Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Warmonger Obama

Warmonger Obama (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2013, 08:57 AM
 
Dennis Kucinich:
"So what, we’re about to become al-Qaeda’s air force now?"
Pretty much.

-t
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2013, 09:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@ebuddy

My spilled milk analogy was an attempt to understand what lesson we're supposed to learn from our meddling causing the problems in Syria. What is the lesson?
IMO, the overarching lesson from all our actions is if you're going to consider military action; you're either all-in or all-out. When you dip your feet in the water just enough to tip the balance, you're going to have imbalance.

As for the impact of Saddam's shenannigans on our economy, he could have sucked a trillion dollars out of it and we'd still be where we are now. We're still plenty good to them, so how much more would Saddam had to have pulled before we actually weren't up to the task? Five times? Ten times? I'm not sure his master plan could have accomplished that.
It's not about "sucking a trillion dollars out of the economy". It's about starting a movement that would turn the US dollar on its head. We're talking bread lines and $15.00 for a can of green beans; a monetary collapse. The US can run abnormally high deficits when it knows we can print something out of thin air that has real-world monetary value in return for a global commodity -- in this case the most important commodity on the planet. When you pull this factor like a rug out from under an elderly woman, you put her on her back. While others call it US monetary hegemony, we did not force this upon the globe, the globe adopted it as the standard reserve currency because of its stability. (comparable stability to be clear) IMO, acts that swiftly jeopardize this balance are overtly hostile and there's a great possibility we wouldn't be where we are today had their been even moderate success. The rub was the EU wasn't necessarily going to jump to our defense because the reserve currency was going to the Euro. That little dictator actually had the US over a barrel (no pun) and he knew it. There were 13 UN Resolutions drafted against Saddam Hussein over the span of 12 years for human rights atrocities, non-compliance with weapons inspectors, among other things with the final Resolution calling for "serious consequences" for non-compliance. Regime change was Clinton doctrine, supported by Gore, and when Bush came to shove in 2003 and we went to war with Iraq -- we had both sides of the aisle overwhelmingly in favor of the action, the American public, and much of the International community. Syria? Really, none of the above.

I also want to say, I've never heard this economic rationale before, and I'm glad I haven't. I supported the war and still find that a horrible and callous rationale. Neo-imperialism is an easier sell for me.
Really? I almost wish that had been explained a little more clearly to the American public. Again, we didn't force this system upon the globe. The globe adopted it in need of a standard; the most stable standard available. Running a historically stable currency is not cause for bringing that system to its knees. I supported that war for a host of reasons as well and this was, but one of them.

Jesus. We're capitalists. When the market doesn't go our way we adapt, we don't put a cruise missle up its ass.
All these factors go into "life as we know it". Human kind is comprised of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and there is no perfectly elegant system, void of collateral damage. While I feel it the best human system available; that includes free-market capitalism. In order for capitalism to work, there has to be a law of discipline and stewardship. The more your country has to do for you, the more money it will require to do it. We've continued down a long road of voting ourselves an increasing share of the largesse to the point where revenue no longer meets outlays. By a lot. We're ignoring the laws of discipline and stewardship. You can print (mask the problem), borrow (delay the problem), leverage, or steal away in taxes to meet that imbalance. When your tax rates and unsavory regulatory environments approach thievery, you alienate that base of revenue. When you print more to enable greater spending, you create a monetary imbalance that is more susceptible to geopolitical folly and corporate/money interests. When you leverage as the globe's reserve currency, you're playing a risky game that leaves you vulnerable to collapses mentioned above. When you borrow, you're borrowing from folks you have a tepid relationship with -- at best. The only longterm solution is to stabilize the income/outgo ratio in the US, making us less dependent upon a fickle geopolitical environment. The problem is, you have to somehow attain office without promising a greater share of the largesse and even a mere cut in a rate of increase is so politically untenable today that you have to threaten a complete shutdown of the government to even discuss the matter. Who gets blamed for crashing the crack party? The adults of course. The attackers of women. The mean-spirited ones. The obstructionists and naysayers.

There's a way out of this mess and many more, but we're simply not going to take it at the risk of our short term benefits. We simply refuse to grow up.
ebuddy
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2013, 10:00 AM
 
My take: "The Most Powerful Nation on Earth" says "Don't use chemical weapons or there will be consequences." So Assad uses chemical weapons. There NEED to be consequences that hurt the regime, or whatever credibility the US has in terms of international influence goes straight down the tubes.

I do NOT think that this is a good reason to "go to war," but doing something that hurts Assad's regime in a credible way, and hopefully interferes with his ability to use chemicals again, is definitely called for.

Another issue is that, if Assad gets more desperate, he might essentially hand out a bunch of chemical weapons to lower-level field commanders. We have learned that, in that sort of situation, such commanders tend to be less reliable and more likely to "lose" whatever weapons they have (shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles come to mind in this scenario). So making such weapons off limits by showing Assad that he'll really regret using them even once is a good way to help convince him to lock them away from even his most trusted generals...

