Did he just neuter himself?
I can only imagine the thoughts of leaders throughout the world.
Did he just neuter himself?
I can only imagine the thoughts of leaders throughout the world.
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
I'm sure Putin calls him "идиот".
He wants congress to take the fall either way. That way he can do his usual, blame so done else
On closer inspection we've found his "red line" is actually yellow.
Can't take responsibility for his own actions, which fits perfectly with the victim society he so supports. Everything is someone else's fault, so this comes naturally to him.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
He's playing politics, creating dual blame. If congress authorizes action, he gets a diversion from the scandal du jour.
If the Congress says nada, he can blame them for the no answer.
The Administration's decisions cause perception to the world the US is a pussywhipped entity, and the appearance is quite accurate.
Giving a deadline for Congress to act gives Assad all the time he needs to plant civilians in the path where military strikes will occur and the negative press will be ominous, and he will blame Congress.
The problem is two fold. First he boxed himself into a corner with the "red line" stuff. He talked the talk but won't do the walk. Its easy to talk tough but backing it up is another thing. Really a poor move by any president. Second, his inability to swing support. Look, the man has spent the last 5 years pitting group against group, whether it be rich vs poor, black vs white, democrat vs republican. Prior to that he publicly launched against the actions of GWB and everybody but a partisan hack can see he is trying to do exactly what Bush did. Now he can't get a coalition to support him (where as GWB did). I think this is in part due to his double talk and back stabbing. England knows if given the chance, he will blame them then so they are more than happy to sit out. Nations heard the private sidebars with Putin a few years back and realize that nothing is beneath him. He showed the Russians his lack of spine and now Putin holds the cards and he knows Obama is a bluffer. Along the same mold, if he calls congress into session odds are he doesn't get the support FROM THE DEMOCRATS. Many GOPers will cross party line and support a military actions but many liberals won't. He will come off looking even weaker because he has so often blamed the GOP as being obstructionists, yet it will be the liberals that stifle this plan
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Doc has described the situation. I don't believe there is significant support in Congress for this action.
And I will go further and say that attacking a foreign country with no goal 1) taking that country over and 2) an understood unwillingness to deploy ground troops in the foreign country you are attacking is worthless.
Joystick Warfare take little conviction or character. That is not to say I would want to put US troops in harms' way. It just means when you can shoot off a missile or have a contractor fly a drone you really don't have to weigh the true cost of war.
The more a nation tries to not bloody its own nose and still be impose its militarily, it is going to be viewed as weak.
The Powell Doctrine from Gulf War I is the best approach in terms of how to lead an assault.
But to win a war and secure a country, you need troops on the ground. Troops needs tanks and then those troops need to put in power a strong local government that supports us.
None of that can be achieved with a cruise missile or a drone.
Punishing countries? What is that about? I am not defending Syria butwe don't punish countries for hurting their citizens unless we want to take care of those people.
We don't punish. We can strike first when it is in our nation's best interests. But firing off misiles to punish someone else is crazy.
There is nothing wrong for fighting for the nation's economic interests. Just be honest about it.
And let's work to extricate ourselves from the Middle East.
1) Alternative fuel source--find it and make it work.
2) Help Israel relocate to Miami and then encourage them to annex Cuba as the new Promised Land.
3) Leave the desert to Allah. Leave them the Hell alone.
4) Dont' be so quick to point the finger at chemical weapons. It might be the best solution to cleaning up the Middle East.
Indignation over gassing of civilians is a bit disingenuous considering we likely armed Saddam Hussein in the 80's with gas for use during the Iran/Iraq War, but we grew a conscience when he gassed the Kurds. Pluming the jungles with Agent Orange in Vietnam that has filled Vietnam with birth defects. Droneking ordered and executed the death of an American citizen by drone strike but has a conscience about Syria? Really?
It's politics and politics only..
Is there anyone in Syria who would pi$$ on us if our guts were on fire? Either side? Would it change if we entered in? No.
Cool as a rule, but sometimes bad is bad.
My point exactly. Neither side is a friend of the US which is what makes it different than Iraq. Saddam invade Kuwait who is a US ally. The Kuwaitees asked for our help to rid their country. Unfortunately for the US, when we kicked Hussein out of Kuwait we (Bush 1) played nice and let him stay in power so long as they allowed us to inspect. He agreed but then refused with led to Iraq 2 by GWB. In Syria, nobody wants us there, we have no ally and there is no threat to US security. All we have is a line that our dumb ass president drew in the sand.Originally Posted by badrose
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
There never was any point to this, any more than there was any point to Bush I in Somalia (in the interests of making it clear this isn't party politics for me). Both are loosely based in human rights issues, but Somalia at least was about starvation and just delivering aid as opposed to interjecting ourselves in a war between two factions who are BOTH our enemy. Yes the chemical strikes have killed civilians, but as I and Doc have both asked, is someone dying by explosion or bullet morally superior to dying by chemical gas?
