Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]
Obama screwed up with his red line nonsense. He should have kept his mouth shut and then swung the big stick. The first rule of having a big stick is keeping your mouth shut instead of telling everyone when you decide to pick it up.
Obama was too busy trying to sound Presidential and instead came off sounding like an imp. He could have simply made a PR and looked straight into the camera and said "Assad, do not use chemical weapons." No what ifs, no we'll consider this or that. A simple do not do it.
Then Obama had all the room in the world to do whatever needs to be done when it suits the US and not just to save face.
Agreed. It seems the only reason we (as a nation) are even contemplating bombing is to try to save face after the red-line fiasco. Both the administration and the nation have lost face because of it, but bombing won't help much at this point and will just makes things worse for all the reasons you and other posters have discussed.
Time to learn the lesson about bluffing and just move on.
OMG. Obama is a narcissist. He is never, ever wrong. We know that. I don't think many people know the mentality and behavior of a narcissist other than thinking it is all about ego. Everyone has an ego to a certain degree, but a narcissist's ego is over inflated and fed by their behavior, which is dictated by their mentality and twisted perceptions.
I cannot say that he is or isn't but I do know that you have to have some to the degree that you run for president in the first place. what was the difference between him and bush?
I would have no problem whatsoever if Obama just said he gave the order to carry out a mission that was a success - mission accomplished. It irks me when he says, and everyone else says, that he GOT OBL. Obama gave the order for the capture of OBL and publicly took the credit for a successful mission which in fact Seal Team 6 carried out. Let's say the mission was a failure. Do you think Obama would shoulder the failure or would he put the failure of Seal Team 6?
No but neo cons would have blamed him anyway. the Iraq war was a disaster but it did not stop bush from proclaiming "mission accomplished"
Obama has also given the order for the increase in drone strikes. As you know, many innocent people have died as a result of misguided drones or wrong identification of a target. Has Obama publicly taken the responsibility for the deaths caused by the person who is sitting in a hut somewhere in the US with high tech equipment dropping the drones?
I never agreed to those but at the sametime as a military veteran I would have been opposed to boots on the ground and more lost of military men and women as well. Using that logic you can easily place blame on those who are actually flying the drones themselves since they know what they are doing and quiet as it is kept are aware when they make mistakes and hit the wrong targets.
OMG. Obama is a narcissist. He is never, ever wrong. We know that. I don't think many people know the mentality and behavior of a narcissist other than thinking it is all about ego. Everyone has an ego to a certain degree, but a narcissist's ego is over inflated and fed by their behavior, which is dictated by their mentality and twisted perceptions.
I cannot say that he is or isn't but I do know that you have to have some to the degree that you run for president in the first place. what was the difference between him and bush?
I would have no problem whatsoever if Obama just said he gave the order to carry out a mission that was a success - mission accomplished. It irks me when he says, and everyone else says, that he GOT OBL. Obama gave the order for the capture of OBL and publicly took the credit for a successful mission which in fact Seal Team 6 carried out. Let's say the mission was a failure. Do you think Obama would shoulder the failure or would he put the failure of Seal Team 6?
No but neo cons would have blamed him anyway. the Iraq war was a disaster but it did not stop bush from proclaiming "mission accomplished"
Obama has also given the order for the increase in drone strikes. As you know, many innocent people have died as a result of misguided drones or wrong identification of a target. Has Obama publicly taken the responsibility for the deaths caused by the person who is sitting in a hut somewhere in the US with high tech equipment dropping the drones?
I never agreed to those but at the sametime as a military veteran I would have been opposed to boots on the ground and more lost of military men and women as well. Using that logic you can easily place blame on those who are actually flying the drones themselves since they know what they are doing and quiet as it is kept are aware when they make mistakes and hit the wrong targets.
I agree with you wholeheartly, but I want to add one thing. A 180 countries agreed not to use chemical weapons and I'm guess that Obama figured that if he can prove that they were used he would have the backing of the rest of the world, which in all reality he should have since they all signed the treaty. What happened is that because of the debatacle with the "cake" in the UN and Iraq nonsense we as a country have lost alot of creditibilty in the world. True he should not have "assumed" anything but you figure if everyone agreed to sign it, why not back it up?
No problem, let the UN bomb Syria then. Isn't the ban on the use of chemical weapons an international agreement and not a US agreement everyone else decided to sign? The UN then, is the authority, not the US.
Obama decided he needed to show leadership do use the US Military to do it. Leadership involves to a great degree, leading others, not going it alone. Look to the great leader in our history and all of them led others, they didn't open their mouths and then claim they were doing it because everyone else signed some agreement.
