can believe that since Obama made, in my opinion also, a serious mistake by the Syrian red line, but the truth is that if he chooses, he can make everyone understand he is totally serious without having to raise a finger. The error was embarrassing, but unimportant if he chooses to flex. US will can be imposed pretty easily if the desire is there.

That issue is fairly unimportant to the discussion I hoped to have.

Yet again, I don't think the world shares your misanthropic need for Obama to be the absolute failure you've been repeating he is since 2008.

The reality is that any president would be working against the notion that working with the US in any real way would make them puppets in the eyes of their own faction, and right now this seems to be all about each faction grabbing as much as they can while the power vacuum expands. Think Russian state owned industry after the end of the Cold War: every fucking piece of infrastructure is now ripe for picking, and the more of it you own, the better your chances of continuing your cult of you into the future. And your supporters expect you to do this, because they have hitched themselves to your wagon--in this sense, imagine Ancient Rome of the fourth century and the never ending cycle of troops nominating their leader to be the new emperor. When this happened, you tried to be emperor or your supporters replaced you with someone else.

In my opinion, there is a curve to overcome, and that curve is opportunity versus self preservation over time. SP requires you take advantage of O right now, but for SP to occur in the long term, you have to limit O through agreements. Right now, I don't think any of the key players can actually get their patrons to support the idea of concessions and compromise NOW for stability and security in the future. Not when the middle eastern version of the end of the Cold War is taking place, and there is so much up for grabs.

As they say (actually said by Bismarck), politics is the art of the possible (Die Politik ist die Lehre vom Möglichen).

This is nothing to do with being anti-Obama and everything to do with him having drawn lines in the past and then ignored them.

Thread starter's point was that if the US Came in and drew a line, it could end the issues there. My reply was that Obama has drawn lines and ignored them, and even worse has blamed Congress for his ineptitude.

So since he's proven a line means nothing, why should they take anything he says seriously?

Because maybe people with real stakes in a real situation don't give a fuck about the conservative anti-Obama movement.

Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops had actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq).

Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it?

Why should they put any stock in "a line" when Obama draws them and ignores them?

So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...


Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.


My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.


I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.