If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   Obama: "Assad's days are numbered...uhhh....I am thinking of a number that is greater than 600 but less than 60,000"   (breitbart.com) divider line 328
    More: Followup, UHHH  
•       •       •

3222 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 May 2013 at 10:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



328 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-07 11:55:34 AM
You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.
 
2013-05-07 11:56:05 AM

Infernalist: lol daffy says what?


NATO != UN

LasersHurt: Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.


Sounds like a good opportunity for some clarification from the administration.
 
2013-05-07 11:56:45 AM

Tyee: coeyagi: When you're top priority is making Obama look bad, expect the GOP to pay the Syrian military to kill U.S. citizens.

Really?

Who is making Obama look bad with regards to Syria?  If Obama putting his own foot into his own mouth isn't your #1 answer you're fooling yourself.  All the GOP hacks are doing is making you well aware of it.


The point.... you missed it.  See: boy who cried wolf.
 
2013-05-07 11:56:55 AM
Aren't all days numbered?  That's how we keep track of them.  Today, for instance, is May 7th.
 
2013-05-07 11:57:06 AM

I_C_Weener: You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.


Irish already own the rights

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-07 11:57:20 AM

I_C_Weener: You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.


Springtime for Hitler, perhaps?
 
2013-05-07 11:57:34 AM

LasersHurt: No, I assumed you were not idly biatching. I mean you're assuming that "red line" means get involved militarily, assuming the "red line" has been met, and assuming that any responses sofar have NOT been in line with this.

What do you think the red line implied, specifically? What, exactly, do you think he "threatened" to do, and when?

Maybe this will better help me understand your POV.


The lines seemed to imply a sort of Libya-style intervention. Over and over again, by multiple officials in this administration, including Obama himself, they mentioned that they could not tolerate certain things, red lines, game changers, etc... You can't throw around those words if effectively you're not going to do anything about them.

I don't know personally what should be done, this seems to be a hornet's nest right now where every decision is a bad decision.
 
2013-05-07 11:58:16 AM
Is there anyone else besides me and the Russians who are hoping Assad defeats the Islamists/ Al Qaeda?
 
2013-05-07 11:58:18 AM

GoldSpider: Infernalist: lol daffy says what?

NATO != UN

LasersHurt: Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Sounds like a good opportunity for some clarification from the administration.


We had UN support for the Libyan intervention.  NATO 'is' the US, no matter what anyone else might tell you.
 
2013-05-07 11:58:21 AM

I_C_Weener: You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.


We had a Caucasian Spring. Russia responded by killing everyone. Didn't last very long.
 
2013-05-07 11:58:36 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I_C_Weener: You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.

Irish already own the rights

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x145]


Manly, yes, but John Kerry likes it too!
 
2013-05-07 11:59:08 AM
Obama says "using chem weapons is crossing a red line and won't be tolerated". We get conflicting reports of possible use of chem weapons. Obama doesn't bomb them immediately. Obama is a weakling offering empty threats.

There, I think I've summarized things pretty well.
 
2013-05-07 11:59:09 AM

Infernalist: Ned Stark: Infernalist: indarwinsshadow: Lots of blood thirsty farkers these days. It's amazing how Americans dig themselves out of one war, only to want to plunk themselves down into the middle of another one.

I'm not against using force on people who've plainly earned it.  Like Assad.  I'm just against 'stupid use' of force.  Like Iraq.

Libya was a perfect example of how to wage war in the 21st century.  You get the UN behind you, the regional powers behind you and the legitimate support of the people behind you and you're golden.

I realized that Libya was the first time since WWII that we fought a conflict on the side of the angels.

Angels that really don't like black people, but hey, whatevs.

I personally don't like Cinnamon Toast Crunch, but I don't go painting the whole country as hating it.  You should be nicer to people, dude.


The whole country? Naw. The half NATO bombed didn't genocide anyone and the people they allegedly were going to genocide weren't black. Obviously there was no unity of opinion in this.
 
