Breaking:Obama says he has made no final decision on Syria, but is considering 'limited narrow act'

[flpoljunkie]

Source: AP Mobile Breaking 2:31Pm EDT

AP Mobile

Breaking (2:31Pm EDT): Obama says he has made no final decision on Syria, but is considering a 'limited narrow act'

No link yet.

[DeSwiss]

1. Narrow and limited.....

- K&R

[99th_Monkey]

8. "A short walk off a long pier"? .. or at least it would appear. nt

[msongs]

2. narrow, like blowing up wedding parties with drone attacks? nt

[cstanleytech]

12. Doubt it.

What first matters is who did it, the Syrian government or the rebels?
If the government then there are a number of options from an embargo on any goods to the government to blockading their ports also they could institute a no fly zone over the country.
If a military strike is the decision they could limit it to military air fields and or missle sites.
If the rebels did it though then the only option imo should be to cut off any and all aid because chemical weapons designed to kill should not be used by anyone regardless of the reason.

[Jefferson23]

3. Which will change what exactly for Syria? n/t

[Berlin Expat]

6. Well, arguably

if the "narrow and limited" action in question were, let us say, blowing Assad to kingdom come, I'd think that might change the situation on the ground to some extent. Particularly if his military commanders happened to fall victim to a "narrow and limited" action as well.

A decapitation stroke could be easily defined as "limited and narrow" military action.

[Fearless]

9. Because that worked so well in Iraq.

They're so peaceful and prosperous today.

[Jefferson23]

10. Really? That is not going to happen, nor should it. n/t

[neverforget]

17. Who replaces Assad?

[christx30]

22. Best case scenario:

Al Queda. Worst case, one of Assad's generals, who now is hell bent on revenge, and decides to attack Israel to get it. Isreal retaliates. Iran attacks Israel to protect Syria.

[truebluegreen]

28. So let's say we're into assassinations now.

How moral of us that would be.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. What do you mean...

..."let's say" is there any doubt?

[truebluegreen]

33. Not to me.

But the poster I replied to seems confused.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. So I see.

[Berlin Expat]

35. I was simply

trying to explain that Pentagonese and diplomatese can be used in many ways to reveal and simultaneously obfuscate an issue.

For instance, instead of saying, "We're gonna take out that SOB _____________!" one could say, "We're thinking of a narrowly focused and limited duration action that will effectively and permanently neutralize the _____________ regime's ability to threaten its own citizens as well as those of neighboring countries in the immediate region."

You've basically said the same thing, but the latter is far more vague. As far as assassinations go, we've been doing that for a long, long time, though generally through proxies. We prefer not to get our hands dirty.

Ask Patrice Lumumba. Oh wait.....never mind. Then ask Salvador Allende. Oh, crap.....one of our proxies bumped him off too. I don't like it, but it's the way of the world. It always has been, and it always will be.

[truebluegreen]

44. I get that we've been doing it for years.

What I don't get is the attitude that "it's the way of the world...always will be."

Nothing ever changes with that.

[arewenotdemo]

43. The way Obama essentially killed Qaddafi?

That kind of "decapitation", the effective assassination of another foreign Head of State?

Libya is a hotbed of liberalism these days, thanks to Obama.

[iamthebandfanman]

25. Yeah,

disabling their communications and intelligence wont effect the civil war or his ability to use weapons at a ll.

how could we all be so silly?

I mean, what country needs its military infrastructure to wage a good war ?
I mean come on it didn't work I a country that wasn't asking for help (Iraq) why would it work for one that IS asking for help from the outside world?

[Jefferson23]

29. Risky business. n/t

[red dog 1]

4. Yesterday it was "a shot across the bow", today it's a "limited narrow act"

I wonder what it will be called tomorrow?

[99th_Monkey]

7. Perhaps "A strongly worded reprimand"

no wait, that was where he started.

[arewenotdemo]

45. I'm going with "measured, kinetic response".

The sort of response that stains the burial shrouds a nice deep Kerry red.

[99th_Monkey]

5. I could see the media hacks were caught flat-footed

they were so prepared for a "WAR!!! WAR!!! WE'RE AT WAR!!" pronouncement from Obama,
that they kept uber-hyping all the details of US war-preparedness they know about ("4 WAR SHIPS
w/ 200 missles already loaded with target information, etc." reported breathlessly, just like
Wolf Blitzer covering Iraq invasion.

They were NOT expecting.. "well, we're still thinking about this..."