Obama could have backed up the agreement by promising the US would share in and dedicate forces, supplies whatever to a UN Effort. He did no such thing, he effectively made it a US-Assad thing.
Here is the kicker. If 180 countries signed the agreement and none of them in a majority of numbers are willing to share in the doing, then that agreement is worthless.
Even if the US is the primary force, it should still be a UN effort.
Lets go into all this a bit further though. I am willing to say that more people have died in North Korea as a direct result of that country's leadership than the number that dies in Syria because of chemical weapons. Why aren't we bombing North Korea? For some reason, chemical weapons are a more heinous death than from the lingering death of starvation or the executions in that country?
If the US can't stand for principles except when it is politically convenient, then we need to stop and take some inventory of what we are doing and when we do it.
If anyone watched John Kerry on TV this past Sunday talking to Chris Wallace and came to the conclusion that Kerry really believed the BS he was putting out, then we have serious problems.
Kerry didn't believe anything he was saying and he looked like a liar. He sat there and said the story hadn't changed. No one watching him could have believed he was being truthful without being a purely ideologue marching to a political mantra.
One more thing. If we bomb Syria, who thinks the very same hour that happens (or very shortly thereafter) that Assad won't plaster the video of dead women and children won't make headlines all over the place?
If just one child gets killed as a result of collateral damage, that is justified because Assad needed to learn a lesson? Is that how it works?
This why this is a lose-lose situation.
On one hand I believe that dropping bombs on a country and not doing anything else about it will solve nothing but killing many more innocent people. He is not advocating for regime change nor will he put boots on the ground
On the other hand, not doing anything basically gives the green light for him and other countries to start using chemical weapons on their enemies, which is a violation of international law.
So given these options which would you choose?
Why do you keep promoting lies?
al-Nusra was caught with the Sarin gas in Turkey, preparing to smuggle it into Syria. THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT with these chemical weapons. So stop with the lies. Enough already. This is Iraq WMD all over again, false flag.
simetime, why are you so eager to destroy this country and kill innocent people, based on lies? Why?
You will put into place groups that are hostile to the US, and Iran. Is that what your goal is?
You may have missed the part about our troops shooting an Afghani who was only reaching into his pocket for a screwdriver?
Posted with TapaTalk
That was not the theme of the piece ... but that part is certainly valid AND mild, considering the many documented atrocities committed by some of the troops over there ... or have you forgotten about the stories of the raped young Iraqi woman whose family was then subsequently executed in cold blood to cover the tracks? And, many many other incidents that are far more egregious than accidental killings.
No problem, let the UN bomb Syria then. Isn't the ban on the use of chemical weapons an international agreement and not a US agreement everyone else decided to sign? The UN then, is the authority, not the US.
Obama decided he needed to show leadership do use the US Military to do it. Leadership involves to a great degree, leading others, not going it alone. Look to the great leader in our history and all of them led others, they didn't open their mouths and then claim they were doing it because everyone else signed some agreement.
Obama could have backed up the agreement by promising the US would share in and dedicate forces, supplies whatever to a UN Effort. He did no such thing, he effectively made it a US-Assad thing.
Here is the kicker. If 180 countries signed the agreement and none of them in a majority of numbers are willing to share in the doing, then that agreement is worthless.
Even if the US is the primary force, it should still be a UN effort.
Lets go into all this a bit further though. I am willing to say that more people have died in North Korea as a direct result of that country's leadership than the number that dies in Syria because of chemical weapons. Why aren't we bombing North Korea? For some reason, chemical weapons are a more heinous death than from the lingering death of starvation or the executions in that country?
If the US can't stand for principles except when it is politically convenient, then we need to stop and take some inventory of what we are doing and when we do it.
Why do you keep promoting lies?
al-Nusra was caught with the Sarin gas in Turkey, preparing to smuggle it into Syria. THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT with these chemical weapons. So stop with the lies. Enough already. This is Iraq WMD all over again, false flag.
simetime, why are you so eager to destroy this country and kill innocent people, based on lies? Why?
You will put into place groups that are hostile to the US, and Iran. Is that what your goal is?
I would really appreciate you either reading my whole post and not cherry pick and attack what you think that I said or at least ask for better clarification as to what you don't understand.
What I did was pose was scenarios and options I did I did not agree or disagree with any of them, so therefore I did not lie about anything because truthfully I don't know exactly what happen or what the president is going to do
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