2013-05-07 11:59:24 AM

Tatsuma: LasersHurt: No, I assumed you were not idly biatching. I mean you're assuming that "red line" means get involved militarily, assuming the "red line" has been met, and assuming that any responses sofar have NOT been in line with this.

What do you think the red line implied, specifically? What, exactly, do you think he "threatened" to do, and when?

Maybe this will better help me understand your POV.

The lines seemed to imply a sort of Libya-style intervention. Over and over again, by multiple officials in this administration, including Obama himself, they mentioned that they could not tolerate certain things, red lines, game changers, etc... You can't throw around those words if effectively you're not going to do anything about them.

I don't know personally what should be done, this seems to be a hornet's nest right now where every decision is a bad decision.


You're assuming that he meant military action along the lines of a Libyan intervention.

You ASSUMED wrong.
 
2013-05-07 11:59:43 AM

Albert: Is there anyone else besides me and the Russians who are hoping Assad defeats the Islamists/ Al Qaeda?


Assad is a pretty hard-core "Islamist" himself, and is thoroughly committed to the destruction of western civilization, much like Iran.
 
2013-05-07 12:00:15 PM

Albert: Is there anyone else besides me and the Russians who are hoping Assad defeats the Islamists/ Al Qaeda?


You realize you just used a slashie between a world religion and a terrorist organization.

That's like saying Christians/Nazis.
 
2013-05-07 12:00:29 PM

LasersHurt: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.

I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.


Obama says this: "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

News headline reads: Chemical Weapons 'Red Line' for Obama
 
2013-05-07 12:00:32 PM

Infernalist: We had UN support for the Libyan intervention.


The UN only imposed the no-fly zone.
 
2013-05-07 12:00:35 PM

I_C_Weener: Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring. Those are clean and simple. Flowers and stuff.



What a Germanic people's Spring could look like:
img515.imageshack.us

If done right. If not done right, well... Let's just say I wouldn't want to live in Poland
 
2013-05-07 12:00:50 PM

Biological Ali: Either way, it has nothing to do with the fact that the phrase "days are numbered" is generally used as an observation and not a "threat".


"Days are numbered" is an absolute observation; there's no real implication of the power to effect a remedy.  I can say "President Obama's days are numbered"; there can be a latent hostility to the observation, but no threat.  Fair enough.

It's the "red line" business that is causing Obama grief.  He wanted to sound genuinely threatening while remaining vague; unfortunately a line is a line, and when it gets crossed, it's generally verifiable.  The result clause of the threat wasn't explicitly violent, but the "change my calculus" implied intervention, given that the "calculus" up to this point has consisted largely of non-intervention.

Rather than distancing himself from the remark, Obama should articulate how the "calculus" will change; will he defer to UN leadership on the issue, will he provide lethal resource assistance to the rebels, what will he do differently once the use or transfer of chemical weapons by the regime is confirmed?
 
2013-05-07 12:00:56 PM

Hermione_Granger: Brietbart is certainly a "news" source worthy of Fark


Unlike CNN
 
2013-05-07 12:01:06 PM
Syria is Russia's sphere of influence. It's up to Russia to handle this one.
Step up on the world stage Pootie.

///not my job
 
2013-05-07 12:01:35 PM

Tatsuma: LasersHurt: No, I assumed you were not idly biatching. I mean you're assuming that "red line" means get involved militarily, assuming the "red line" has been met, and assuming that any responses sofar have NOT been in line with this.

What do you think the red line implied, specifically? What, exactly, do you think he "threatened" to do, and when?

Maybe this will better help me understand your POV.

The lines seemed to imply a sort of Libya-style intervention. Over and over again, by multiple officials in this administration, including Obama himself, they mentioned that they could not tolerate certain things, red lines, game changers, etc... You can't throw around those words if effectively you're not going to do anything about them.

I don't know personally what should be done, this seems to be a hornet's nest right now where every decision is a bad decision.


