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.

(BBC)   Despite days of thrusting and grinding on Assad, Obama fails to find the G20 "sweet spot", and limps home. Putin still refuses to put out   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 83
    More: Sad, President Obama, Vladimir Putin, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russia, weapons inspectors, British Prime Minister David Cameron, G20 summit, U.N. Security Council  
•       •       •

3235 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Sep 2013 at 9:03 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-07 12:44:09 AM
FTA: " While the UK, Canada and Turkey all support Mr Obama's call for action, the only leaders at the G20 meeting to commit to force in Syria are the US and France. Correspondents in St Petersburg say opponents of US military intervention appear to far outnumber supporters within the G20."


So, that means we have a worldwide mandate to go to war with Syria, right?
 
2013-09-07 02:56:26 AM

Amos Quito: FTA: " While the UK, Canada and Turkey all support Mr Obama's call for action, the only leaders at the G20 meeting to commit to force in Syria are the US and France. Correspondents in St Petersburg say opponents of US military intervention appear to far outnumber supporters within the G20."


So, that means we have a worldwide mandate to go to war with Syria, right?


America, FARK YEAH!!!!!

*facepalm*
 
2013-09-07 09:08:29 AM
That headline is trying too hard.
 
2013-09-07 09:08:31 AM
Good.  This is a stupid idea anyway.
 
2013-09-07 09:08:57 AM
Assad is the sacrificial pawn.
 
2013-09-07 09:09:12 AM
The sad thing is that we put ourselve in this situation, and we're going to take a hit either way. Obama could of handled this situation so much better but nope. Btw, if Congress votes no that gives Assad, Putin, and Republicans credibility. YAY!

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-07 09:15:15 AM

Amos Quito: So, that means we have a worldwide mandate to go to war with Syria, right?


We've got the Coalition of the Willing II: Electric Boogaloo. In addition to the US and France, it has Sealand, Atlantis, Hogwarts, Oz (not the Australian version), Republic of Couture,  and Raytheonistan. Should be a real hoot.
 
2013-09-07 09:17:56 AM

bbfreak: could of

img.fark.net

 
2013-09-07 09:21:02 AM

PluckYew: bbfreak: could of


c190930.r30.cf1.rackcdn.com
 
2013-09-07 09:22:25 AM

bbfreak: The sad thing is that we put ourselve in this situation, and we're going to take a hit either way. Obama could of handled this situation so much better but nope. Btw, if Congress votes no that gives Assad, Putin, and Republicans credibility. YAY!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x200]


Um no.
Obama did this.
Red lines and all that. Moral high ground and all that.
Bandar and Putin have him stuck and Assad is the only weak spot in the box he's in.
If he bombs, he's sunk at home. No news there, since he's governing to the right of Richard Nixon.
If he doesn't bomb, he's sunk in the international community.

This is just another example that proves Obama is a weak-tea non-leader and has been in over his head from the start. All the presidents since Eisenhower have been deranged stooges.
 
2013-09-07 09:23:57 AM

EngineerAU: Amos Quito: So, that means we have a worldwide mandate to go to war with Syria, right?

We've got the Coalition of the Willing II: Electric Boogaloo. In addition to the US and France, it has Sealand, Atlantis, Hogwarts, Oz (not the Australian version), Republic of Couture,  and Raytheonistan. Should be a real hoot.


DO NOT exclude Austro-Hungary. They're bringing the beer.
 
2013-09-07 09:29:44 AM
G20's.
Those are decent clubs.
 
2013-09-07 09:34:42 AM
 Good. I hope this makes it that much more difficult for a republican to go to war next time they get the itch. In fact now would be a really good time to ratchet back the presidents ability to start a war while republicans are still on board because we all know what will happen once the white house changes parties.
 
2013-09-07 09:36:34 AM
I said it before: Obama is an Affirmative Action hire. He's in way over his head. The US is losing credibility in the Middle East because the guy just really isn't smart, and doesn't think through what he says and does. He's a bullshiatter, nothing more.

And because of his flopping around, the chances of wide spread middle east meltdown continues to rise.

