General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFolks, this ain't close to over
I don't care where anyone falls on the Syria spectrum, this ain't over by a long shot. Obama hasn't achieved anything yet, and is still pursuing congressional concurence for use of force. Putin hasn't actually gotten Assad to agree to anything, and hasn't hardly asked. Assad hasn't really agreed to anything yet.
The most likely short term outcome here is nothing. We'll go into next week roughly where we are today. We'll start heading towards a vote in Congress with roughly the same dynamics we have today. The congress will probably end up adding some language about diplomatic efforts, but may STILL not pass both houses.
And I certainly don't know where it will go from there. Will we drift towards bombing? Will we drift towards extended talks? Will we delay until there is either and agreement, or another attack? Will some other country begin taking the lead on this? This is an extremely dynamic situation and it will continue that way for a bit longer at best.
polichick
(37,152 posts)TeamPooka
(24,226 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)I want my damned money back.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,368 posts)Give em another ten minutes, OK?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Assad could post youtube videos of him holding puppies under in a kiddie pool filled with sarin and you'd never hear about it again.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I am feeling more hopeful though. Bombs aren't going to fall any time soon.
Nothing has been agreed to yet, but I didn't expect it to be that cut and dried. Actually, it would be a bit suspicious if it was. The parties involved are talking. I think that's good.
wandy
(3,539 posts)For the time being I'm more than happy with that.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I understand what you're looking at, but it's not really headed anywhere. If anything "the tires are just spinning". I'm reminded of an old boss that used to say:
"Don't confuse someone who is busy with someone who is getting something done".
Or as the military is fond of saying:
"Don't confuse motion with progress".
wandy
(3,539 posts)than we were last week.
A week is a relative long time and considering that in this case their just isn't a good course of action. Sitting in one place studying the situation and adjusting you're actions accordingly can hardly be a bad idea.
I for one am in no hurry for Iraq II.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)about how President Obama is trying to start a 2nd Iraq war because he's a secret PNAC member?
Or should we just expect an increase in OPs working feverishly to explain why the President should not get any credit for what looks like its going to be a win-win-win outcome.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)It's way too early to assign blame or credit for anything to anyone. That's really the point. Nothing has really changed and no one has really done anything yet. It's only more dynamic which has potentially good, and bad consequences and combinations thereof.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)the less sense of outraged urgency can be used to justify bombing.
wandy
(3,539 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)So Syria has agreed to surrender the weapons to the UN and Russia. Thanks to Russian Diplomacy, it looks like the war isn't going to happen, unless we go all Warmonger and launch anyway while a Diplomatic solution is on the table.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)They haven't agreed to surrender anything. They've announced they're ready to agree. The devil of course will be in the details.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2013, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)
Congress clearly doesn't have an appetite to authorize war immediately and directly. A straight up or down vote on war looks like it would fail both houses, incredibly. Nobody is more surprised about the Senate's cool reception to a Syrian War than myself. But what if Congress is given the chance to vote for war indirectly, on a contingency basis, not so immediately and in a weaseling way so that they can avoid having their fingerprints all over it? With the interposition of some buck passing UN resolutions and the possibility of putting responsibility onto international coalitions and inspectors and the chance to defer the unpopular consequences of its actions, and the chance to say it voted for either war or peace according to whatever will seem more advantageous later on, Congress could well slither its way into passing something that could be used to start a war, either tomorrow or eight years from now.
Alan Grayson is opposing substitute AUMF resolutions just as he opposed the previous Fuck Syria! resolution. He has reason.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)because their normal hawkish behavior is in conflict with their normal dickish behavior of wanting to say NO to everything Obama wants.
I can picture them in the Capitol somewhere, spinning like demented Deverishes.
Ha! I just looked up Deverish in the Urban Dictionary..one definition is:
a Rocking Demon who eats souls.
close enough.......
kentuck
(111,095 posts)There are many naive people on DU nowadays. They used to be much brighter. They have brought the overall IQ down by a lot. You know who they are - they brag about their ignorance. They are dangerous people to have on your side.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)al-Assad signs/hands over and then a new chem attack happens in Syria -- there are many actors who are not going to be happy a strike is may be averted and may take the opportunity to "prod" the situation. I could even see something like that occurring before al-Assad comes to the table when it appears strikes are not coming.
What do we do then??
We are still a long way away from no military intervention.