Whatever it "seemed to imply" is kind of on the listener. I agree with GoldSpider that some clarification would be good, but what exactly to say? Nobody knows the right way to handle this, precisely because it is NOT Libya, or even close.

I don't have the right answers, but I can't give the administration any shiat for this. If Chemical Weapons KEEP showing up, more than that one time, then he definitely has to act on his "red line" statement one way or another. Not militarily, I hope, but through support and cunning.
 
2013-05-07 12:01:50 PM

bdub77: LasersHurt: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.

I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Obama says this: "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

News headline reads: Chemical Weapons 'Red Line' for Obama


And you read 'military action' somewhere in that?  That's a huge assumption on your part.
 
2013-05-07 12:01:58 PM

mrshowrules: Albert: Is there anyone else besides me and the Russians who are hoping Assad defeats the Islamists/ Al Qaeda?

You realize you just used a slashie between a world religion and a terrorist organization.

That's like saying Christians/Nazis.


All of the Nazis took a christian pledge, though...

/just sayin
 
2013-05-07 12:02:02 PM

Infernalist: You're assuming that he meant military action along the lines of a Libyan intervention.

You ASSUMED wrong.


It's easy to infer that from the rhetoric.  He shouldn't have said it, plain and simple.
 
2013-05-07 12:02:38 PM

LasersHurt: Tyee: coeyagi: When you're top priority is making Obama look bad, expect the GOP to pay the Syrian military to kill U.S. citizens.

Really?

Who is making Obama look bad with regards to Syria?  If Obama putting his own foot into his own mouth isn't your #1 answer you're fooling yourself.  All the GOP hacks are doing is making you well aware of it.

Please, do tell how he "put his foot into his own mouth"?


Obama drew a 'Red Line' when the reality is he will do nothing until the UN and or the majority of the area says OK.  Don't act tough if you are not, it just makes you look foolish.

\I personally don't care to see us get involved
 
2013-05-07 12:02:39 PM
I thought Barry could kick some ass now that he is a lame duck and all.
 
2013-05-07 12:02:46 PM

I_C_Weener: Can we have a Caucasian Spring.


We had one.

media.ny1.com


Conservatives poo-poo'd the whole thing as hippie bullshiat.
 
2013-05-07 12:02:53 PM

GoldSpider: Infernalist: We had UN support for the Libyan intervention.

The UN only imposed the no-fly zone.


AND allowed for the use of force in the defense of civilian targets.  You forgot that part.
 
2013-05-07 12:03:19 PM

Tatsuma: LasersHurt: No, I assumed you were not idly biatching. I mean you're assuming that "red line" means get involved militarily, assuming the "red line" has been met, and assuming that any responses sofar have NOT been in line with this.

What do you think the red line implied, specifically? What, exactly, do you think he "threatened" to do, and when?

Maybe this will better help me understand your POV.

The lines seemed to imply a sort of Libya-style intervention. Over and over again, by multiple officials in this administration, including Obama himself, they mentioned that they could not tolerate certain things, red lines, game changers, etc... You can't throw around those words if effectively you're not going to do anything about them.

I don't know personally what should be done, this seems to be a hornet's nest right now where every decision is a bad decision.


I agree.   I have the distinct feeling that Barack Obama wants to go down in history as the Muslim who destroyed Israel and established the Caliphate. He certainly is giving a lot of aid and comfort to Israel's enemies.

/Pogo13's law.
 
2013-05-07 12:03:37 PM

Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: Syria is Russia's sphere of influence. It's up to Russia to handle this one.
Step up on the world stage Pootie.

///not my job


oh Jeebus you don't want this to happen. Putin doesn't stop...

Oh man that gives me chills.
 
2013-05-07 12:03:59 PM

GoldSpider: Infernalist: You're assuming that he meant military action along the lines of a Libyan intervention.

You ASSUMED wrong.

It's easy to infer that from the rhetoric.  He shouldn't have said it, plain and simple.