This engineer's solution: Screw the Treaty of Westphalia and start going after country leaders directly. With the miracle of precision guided weapons (you're welcome) we can target their houses, cars, their favorite whorehouses, etc. without having to kill the public. Send in enough Tomahawks to degrade Syria's air defenses, then have drones roam around Syria, shooting Hellfires at goverment buildings, ANY Mercedes Benz they see driving down the road, the country clubs, officer's Clubs, etc. When the ruling class gets tired of sleeping in ditches at night, and hiding all day, they'll deal. They'll serve up Assad's head on a silver platter and deliver it to the embassy if that what it takes to get the Reapers off their asses.

Back in more civilized times, armies would meet outside towns, fight, and the locals would watch the show. Then they would accept the rule of whoever won the fight. Modern barbaric times involved attacking civilian populations to degrade industrial production. Nowadays with modern precision weapons we can go back to letting the Alpha males duke it out amongst themselves...
 
2013-09-07 09:36:39 AM
So if Obama loses this vote, Assad becomes president of the United States?
Great another Muslim president.
 
2013-09-07 09:42:43 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: bbfreak: The sad thing is that we put ourselve in this situation, and we're going to take a hit either way. Obama could of handled this situation so much better but nope. Btw, if Congress votes no that gives Assad, Putin, and Republicans credibility. YAY!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x200]

Um no.
Obama did this.
Red lines and all that. Moral high ground and all that.


Last I checked Obama was still the President of the United States, and as this is a Republic the United States moves forward through its representative in Congress & the Presidency. Granted, not very effectively at that but they represent the United States. So when I say "we", I mean "we" the United States. Surprised I even have to explain that. Oh, and Obama's policy on meddling is pretty much standard policy in the United States and has been for the past 30 years at least. Reagan did it, Clinton did it, Bush Sr. did it, etc. So again, we the American people have are most certainly responsible in the sense that we've been OK with it in the past and given our approval to so much meddling in the past 30 years.
 
2013-09-07 09:47:30 AM
In a twisted way, this reminds me of waiting for the kickoff of a big college football game that is supposed to start at 8:00.  But it's actually 8:30 before they actually start to play, thanks to all the ads and pregame hype.

/or when LBJ decided to bomb the bejabbers out of N. Vietnam
 
2013-09-07 09:50:11 AM

bbfreak: So again, we the American people have are most certainly responsible in the sense that we've been OK with it in the past and given our approval to so much meddling in the past 30 years.


No.
Since when have our "representatives" in government acted in OUR, as in we the people's best interests?
I'd say not since Eisenhower.
But you go on thinking they care about you if if lets you sleep at night.
 
2013-09-07 09:52:43 AM
"we've been OK with it in the past...  "

Really ?   That is the only thing we can come up with ?

Even if Obama was no longer in office.   If Hillary takes over and proposed this... we would say bombing Syria is ok because we have done it before ??????????

Really?    Democrat Senators are standing by kicking a toe in the dirt and him-hawing because they don't want to do anything counter to the official party line ?

Bombing Syria, which is no threat to us or our allies.... is not going to be right folks, no matter who the party or the president is.

Stand by and be silent.   Media, Hollywood, Congress ....   you have no balls.   Little credibility.
 
2013-09-07 09:52:51 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: bbfreak: So again, we the American people have are most certainly responsible in the sense that we've been OK with it in the past and given our approval to so much meddling in the past 30 years.

No.
Since when have our "representatives" in government acted in OUR, as in we the people's best interests?
I'd say not since Eisenhower.
But you go on thinking they care about you if if lets you sleep at night.


You are a thick one aren't you. Well, not my problem.
 
Esn
2013-09-07 09:58:48 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: If he bombs, he's sunk at home. No news there, since he's governing to the right of Richard Nixon.
If he doesn't bomb, he's sunk in the international community.


If most of the international community is against bombing Syria anyway, wouldn't Obama do better diplomatically if he decides not to bomb?

Honestly, I can't help but think that what's really going on is that Obama DOESN'T want to bomb Syria but because of pressure from allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel (and their money) he's forced to make it appear like he's trying very hard to start the war. He purposefully botches the sell, but in a way that makes it look like incompetence and bad strategy rather than bad intentions.