[Maedhros]

11. What, exactly, is the military objective and what, exactly, will it accomplish?

Also, please provide a detailed explanation of how.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

21. To blow shit up, of course

and, what will it accomplish? Shock and Awe, baby! Black and green images from night-vision video cameras.

It will be condemned as too violent by much of the international community.

It will be condemned as "too little, too late" by McCain and Graham.

It's a "lose-lose" attempt to "do something".

[Maedhros]

24. Each Hellfire missile fired from a drone costs $60K - $70K.

Each Tomahawk cruise missile fired costs $1.4 million.

It think it's obvious that this isn't a "lose-lose" situation. Lockheed-Martin and General Dynamics clearly win.

[truebluegreen]

27. +1

[moonlady0623]

13. What part of

NO
is not being heard?????

[blkmusclmachine]

14. Follow the money.

[think_critically]

15. WTF

This guy needs to seriously learn to stop talking like a damn professor. What the fuck is a limited narrow act? He just sent Kerry out to talk about how bad Assad is and his response will be a "limited narrow" act. He cannot seem to grasp the fact that sending out conflicting messages does nothing but make you look like you don't know what you are doing. He needs to get it together.

[dennis4868]

16. another installment of

"I KNOW BETTER THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HAVE MORE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS THAN HE DOES AND HE IS JUST LIKE BUSH."

[think_critically]

18. not at all

He's making the best out of bad situation but it's the optics that matter. I don't have a problem with the substance but he has this disdain for the media that causes him not to think about the public perception problems that are sometimes caused by what his administration does.

[Arkana]

19. How exactly do the messages conflict?

Assad's a bad dude. Doesn't mean we have the right to airdrop Marines into Syria and start nation building again.

[cstanleytech]

37. On the other hand it also doesnt mean we should sit on our hands

and do nothing because they "arent americans so its not our problem" either.
The fact is we are part of this lone small world and when we can we should render aid to those in need and we should always do what we can imo to send a message that some shit just wont be tolerated by anyone like for example the use of chemical weapons on civilians.
And no I am not saying we should respond with military force either, there are many options of which our military is one of them and all of them should be examined so that hopefully the best one is used that causes the least amount of disruption.

[rug]

20. That's really a pretty stupid statement.

There is nothing limited or narrow about military action in Syria.

[Chemisse]

23. Perhaps he is backpedaling after the strongly negative reaction to this plan.

I think he has pie on his face now that the US is the ONLY country willing to bomb Syria.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

30. France

[link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23897775|

[Chemisse]

39. Ahh. I didn't realize - thank-you.

[freshwest]

40. France and Turkey, no doubt.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

47. I haven't heard of Turkey yet.

Do you have a link?

[truebluegreen]

26. Why does our President think the decision is up to him?

He should read his own speeches.

[HooptieWagon]

32. IOW, A"face-saving" gesture b/c Obama painted himself into a corner.

A limited strike will not eliminate chemical weapons nor prevent their use. It has no strategic or tactical benefit. It will merely provoke a tit-for-tat response from Assad...one that will escalate the conflict and possibly spread it across Syria's borders. Pretty fucking stupid.

[truebluegreen]

34. Can we not, and say we did?

[David__77]

36. This is ridiculous.

And every bit of scorn and ridicule will be well-earned.

[mountain grammy]

41. Sadly, and it hurts me to say, I agree.

[quadrature]

42. how many innocent deaths are acceptable?

100 1000?

I want to know how my tax dollars are being spent.
I want to see the faces of the people I am
paying to have killed.
I want to know the names of the people
in Nevada that are pulling the trigger.
I want to know the names of the ships/
submarines/air-groups that participate.
Perhaps these people should be awarded
the Silver Star for their valor.

[Alamuti Lotus]

46. If you think about it, the events of 9/11 were a "limited, narrow act"

With all due apologies to Rudy Giuliani, who owns the registered trademark on shoehorning 9/11 into everyday conversation. The check is in the mail, Rudy: no need to have your replacement send the stormtroopers in to beat the necessary licensing fees out of your humble narrator.

[Wolf Frankula]

48. And If Syria Defends Itself Effectively?

I don't have much information on Syria's capabilities. I don't know if they still have the Yakhont supersonic antiship missiles. I do know they have a considerable antiaircraft capability.

What if Syria shoots back and damages or sinks the US naval vessels? They would claim they are defending themselves against an act of foreign aggression. Does the conflict escalate?

Mr. President, you are about to involve the US in a war. Think.

Wolf