You personally 'read' what you 'wanted' to read from that.  You should stop assuming shiat.
 
2013-05-07 12:04:19 PM

Infernalist: bdub77: LasersHurt: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.

I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Obama says this: "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

News headline reads: Chemical Weapons 'Red Line' for Obama

And you read 'military action' somewhere in that?  That's a huge assumption on your part.


No, the news media implied that. That's my point. Media gets more out of that headline than saying "Obama would reconsider military support at large-scale usage or movement of chemical weapons"
 
2013-05-07 12:04:21 PM

Infernalist: GoldSpider: Infernalist: lol daffy says what?

NATO != UN

LasersHurt: Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Sounds like a good opportunity for some clarification from the administration.

We had UN support for the Libyan intervention.  NATO 'is' the US, no matter what anyone else might tell you.


Why are you bragging about US imperialist policy? What's in it for you?
 
2013-05-07 12:04:21 PM

mrshowrules: You realize you just used a slashie between a world religion and a terrorist organization.


Islamism isn't a religion, it's a political ideology.  Think Judaism vs. Zionism.
 
2013-05-07 12:05:54 PM

bdub77: Infernalist: bdub77: LasersHurt: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.

I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Obama says this: "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

News headline reads: Chemical Weapons 'Red Line' for Obama

And you read 'military action' somewhere in that?  That's a huge assumption on your part.

No, the news media implied that. That's my point. Media gets more out of that headline than saying "Obama would reconsider military support at large-scale usage or movement of chemical weapons"


So, you fell for the media bluster and hyperbole?  And you're aware that it's media bluster and hyperbole?

lol wtf man.  Are you seriously going to point the finger at the media and whine that they tricked you into thinking the wrong thing?
 
2013-05-07 12:06:01 PM

Car_Ramrod: Obama says "using chem weapons is crossing a red line and won't be tolerated". We get conflicting reports of possible use of chem weapons. Obama doesn't bomb them immediately. Obama is a weakling offering empty threats.

There, I think I've summarized things pretty well.


Meanwhile, Israel violates international law (again) with no repercussions.
 
2013-05-07 12:06:39 PM

Infernalist: You personally 'read' what you 'wanted' to read from that. You should stop assuming shiat.


The administration should stop making vague, ambiguous threats.
 
2013-05-07 12:06:50 PM

whidbey: Infernalist: GoldSpider: Infernalist: lol daffy says what?

NATO != UN

LasersHurt: Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Sounds like a good opportunity for some clarification from the administration.

We had UN support for the Libyan intervention.  NATO 'is' the US, no matter what anyone else might tell you.

Why are you bragging about US imperialist policy? What's in it for you?


it's kinda the 'opposite' of imperialist policy when you get the whole region, NATO and the UN behind your actions.  You do realize that, right?
 
2013-05-07 12:07:14 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: It's the "red line" business that is causing Obama grief. He wanted to sound genuinely threatening while remaining vague; unfortunately a line is a line, and when it gets crossed, it's generally verifiable. The result clause of the threat wasn't explicitly violent, but the "change my calculus" implied intervention, given that the "calculus" up to this point has consisted largely of non-intervention.


Are you people posting from the future, where the red line was unequivocally crossed and nothing was done? Because here in our current timeline, this stuff's still being investigated.
 
2013-05-07 12:07:51 PM

Infernalist: bdub77: Infernalist: bdub77: LasersHurt: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.

I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Obama says this: "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

News headline reads: Chemical Weapons 'Red Line' for Obama

And you read 'military action' somewhere in that?  That's a huge assumption on your part.

No, the news media implied that. That's my point. Media gets more out of that headline than saying "Obama would reconsider military support at large-scale usage or movement of chemical weapons"

So, you fell for the media bluster and hyperbole?  And you're aware that it's media bluster and hyperbole?

lol wtf man.  Are you seriously going t ...


You are either a troll or downright retarded. I have neither the time or inclination to teach you how to read and understand the words that I write.
 