I don't know if this explanation (in which he is a coward) is any more charitable than the other one - the one where he really does want a war but is too incompetent to sell it.
 
2013-09-07 09:59:08 AM

HypnozombieX: Good. I hope this makes it that much more difficult for a republican to go to war next time they get the itch. In fact now would be a really good time to ratchet back the presidents ability to start a war while republicans are still on board because we all know what will happen once the white house changes parties.


Those are very partisan glasses you're wearing right now. Republican Presidents are not the only presidents who seek to increase the executive branches powers, and Obama is no different. I agree with you that I'd like to see the Presidents power to start a war placed back in the hands of Congress, but it would take Congress insisting upon their rightful powers before it will happen, and historically speaking, they are loathe to do that. (You also seem to forget that at the time of the Iraq war, it had strong bi-partisan support and regime change in that country had been official United States Policy for decades, and if I remember correctly, started under the Democratic President, Bill Clinton.)

mark12A: I said it before: Obama is an Affirmative Action hire. He's in way over his head. The US is losing credibility in the Middle East because the guy just really isn't smart, and doesn't think through what he says and does. He's a bullshiatter, nothing more.
.


This is also viewed through partisan glasses. While I agree that Obama caused this debate through his own public miss step, he is a very smart man and generally speaking thinks through what he does. While I believe that many may have voted for him through a desire to "make history" and "right the wrongs of slavery", I think the vast majority were swayed to him through his uplifting rhetoric regarding new Hope for a country struggling under war weariness and Change in the economic direction of the country. No, I didn't vote for him, but I'm not going to pretend that the majority of those who did, did so for "Affirmative Action" reasons.

This engineer's solution: Screw the Treaty of Westphalia and start going after country leaders directly. With the miracle of precision guided weapons (you're welcome) we can target their houses, cars, their favorite whorehouses, etc. without having to kill the public. Send in enough Tomahawks to degrade Syria's air defenses, then have drones roam around Syria, shooting Hellfires at goverment buildings, ANY Mercedes Benz they see driving down the road, the country clubs, officer's Clubs, etc. When the ruling class gets tired of sleeping in ditches at night, and hiding all day, they'll deal. They'll serve up Assad's head on a silver platter and deliver it to the embassy if that what it takes to get the Reapers off their asses.

...And then we open the door to reprisals through the assassination of our leaders. While I agree that some actors on the world stage should be served a precision guided breakfast, I don't think getting rid of them in that fashion is worth opening the doors to having our own Presidents assassinated.

bbfreak: Last I checked Obama was still the President of the United States, and as this is a Republic the United States moves forward through its representative in Congress & the Presidency.


I think what he was talking about, and I agree with, is that President Obama has a bad habit of speaking "off the cuff" at times in press conferences and it was this habit that got him into this mess. He was asked an off script question and gave an off script answer that painted himself into a box. Most presidents, if they choose to go alone, do so with public support (for the most part) or, if they don't believe they have public support, start dealing with Congress behind the scenes before announcing a need to strike, so that they know they have the votes to do so. Obama, through an unscripted, offhand comment (Red Line), effectively placed the cart before the horse in the sense that he did and does not have public support, and he wasn't courting Congress prior to throwing the ball in their court. Now he's faced with a few bad possible out comes and no possible good ones. Yes, he did this to himself. Personally I'm kind of happy about it because, as the first person I quoted stated, I'd like to see the Executive Branches power to start wars, reigned back in and placed firmly in the Representatives hands, that way, they are more answerable to us, the people.
 
2013-09-07 09:59:41 AM

bbfreak: HotIgneous Intruder: bbfreak: So again, we the American people have are most certainly responsible in the sense that we've been OK with it in the past and given our approval to so much meddling in the past 30 years.

No.
Since when have our "representatives" in government acted in OUR, as in we the people's best interests?
I'd say not since Eisenhower.
But you go on thinking they care about you if if lets you sleep at night.

You are a thick one aren't you. Well, not my problem.