If we didn't care enough about the dying to intervene when it was just just death by bullet and bomb we have no basis to intervene now that only the method of killing innocent civilians has changed. Maybe slightly as chemical weapons do often cause more collateral death of innocents, but not much. 100s were dying before, this killed 100s, not a lot of difference.
This was about King Obama the First thinking he could decree his moral indignation and everyone would just get in line. It works in the US where the media will do just that, never question him on his pronouncements no matter how absurd, it never occurred to him that outside the US no one cares about him or his opinions and consider him spineless and irrelevant. When you go around naked and no one dares point out you wear no clothes you tend to pontificate and dictate when you shouldn't.
Assad handed Obama his ass on a plate politically in this, and he deserved it. He drew a line in the sand he couldn't ever enforce in a battle that has no real US interests at stake, and was thus a pointless statement. Assad ignored it and b/c there really are no pressing US interests (or Euro interests either - thus their unwillingness to go along) there's no point in getting involved other than to back up his stupid statement.
It's classic Obama. Say whatever you want, expect the media to cover your ass, and blame someone else when it blows up in your face.
This man has the damaging ideology of Johnson and the blame America first weak foreign policy of Carter. It's better than Johnson's foreign policy of slaughtering Americans over abstract concepts, but it's still pathetic.
In foreign policy I believe in "Real Politik", and we see in this situation why it's the way to go. there are no US interests, economic, political, military, stay out of it. Only get involved when it is important to our interests, otherwise stop trying to be the world's policeman or its babysitter.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ke-resolution/
Wise man here
The vote was nevertheless close. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who voted against the measure, said he remains "unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work."
"The only thing that will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons in the future is for the Syrian people to remove him from power," he said.
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
IMO, the only reasons Obama wants action in Syria is to save face over his "red line" comments and to distract Americans from focusing on the economy and healthcare.
I found this appropriate (click on image for video--I haven't figured out how to embed from photobucket).
Last edited by Doc; 09-08-2013 at 08:26 PM.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
All know I am a conservative as are my friends. I do not have one person I know who is for an air strike of any kind
That hurts just watching
I found this appropriate (click on image for video--I haven't figured out how to embed from photobucket).
I don't know a single person either and I have friends that run the gambit of ideologies. No one sees the point or where it benefits the US or even the people there in a way significant enough to justify it. I doubt anyone thinks it would stop the violence or the killing or even the use of chemical weapons, but certainly it would do nothing to curtail the death rate. If it doesn't help us and wont' help the people living in that country why the hell are we even talking about this? I don't know a person who thinks it makes a lick of sense.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
In my mind I originally thought since King numb nuts made the "line in the sand" comment and the gas was used he should have taken a page out of Ronald R's playbook and and ran a couple of missiles up Assad's ka-zoo and been done with it. The window has now closed for a "statement attack" plus everyone in the world knows we aint look'n for another fight in middle east so now we have to sit back and watch the slaughter of innocent women/children/people. In the mean time no matter what statement is made King numb nuts will either blame congress or take credit depending on how the media manipulates the facts.
"I have touched all the so-called capitals of basketball, but when it gets down to the short stroke, the only true capital of basketball is in Lexington." AL McGuire
идиот-noun
idiot идиот, дурак, кретин, оболтус
moron идиот, придурок, дебил, слабоумный
jerk рывок, толчок, идиот, подонок, тупица, резкое движение
wanker идиот
clot сгусток, тромб, комок, свернувшаяся кровь, болван, идиот
mooncalf идиот, дурачок
ament идиот, сережка
nit гнида, идиот, кретин, дрянь, лесной орех
nutcase псих, идиот
get потомство, приплод, идиот, дурак
driveller слюнтяй, слюнявый ребенок, глупый болтун, дурак, идиот
driveler слюнявый ребенок, слюнтяй, глупый болтун, дурак, идиот
lardhead тупица, болван, балда, идиот, кретин, балбес
"I have touched all the so-called capitals of basketball, but when it gets down to the short stroke, the only true capital of basketball is in Lexington." AL McGuire
кретин=cretin lol
I think "nit" fits not even "nit wit" but just "nit"
"I have touched all the so-called capitals of basketball, but when it gets down to the short stroke, the only true capital of basketball is in Lexington." AL McGuire
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks