Obama needs to grow a pair

[blueboss]

Wasn't it Obama who said three months ago that if the Syrian Regime used chemical weapons that they would be crossing the line. Well they have crossed the line and are standing on the other side thumbing their nose. So lets spend a week verifying the obvious while hundreds more innocent children are getting buried. Now they're leaking the entire plan on the military response including times, dates, and locations of what specific weapons will be used and how.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...cials-say?lite

[dan_bgblue]

The time for action, and that is not only military action, that could have made a positive difference is past, long past. If he pushes the US military into this mess, he will be making a grave error. jmho

[Doc]

Its people who hate us killing people who hate us. Personally I don't give a rat's ass about any of them. I say pull our aid and let them decide what they want without our input. Getting involved helps us in no way whatsoever because regardless who wins, they will hate us. I'd not waste a single US life for those stone aged bastards.


Except that our president did say if chemical weapons were use then the crossed the line.

[jazyd]

This, the more they kill each other the fewer we have to take out some day. We can't win


QUOTE=Doc;106157]Its people who hate us killing people who hate us. Personally I don't give a rat's ass about any of them. I say pull our aid and let them decide what they want without our input. Getting involved helps us in no way whatsoever because regardless who wins, they will hate us. I'd not waste a single US life for those stone aged bastards.


Except that our president did say if chemical weapons were use then the crossed the line.[/QUOTE]

[jazyd]

By the way, Obama will never have a pair

[DanISSELisdaman]

Obama needs a war right now, to divert attention from his scandals and to make it easier for him to use his executive orders to eat away at what's left of our Constitutional rights.

[jazyd]

I need to add I am not in favor in any way the murdering of children

[CitizenBBN]

We're supposed to intervene somehow but they're saying our "goal" isn't to oust Assad. OK, what is it? A direct response by us will further degrade relations with Russia, presumably will kill some people, but if we don't oust Assad we aren't helping the rebels. Is the goal to just hurt him so he wont' use chemical weapons again? It's OK if everyone dies, just do it with bullets? Is that now the sum of our foreign policy in the region?

We haven't seen this kind of directionless foreign policy since Carter, and it's no coincidence b/c both are based in the presumption that the rest of the world is well adjusted and responsible and if America would just stop being imperialistic everything would be fine. So just make nice with everyone no matter how extreme and they will do the right thing.

[Catonahottinroof]

He's a eunuch along with a great deal on the Congress. Very few are willing to take a stand for the unpopular, necessary things...

[KeithKSR]

Nothing will stop the Middle East fighting. They've been doing it since the beginning of civilizations, it is all they know.

[UKHistory]

We need to figure out an oil substitute (far from easy or cheap) and get the Hell out. Encourage Israel to go to Miami and then we annex Cuba for Israel. The promised land needs a beach.

Build a big shield and let the desert consume the middle east.

[Doc]

We're supposed to intervene somehow but they're saying our "goal" isn't to oust Assad. OK, what is it? A direct response by us will further degrade relations with Russia, presumably will kill some people, but if we don't oust Assad we aren't helping the rebels. Is the goal to just hurt him so he wont' use chemical weapons again? It's OK if everyone dies, just do it with bullets? Is that now the sum of our foreign policy in the region?

We haven't seen this kind of directionless foreign policy since Carter, and it's no coincidence b/c both are based in the presumption that the rest of the world is well adjusted and responsible and if America would just stop being imperialistic everything would be fine. So just make nice with everyone no matter how extreme and they will do the right thing.

Supposedly the purpose is to discourage the use of chemical weapons. I find this so idiotic and incredibly hypocritical. Democrats, INCLUDING SENATOR OBAMA, railed for years on GWB for going into Iraq based on unsubstantiated reports of WMD despite there being UN backing. But the real idiotic aspect of is that thousand dying isn't the problem, its thousands dying because of chemical weapons. So its OK to kill thousands so long as its not done with chemical weapons? Its OK to machine gun them down but you can't mustard gas them.

As I stated above, I got no idea who to pull for in this cluster####. It's like Duke playing TN. You just want the both to lose. I'm all for help stopping the killing of innocents however I'm not so sure there are any innocents in the middle east. Any action by the US is going to have repercussions, which means dead Americans. Until Syria or any of those countries who are stuck in the middle ages and have no desire to move beyond gets something that remotely resembles any type of threat to this county or does anything to one of our allies, then leave them alone.

[DanISSELisdaman]

You're absolutely right IMO Doc! When your enemies are killing each other, it's time to sit on the side lines and watch.

[KeithKSR]

Nothing will stop the Middle East fighting. They've been doing it since the beginning of civilizations, it is all they know.

[jazyd]

Our Allies are not with us, they know you can't win this unless you reduce the ME to crushed rocks

It doesnot affect us at all, no security problems for us.

Like Doc sad, Obama did nothing or even said anything as long as they were gunning each other down. And he tells them exactly what he plans on doing, so they move the gas just as Iraq did which is probably where Syria got much of their supply

[CitizenBBN]

jazy I have thought for this whole time that this attack may in fact make Bush look far less wrong on Iraqi chemical weapons. the story defending their existence was that Saddam moved them to Syria, but it was dismissed as self serving conjecture, and now here is Syria with chemical weapons.


Not saying that's what happened but it is interesting.

Obama is now faced with taking unilateral action after being so very critical of Bush making the same decision. Not nearly as easy when you're facing the tough choices as when you're blathering criticism from the safety of the Senate floor.

[kingcat]

At this point, (and as President) what is the right choice for action? I have mixed feelings myself, but hopefully there IS a correct response and one that generally represents the feelings of the American people.

Explore and exhaust every diplomatic angle I imagine.

EDIT: Non action (which I agree with in some ways) could tie our hands for future such incidents and perpetuate the very argument within the arab world against US policy. I'd hate to see the use of such weapons escalate to include all the M.E. If it does then we are no doubt directly involved in a war which WMD's are being used. Then all options are on the table...then...THE END

[jazyd]

Citizen from what I heard they have a lot of gas, some of that no doubt came from Irag. All those countries intelligence couldn't be wrong in that Iraq had chemical weapons, a few maybe but not that many. He moved them imo to Syria and if you remember there was satellite pictures showing a large group of covered trucks leaving Iraq right before we went in, all going to syria.

I wish some of the Bush adminstration would come out and point this out.

jazy I have thought for this whole time that this attack may in fact make Bush look far less wrong on Iraqi chemical weapons. the story defending their existence was that Saddam moved them to Syria, but it was dismissed as self serving conjecture, and now here is Syria with chemical weapons.


Not saying that's what happened but it is interesting.

Obama is now faced with taking unilateral action after being so very critical of Bush making the same decision. Not nearly as easy when you're facing the tough choices as when you're blathering criticism from the safety of the Senate floor.

[UKHistory]

Walk softly and carry a big stick. Three presidents have given us advice for the ages to follow.

Washington--avoid entangling alliances
Teddy Roosevelt--the big stick policy noted above
Ike--worry about the military industrial complex.

If we fight, we fight to protect US interests and for no other reason.

[KeithKSR]

There seems to be some disagreement internationally on who used the gas, if any gas was in fact used.

The best option is to do nothing. We cannot destroy any gas stocks, as bombing them will disburse them in the process.

There are not just two sides in Syria, but many.