Have you lived and worked in Washington? I have.
Do you know The Game? Obviously not.
Your beliefs are quaint and idealistic, but completely at odds with the concrete results of what we have now and going forward. A democrat "liberal" who governs to the right of Nixon. Obama is a liberal like Bush II was a conservative, which is to say IS NOT.
Most Americans have no idea where they stand politically and only think they are some kind of thing, but are actually something completely different. Most of you dolts who grew up pledging allegiance to the flag wouldn't know fascism if it jumped up and ripped your heads off.
 
2013-09-07 10:04:33 AM
0bama's only waiting for congress so when this all blows up in his face he can say it's not his fault..congress/the people approved it
still waiting for him to parade some Syrian children around
 
2013-09-07 10:06:51 AM

Esn: Honestly, I can't help but think that what's really going on is that Obama DOESN'T want to bomb Syria but because of pressure from allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel (and their money) he's forced to make it appear like he's trying very hard to start the war.


A US president who doesn't want to go to war? Unlikely.
 
2013-09-07 10:08:04 AM

Esn: HotIgneous Intruder: If he bombs, he's sunk at home. No news there, since he's governing to the right of Richard Nixon.
If he doesn't bomb, he's sunk in the international community.

If most of the international community is against bombing Syria anyway, wouldn't Obama do better diplomatically if he decides not to bomb?

Honestly, I can't help but think that what's really going on is that Obama DOESN'T want to bomb Syria but because of pressure from allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel (and their money) he's forced to make it appear like he's trying very hard to start the war. He purposefully botches the sell, but in a way that makes it look like incompetence and bad strategy rather than bad intentions.

I don't know if this explanation (in which he is a coward) is any more charitable than the other one - the one where he really does want a war but is too incompetent to sell it.


That's actually a very good assessment as I read it.
I think he'll hit Assad, just on principle, and out of frustration at having no other options to save face and American credibility. Assad is the weak spot in the box Obama is in. Obama is a pragmatist and will find the path of least resistance out of the box, encouraged by Saudi and Israel, who want a stable regime in Syria. The Russians are afraid of an Arab gas pipeline to Europe through Syria. Maybe they can work out a thing with Russia. I dunno. It's a mess of epic, world war precursor proportions and our sec of state is banging the war drums instead of doing peace shuttles. It's nuts on its face.
 
2013-09-07 10:08:22 AM

EngineerAU: Amos Quito: So, that means we have a worldwide mandate to go to war with Syria, right?

We've got the Coalition of the Willing II: Electric Boogaloo. In addition to the US and France, it has Sealand, Atlantis, Hogwarts, Oz (not the Australian version), Republic of Couture,  and Raytheonistan. Should be a real hoot.


I don't mean to step on your joke, but among the G20 members that signed onto a joint statement regarding Syria were the US, UK, Canada, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Korea and Japan with those specifically opposing being Russia, China, India, South Africa and Argentina. The rest were either noncommittal or wanting more evidence.

bbfreak: The sad thing is that we put ourselve in this situation, and we're going to take a hit either way. Obama could of handled this situation so much better but nope. Btw, if Congress votes no that gives Assad, Putin, and Republicans credibility. YAY!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x200]


It was a bad situation regardless of anything 'Obama' did, especially with Russia and China quite deliberately sabotaging diplomatic and containment efforts over a year ago.

Let me ask all of the people harping on the 'red line' thing an honest question: given that the goal is the deterrence of using chemical weapons, what would -you- have done or said differently?
 
2013-09-07 10:08:46 AM

EngineerAU: Amos Quito: So, that means we have a worldwide mandate to go to war with Syria, right?

We've got the Coalition of the Willing II: Electric Boogaloo. In addition to the US and France, it has Sealand, Atlantis, Hogwarts, Oz (not the Australian version), Republic of Couture,  and Raytheonistan. Should be a real hoot.


Hey now, we can send those Democrat chickenhawks that are pushing for this because their guy is in charge now. Plenty of them on the Politics tab.
 
2013-09-07 10:11:06 AM
the sad tag needs to limp its ass home with obama as well.  obvious is king of the hill....
 