2013-05-07 12:08:00 PM

LasersHurt: Please, do tell how he "put his foot into his own mouth"?


I'll let the administration tell you:

Senior officials in the Obama administration took to the pages of The New York Times over the weekend to announce that the problem with our Syria policy was the president.
Everything would have been fine, it seems, except for the fact that Barack Obama, out of nowhere last summer, decided to call Syrian use of chemical weapons a "red line" and declared their use would be a "game changer."
The "nuance" was lost, one complained to the Times. It was "completely unscripted," whined another. They didn't want him to be "trap[ed]... into any predetermined action" by his own words, and yet, he just went and did it anyway!
 
2013-05-07 12:08:07 PM

Infernalist: indarwinsshadow: Lots of blood thirsty farkers these days. It's amazing how Americans dig themselves out of one war, only to want to plunk themselves down into the middle of another one.

I'm not against using force on people who've plainly earned it.  Like Assad.  I'm just against 'stupid use' of force.  Like Iraq.

Libya was a perfect example of how to wage war in the 21st century.  You get the UN behind you, the regional powers behind you and the legitimate support of the people behind you and you're golden.

I realized that Libya was the first time since WWII that we fought a conflict on the side of the angels.


My point is America can't keep doing these "well we justify it because it offends us".....that's nuts. You do realize that right? The world is full of dictators and bad people. It's been that way since...forever. Unless they (agents) attack your country, your assets or your people, and declare that a state of war exists between you and them, what your country is doing is wrong and illegal. You don't own the planet. It's not yours to say what's right or wrong. Sure, what Assad is doing is bad. But. What your response would be is tantamount to saying the world has to live by the rules set by the United States. It's asking the rest of the world to accept you as dictators. Personally, my reaction is come to my country (Canada) and dictate what's essentially an internal civil war. Expect me to go to yours somewhere down the road.
You wouldn't like it if Russia said "we don't like what's happening in Arizona, regarding your gun laws, so we're just going to send this military expiditionary force to enforce what we feel should be happening". You'd never allow that. Why do you think even for a second that Syria, and the Muslim world would sit idley by and let you do the same. It's a sh*tty thing happening in Syria, but it's Syria.
 
2013-05-07 12:08:16 PM

GoldSpider: mrshowrules: You realize you just used a slashie between a world religion and a terrorist organization.

Islamism isn't a religion, it's a political ideology.  Think Judaism vs. Zionism.


Pretty sure Islam is a religion, dude. Over a billion people practice it.
 
2013-05-07 12:08:29 PM

GoldSpider: Infernalist: You personally 'read' what you 'wanted' to read from that. You should stop assuming shiat.

The administration should stop making vague, ambiguous threats.


You read it a public political statement as a threat even though there was no mention of any military action or corresponding details regarding a military action of chemical weapons were used.

You read into a vague statement what you WANTED TO READ.  Own it, it's yours.
 
2013-05-07 12:08:38 PM

whidbey: Meanwhile, Israel violates international law (again) with no repercussions.


That's an awesome observation; you should post a link to a news article about that and start a conversation there.
 
2013-05-07 12:09:01 PM
www.bloomberg.com
 
2013-05-07 12:09:20 PM

bdub77: Infernalist: bdub77: Infernalist: bdub77: LasersHurt: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.

I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Obama says this: "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

News headline reads: Chemical Weapons 'Red Line' for Obama

And you read 'military action' somewhere in that?  That's a huge assumption on your part.

No, the news media implied that. That's my point. Media gets more out of that headline than saying "Obama would reconsider military support at large-scale usage or movement of chemical weapons"

So, you fell for the media bluster and hyperbole?  And you're aware that it's media bluster and hyperbole?

lol wtf man.  Are you seri ...


Good bye, brave sir robin.
 
2013-05-07 12:10:08 PM
He just won't stay dead

t1.gstatic.com
 
Displayed 50 of 328 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report