Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,739 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 969,863
Pageviews Today: 1,514,582Threads Today: 443Posts Today: 9,440
01:33 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Five Reasons Why Obama Hasn't moved on Syria

 
Instigator
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 45578878
United Kingdom
08/22/2013 03:31 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Five Reasons Why Obama Hasn't moved on Syria
1.Domestic politics means high risk, low reward: Within Washington, Obama has "little to gain and lots to lose" for trying to help Syrian civilians. Recent history suggests that the same political figures who call for the White House to take big foreign policy risks appear quite willing to punish the administration if anything goes wrong. US efforts to reach out to Islamist groups in Egypt and Tunisia received criticism at home, while its leadership on Libya became a major political liability when US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi.

2.Danger of committing to the rebels: Washington is cautious about arming, funding or even vocally supporting a rebel movement that could potentially turn against the West. Extremists make up a growing share of the Syrian rebel movement, with some of the most prominent allied with al-Qaeda. The White House has seen what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s when it backed extremist militant groups against the Soviets. It did not pay off for the US in the long-term.

3.Stability, not escalation: The measures taken by the US so far appear to be aimed at maintaining a balance between the rebels and the regime. America does not want to see an outright Assad victory but equally it isn't thrilled about the idea of US-armed rebels pushing him out. The White House clearly fears what would happen if the country imploded into the chaos of a failed state.

4.Need for a negotiated settlement: With the aim of creating stability in Syria, the US has said it would like to see a peace deal between the rebels and the regime. This would mean leaving some elements of the government in place – though not Assad himself. Ostracising the president would make this harder.

5.Muddying the 'red line': Since issuing its 'red line' warning last year, the Obama administration has been softening its language when talking about where it should be drawn. It seems to be in a fix as it tries to uphold its condemnation of chemical weapons without forcing itself to intervene more forcefully in Syria. Squaring those two goals has led it into "some real contortions" – at times playing down the red line and at other times playing it up. Assuming the latest reports are true, says the Washington Post, this strategy is getting tougher as the Assad regime continues to call its bluff. ·

[link to www.theweek.co.uk]

If intervention does happen, it will be a battle ground between Russia and the United States.

Last Edited by Instigator on 08/22/2013 03:39 PM
In life there is always one
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 30378395
United States
08/22/2013 03:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Five Reasons Why Obama Hasn't moved on Syria
Domestic politics means high risk, low reward: Within Washington, Obama has "little to gain and lots to lose" for trying to help Syrian civilians. Recent history suggests that the same political figures who call for the White House to take big foreign policy risks appear quite willing to punish the administration if anything goes wrong. US efforts to reach out to Islamist groups in Egypt and Tunisia received criticism at home, while its leadership on Libya became a major political liability when US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi.

Danger of committing to the rebels: Washington is cautious about arming, funding or even vocally supporting a rebel movement that could potentially turn against the West. Extremists make up a growing share of the Syrian rebel movement, with some of the most prominent allied with al-Qaeda. The White House has seen what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s when it backed extremist militant groups against the Soviets. It did not pay off for the US in the long-term.

Stability, not escalation: The measures taken by the US so far appear to be aimed at maintaining a balance between the rebels and the regime. America does not want to see an outright Assad victory but equally it isn't thrilled about the idea of US-armed rebels pushing him out. The White House clearly fears what would happen if the country imploded into the chaos of a failed state.

Need for a negotiated settlement: With the aim of creating stability in Syria, the US has said it would like to see a peace deal between the rebels and the regime. This would mean leaving some elements of the government in place – though not Assad himself. Ostracising the president would make this harder.

Muddying the 'red line': Since issuing its 'red line' warning last year, the Obama administration has been softening its language when talking about where it should be drawn. It seems to be in a fix as it tries to uphold its condemnation of chemical weapons without forcing itself to intervene more forcefully in Syria. Squaring those two goals has led it into "some real contortions" – at times playing down the red line and at other times playing it up. Assuming the latest reports are true, says the Washington Post, this strategy is getting tougher as the Assad regime continues to call its bluff. ·

[link to www.theweek.co.uk]
 Quoting: Instigator


If you are going to start your thread 5 reasons yadda, yadda yadda, then list 1-5 and use numbers. It's so hard for you English fucks just to say something without putting commentary on everything. So yet another thread dismissed!
Instigator (OP)

User ID: 45578878
United Kingdom
08/22/2013 03:40 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Five Reasons Why Obama Hasn't moved on Syria
Domestic politics means high risk, low reward: Within Washington, Obama has "little to gain and lots to lose" for trying to help Syrian civilians. Recent history suggests that the same political figures who call for the White House to take big foreign policy risks appear quite willing to punish the administration if anything goes wrong. US efforts to reach out to Islamist groups in Egypt and Tunisia received criticism at home, while its leadership on Libya became a major political liability when US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi.

Danger of committing to the rebels: Washington is cautious about arming, funding or even vocally supporting a rebel movement that could potentially turn against the West. Extremists make up a growing share of the Syrian rebel movement, with some of the most prominent allied with al-Qaeda. The White House has seen what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s when it backed extremist militant groups against the Soviets. It did not pay off for the US in the long-term.

Stability, not escalation: The measures taken by the US so far appear to be aimed at maintaining a balance between the rebels and the regime. America does not want to see an outright Assad victory but equally it isn't thrilled about the idea of US-armed rebels pushing him out. The White House clearly fears what would happen if the country imploded into the chaos of a failed state.

Need for a negotiated settlement: With the aim of creating stability in Syria, the US has said it would like to see a peace deal between the rebels and the regime. This would mean leaving some elements of the government in place – though not Assad himself. Ostracising the president would make this harder.

Muddying the 'red line': Since issuing its 'red line' warning last year, the Obama administration has been softening its language when talking about where it should be drawn. It seems to be in a fix as it tries to uphold its condemnation of chemical weapons without forcing itself to intervene more forcefully in Syria. Squaring those two goals has led it into "some real contortions" – at times playing down the red line and at other times playing it up. Assuming the latest reports are true, says the Washington Post, this strategy is getting tougher as the Assad regime continues to call its bluff. ·

[link to www.theweek.co.uk]
 Quoting: Instigator


If you are going to start your thread 5 reasons yadda, yadda yadda, then list 1-5 and use numbers. It's so hard for you English fucks just to say something without putting commentary on everything. So yet another thread dismissed!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30378395


I'm an American actually. When quote one quotes exactly if one can old chap.
In life there is always one

News