2013-09-07 10:13:45 AM
I'm still waiting for Congress or Obama to give us "common sense" solutions, since that seems to be the buzz word for things they want that they don't have the facts to support.
 
Esn
2013-09-07 10:14:30 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: bbfreak: HotIgneous Intruder: bbfreak: So again, we the American people have are most certainly responsible in the sense that we've been OK with it in the past and given our approval to so much meddling in the past 30 years.

No.
Since when have our "representatives" in government acted in OUR, as in we the people's best interests?
I'd say not since Eisenhower.
But you go on thinking they care about you if if lets you sleep at night.

You are a thick one aren't you. Well, not my problem.

Have you lived and worked in Washington? I have.
Do you know The Game? Obviously not.
Your beliefs are quaint and idealistic, but completely at odds with the concrete results of what we have now and going forward. A democrat "liberal" who governs to the right of Nixon. Obama is a liberal like Bush II was a conservative, which is to say IS NOT.
Most Americans have no idea where they stand politically and only think they are some kind of thing, but are actually something completely different. Most of you dolts who grew up pledging allegiance to the flag wouldn't know fascism if it jumped up and ripped your heads off.


Hey, so I've been curious, since you've worked in Washington and all... is this pretty accurate?
i.imgur.com

http://imgur.com/fhrD8gU
 
2013-09-07 10:14:42 AM

mark12A: I said it before: Obama is an Affirmative Action hire. He's in way over his head. The US is losing credibility in the Middle East because the guy just really isn't smart, and doesn't think through what he says and does. He's a bullshiatter, nothing more.

And because of his flopping around, the chances of wide spread middle east meltdown continues to rise.

This engineer's solution: Screw the Treaty of Westphalia and start going after country leaders directly. With the miracle of precision guided weapons (you're welcome) we can target their houses, cars, their favorite whorehouses, etc. without having to kill the public. Send in enough Tomahawks to degrade Syria's air defenses, then have drones roam around Syria, shooting Hellfires at goverment buildings, ANY Mercedes Benz they see driving down the road, the country clubs, officer's Clubs, etc. When the ruling class gets tired of sleeping in ditches at night, and hiding all day, they'll deal. They'll serve up Assad's head on a silver platter and deliver it to the embassy if that what it takes to get the Reapers off their asses.

Back in more civilized times, armies would meet outside towns, fight, and the locals would watch the show. Then they would accept the rule of whoever won the fight. Modern barbaric times involved attacking civilian populations to degrade industrial production. Nowadays with modern precision weapons we can go back to letting the Alpha males duke it out amongst themselves...


The foreign policy we now have is the exact same one Harry Truman launched the day I was born. It is the same one we have had all my lifetime, and yours. And I agree that it totally sucks, and always has - but why do YOU suddenly have a problem with it? As I recall, you had no problem with it when Bush was POTUS. Back in 2004, you staunchly defended the "bluster, lie, and invade some nation of goatf**kers" model of foreign policy.
What put a new "complexion" on the issue for you, if I may ask? :D
 
2013-09-07 10:19:40 AM

The Bestest: Let me ask all of the people harping on the 'red line' thing an honest question: given that the goal is the deterrence of using chemical weapons, what would -you- have done or said differently?


I would have placed the burden of deterrence squarely on the United Nations, with the caveat that if the U.N. did nothing, I would start dealing with the United States Congress to explore other options; and left it vague as to what those options might be. Hindsight is 20/20 however and I wasn't on the podium on the spot. Doesn't mean I don't think the "red line" comment was a bad one to make, it was, just that I don't think Obama is incompetent or stupid for having made it. Durring the elections I felt he was inexperienced and I think that inexperience is showing.
 
2013-09-07 10:19:46 AM
Obama is a great campaigner but a shiatty leader, methinks.
 
2013-09-07 10:20:17 AM

generallyso: Esn: Honestly, I can't help but think that what's really going on is that Obama DOESN'T want to bomb Syria but because of pressure from allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel (and their money) he's forced to make it appear like he's trying very hard to start the war.

A US president who doesn't want to go to war? Unlikely.


Which makes me wonder if there has ever been a US President who wasn't at war with somebody.  Including Native Americans.  As well as old "Tippecanoe" Harrison, who died in office after a month.
 
2013-09-07 10:22:04 AM
Putin's always been a bit of a Molotov cocktease. FSB means feeling super biatchy, right?
 
2013-09-07 10:23:19 AM

SoupJohnB: generallyso: Esn: Honestly, I can't help but think that what's really going on is that Obama DOESN'T want to bomb Syria but because of pressure from allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel (and their money) he's forced to make it appear like he's trying very hard to start the war.

A US president who doesn't want to go to war? Unlikely.

Which makes me wonder if there has ever been a US President who wasn't at war with somebody.  Including Native Americans.  As well as old "Tippecanoe" Harrison, who died in office after a month.


Eisenhower was the last genuine good guy.
His Interstate Highway idea would have him tarred and feathered as a stinking socialist communist nowadays, too. How far we done fell, but what do you expect from New Rome?
 
2013-09-07 10:25:30 AM

kim jong-un: That headline is trying too hard.


Innuendo: Definition

in·nu·en·do - (inyooˈendō) noun: innuendo;plural noun: innuendoes;plural noun: innuendos

1. An allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one.

2. An Italian suppository.
 
Esn
2013-09-07 10:27:30 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Esn: HotIgneous Intruder: If he bombs, he's sunk at home. No news there, since he's governing to the right of Richard Nixon.
If he doesn't bomb, he's sunk in the international community.

If most of the international community is against bombing Syria anyway, wouldn't Obama do better diplomatically if he decides not to bomb?

Honestly, I can't help but think that what's really going on is that Obama DOESN'T want to bomb Syria but because of pressure from allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel (and their money) he's forced to make it appear like he's trying very hard to start the war. He purposefully botches the sell, but in a way that makes it look like incompetence and bad strategy rather than bad intentions.

I don't know if this explanation (in which he is a coward) is any more charitable than the other one - the one where he really does want a war but is too incompetent to sell it.

That's actually a very good assessment as I read it.
I think he'll hit Assad, just on principle, and out of frustration at having no other options to save face and American credibility. Assad is the weak spot in the box Obama is in. Obama is a pragmatist and will find the path of least resistance out of the box, encouraged by Saudi and Israel, who want a stable regime in Syria. The Russians are afraid of an Arab gas pipeline to Europe through Syria. Maybe they can work out a thing with Russia. I dunno. It's a mess of epic, world war precursor proportions and our sec of state is banging the war drums instead of doing peace shuttles. It's nuts on its face.


I'd be surprised if the Russians worked out a deal with the Saudis after the Saudis gave it their best shot (tens of billions of military contract money and promising that Chechen terrorists wouldn't attack the Sochi Olympics) and only succeeded in pissing Putin off enough that he revealed the details of the conversation.  Russia and Saudi Arabia don't exactly have the best history; the Soviets had no diplomatic relations with the Saudis from the 1930s until their collapse.
 
2013-09-07 10:31:20 AM

Esn: I'd be surprised if the Russians worked out a deal with the Saudis after the Saudis gave it their best shot (tens of billions of military contract money and promising that Chechen terrorists wouldn't attack the Sochi Olympics) and only succeeded in pissing Putin off enough that he revealed the details of the conversation.  Russia and Saudi Arabia don't exactly have the best history; the Soviets had no diplomatic relations with the Saudis from the 1930s until their collapse.


Yeah. And Putin cut his teeth in the Soviet era, so there's that. Putin needs to get fixed, but he's playing the tough guy. Obama's no match for Putin, either. It also seems like Bandar gave Putin lots of chances to play nice. Deals will have to be made.
 
2013-09-07 10:31:28 AM
jso2897: .... And I agree that it totally sucks, and always has - but why do YOU suddenly have a problem with it? As I recall, you had no problem with it when Bush was POTUS. Back in 2004, you staunchly defended the "bluster, lie, and invade some nation of goatf**kers" model of foreign policy.
What put a new "complexion" on the issue for you, if I may ask? :D



So you are saying you think bombing Syria is wrong.... but you, JSO2897 would agree to it because you see things with 'complexion' ?      You suspect others have some bad motive.  I suspect jso2897 is the one that views this as 'just politics'.  You would bomb bystanders who just happen to be in the way of jso2897 politics.   You should be a Senator.

You know what has also happened recently ??    The slow economy.
America is laying off school teachers and yet you want to shoot off cruise missiles at $600,000 each ?

Puhhlleeease...    The nation is broke.   The credit cards are maxed out.
Bombing Syria is wrong, since they have not threatened us.    And it is a really stupid thing to do when the country is struggling badly.

Race ?   biatch please....
 
2013-09-07 10:32:27 AM
According to Republicans, the US should have hit Assad 2 years ago. In 2011. Do you realize what would have happened then?

The exact same thing, except there would have been the 2012 elections to deal with.That's why the repubs aren't interested now, and why they are leaning on Kerry. Suspicions that Kerry may run for president again. I can already see the campaign stuff now. "The democrats screwed up Syria"

/If the GOP seriously gets Bobby Jindal in the race, I'll write in Sarah Palin. She's not as scary.
//but then I'd have to register republican
 
2013-09-07 10:33:41 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: His Interstate Highway idea would have him tarred and feathered as a stinking socialist communist nowadays, too. How far we done fell, but what do you expect from New Rome?


It probably would have faced problems, but I think that's more due to the publics pendulum like vacillation between Federal Power vs. State Power. Prior to the Civil War, the states held supreme power over the Federal, to the point where at least one state had a "State Religion" codified in it's constitution and the Federal Ban did not apply. (Because the constitution said "congress" would make no law, but didn't prohibit States from doing it.) During Reconstruction is when the power shifted to the Federal Government and away from the States and in my opinion, we have been going back and forth trying to balance these powers since the time of Radical Reconstruction.

We are no more in a decline now than we have been in the past. The landscape has just changed and now we have more instantaneous access to information. I think it's more a decline of "mood" than actual decline.

/but this is kind of off topic - interesting, but off topic :)
 
2013-09-07 10:40:30 AM

HypnozombieX: Good. I hope this makes it that much more difficult for a republican to go to war next time they get the itch. In fact now would be a really good time to ratchet back the presidents ability to start a war while republicans are still on board because we all know what will happen once the white house changes parties.


If a Republican was president now, Congress would vote for war attacking Syria (with nearly all Republicans and a smattering of Democrats, so BSABVR), and you'd be called a traitor for not supporting it.
 
2013-09-07 10:46:40 AM

netcentric: Puhhlleeease...    The nation is broke.   The credit cards are maxed out.
Bombing Syria is wrong, since they have not threatened us.    And it is a really stupid thing to do when the country is struggling badly.


Unfortunately, whomever used the chemical weapons have not only threatened but -attacked- our credibility, and this is a FAR bigger deal than it seems most realize. If you think we're "broke" (and I have to roll my eyes everytime someone uses this line) now, you ain't seen -nothing- compared to the ramifications of not acting on this.

Yeah, it does suck.. a lot, but its the reality of this world and our place in it.
 
2013-09-07 10:47:55 AM

Amos Quito: So, that means we have a worldwide mandate to go to war with Syria, right?


We should have had one, by now.

I'm going to do an abnormal thing here and defend the president. His objective is noble but (as per usual) his method is amateurish and it shows badly in situations like this. He is out of his element and unfamiliar with how to beat a war drum properly, but I understand why he wants to do it.

Chemical weapons were banned for the better part of a century by international conventions. Assad's behavior is atrocious and unforgivable. He's the kind of person that keeps the black market arms trade thriving, which lets other belligerent nations have a big influence on the relationships between the worlds powers.

The thing is: Assad isn't an American problem, he is the world's problem.

Obama should have taken the UN to task and asked "What's wrong with you?! Where do you draw the line?  Do you have any purpose besides profiting from your corruption and nodding like a bunch of bobble-heads when Russia speaks? Your silence condones the very behavior you were convened to prevent."
We can see other nations getting away with the same kind of intervention, on Assad's behalf, that the UN and others will refuse the rebels. Giving Assad banned weapons and turning a blind eye as he uses them.They should be brought to account for their hypocrisy and Syria is the perfect case to highlight problems that need fixing.

Its not a problem where the US should be alone in leading the same kind of strikes that Obama objected to in the past.
That part is just a last ditch effort at trying to appear legitimate after Obama's screwed the pooch on foreign policy.


/If the UN is a non functional entity then it doesn't deserve our support.
/Kick their ass out that building and start over with a new world order.
 
2013-09-07 10:49:38 AM

CanisNoir: I think what he was talking about, and I agree with, is that President Obama has a bad habit of speaking "off the cuff" at times in press conferences and it was this habit that got him into this mess. He was asked an off script question and gave an off script answer that painted himself into a box. Most presidents, if they choose to go alone, do so with public support (for the most part) or, if they don't believe they have public support, start dealing with Congress behind the scenes before announcing a need to strike, so that they know they have the votes to do so. Obama, through an unscripted, offhand comment (Red Line), effectively placed the cart before the horse in the sense that he did and does not have public support, and he wasn't courting Congress prior to throwing the ball in their court. Now he's faced with a few bad possible out comes and no possible good ones. Yes, he did this to himself. Personally I'm kind of happy about it because, as the first person I quoted stated, I'd like to see the Executive Branches power to start wars, reigned back in and placed firmly in the Representatives hands, that way, they are more answerable to us, the people.

Well as surprising as you might find it, I don't disagree with any of that. I just think Obama's red line speech, and our potential intervention are as much a result of presidential precedent as Obama's decision making.

The Bestest: Let me ask all of the people harping on the 'red line' thing an honest question: given that the goal is the deterrence of using chemical weapons, what would -you- have done or said differently?


I am less concerned with the first red line speech so much as to the aftermath of that red line speech, which I think was handled poorly. The thing about the red line speech is that a year ago it would of been considered a safe bet seeing as nobody would of guessed that chemical weapons would be used by Assad. Makes Obama look tough without him actually having to do anything, and was a green light to Assad that he could do whatever the hell he wanted as long as he didn't use chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-07 10:50:31 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: SoupJohnB: generallyso: Esn: Honestly, I can't help but think that what's really going on is that Obama DOESN'T want to bomb Syria but because of pressure from allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel (and their money) he's forced to make it appear like he's trying very hard to start the war.

A US president who doesn't want to go to war? Unlikely.

Which makes me wonder if there has ever been a US President who wasn't at war with somebody.  Including Native Americans.  As well as old "Tippecanoe" Harrison, who died in office after a month.

Eisenhower was the last genuine good guy.
His Interstate Highway idea would have him tarred and feathered as a stinking socialist communist nowadays, too. How far we done fell, but what do you expect from New Rome?


You like Ike?  I like Ike!  Back to my question, though - I'm thinking there has been no period of U.S. History when there were not U.S. Armed Forces deployed against some farking hostile enemy, some damned where.  To wit: General "Black Jack" Pershing chasing Pancho Villa down into Mexico, after his raid on Columbus, *Nuevo* Mexico.

/before the U.S. got sucked into WW Uno.
 
2013-09-07 10:51:32 AM

way south: Obama should have taken the UN to task and asked "What's wrong with you?! Where do you draw the line?  Do you have any purpose besides profiting from your corruption and nodding like a bunch of bobble-heads when Russia speaks? Your silence condones the very behavior you were convened to prevent."


So, you missed the part where that DID happen, then? Don't have time at the moment, but I'll dig up the cite later if you'd like.
 
2013-09-07 11:00:47 AM

HypnozombieX: Good. I hope this makes it that much more difficult for a republican to go to war next time they get the itch. In fact now would be a really good time to ratchet back the presidents ability to start a war while republicans are still on board because we all know what will happen once the white house changes parties.


Actually, speaking as a Republican, I can support this.  Congress has been abdicating its war-making powers for far too long.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report