I'll add an obligatory "where's the outrage?" about Assad using chemical weapons on his civilian population. Is everyone OK with that? What would we all suggest be done to keep this from happening again? I'll remind folks that sending nicely worded "please don't do that" letters has a very poor success rate in this sort of situation...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2013, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
My take: "The Most Powerful Nation on Earth" says "Don't use chemical weapons or there will be consequences." So Assad uses chemical weapons. There NEED to be consequences that hurt the regime, or whatever credibility the US has in terms of international influence goes straight down the tubes.
Good points, all!

I share your concern for US credibility.

I do NOT think that this is a good reason to "go to war," but doing something that hurts Assad's regime in a credible way, and hopefully interferes with his ability to use chemicals again, is definitely called for.
I'm inclined to agree here as no one wants chemical weapons in rogue hands, but I think the challenge with Syria is to not be dragged into a war.

Another issue is that, if Assad gets more desperate, he might essentially hand out a bunch of chemical weapons to lower-level field commanders. We have learned that, in that sort of situation, such commanders tend to be less reliable and more likely to "lose" whatever weapons they have (shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles come to mind in this scenario). So making such weapons off limits by showing Assad that he'll really regret using them even once is a good way to help convince him to lock them away from even his most trusted generals...
I think we need to know more about the status of these things. For example, I remember a report from December of last year indicating that in fact Assad had "weaponized" their Sarin gas. That is to say, they loaded them onto warheads. Once you've gone this far with them, you have to use them or they lose potency. I don't remember if it was 60 or 90 days, but vaguely recall it being just that short (correct me if I'm wrong) and there's a lot else we don't know about the status of their stockpiles. In other words, what if the bee has already lost its stinger? And who's to say the next, most organized faction who steps into control of this agent won't be more lethal with it?

I'll add an obligatory "where's the outrage?" about Assad using chemical weapons on his civilian population. Is everyone OK with that? What would we all suggest be done to keep this from happening again? I'll remind folks that sending nicely worded "please don't do that" letters has a very poor success rate in this sort of situation...
I'm outraged to be sure. It's gotten to absolutely horrific levels of insane. The problem is, this is what happens when sanity does not prevail. I do not see how our actions facilitate sanity for the Region. IMO, it was not in Assad's best interest to deploy chemical weapons. He's desperate. He's desperate because of a coup. A coup that was thrust not by moderate secularists. To be clear, I'm not blaming anyone other than Assad for Assad's actions, but this is simply the flow of events. In environments like this as you know, the most organized factions assume control. The most organized factions in Syria are not the peaceful, moderate secularists. It is Al Qaeda affiliates and Muslim Brotherhood with neither offering any semblance of a future of sanity. Assad is placed in a desperate situation, deploys desperate measures, US steps in to knock 'em back a peg, but not far enough to make the rebels happy with us, and a new, potentially more angry and deadly faction steps in to control. Now what? My concern, world war or at the least -- greatly increased global conflict. Make no mistake, the rebels are going to hate us regardless of action or inaction, but with action we will have further alienated both Russia and China, acted without the support of the international community, without Congressional approval, and in spite of the majority of the American people.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2013, 01:49 PM
 
This whole debate seems a little bizarro role-reversed Iraq to me. With Iraq it was the so-called Neocon warhawks beating the drums for war, now I would imagine it would be firm Obama supporters?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2013, 03:03 PM
 
President Obama has just announced that although he doesn't feel he needs it, it's "best for the country" if he seeks Congressional approval before launching a military strike. Which I suspect is unlikely to happen. But even if it does he will have gained political cover. It would appear that we are one step closer to my prediction coming to pass.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 31, 2013 at 03:18 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2013, 04:23 PM
 
Saw that it was wildly unpopular, now wants to kick the can down the road. Figures.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2013, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Saw that it was wildly unpopular, now wants to kick the can down the road. Figures.
That could very well be, but I will predict that few conservatives will ever buy into the notion that he simply changed his mind. If (big if) he did change his mind, this is a far better quality in a president than to this day maintaining that the Iraq war was a good idea as Bush and Cheney do.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2013, 05:16 PM
 
There's a first time for anything, but usually he goes with popular opinion and calls it a day, like almost all the other rats politicians.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2013, 04:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
There's a first time for anything, but usually he goes with popular opinion and calls it a day, like almost all the other rats politicians.

Well, his opposition to the Iraq war as a senator was a notable exception.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2013, 07:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This whole debate seems a little bizarro role-reversed Iraq to me. With Iraq it was the so-called Neocon warhawks beating the drums for war, now I would imagine it would be firm Obama supporters?
Naw... Iraq was entirely bipartisan. Either we'd have to severely loosen the definition of Neocon, or this is a mistaken analysis of recent history.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2013, 07:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Saw that it was wildly unpopular, now wants to kick the can down the road. Figures.
Bingo! Tries to bluff making a silly red-line statement and a year after the veiled threat and three violations of the red-line decides we're going to follow through. He outlines how critical it is. He lets Kerry go before the American people to discuss how urgent action is necessary to stop the unspeakable horrors. And then Obama goes into the rose garden to say we'll wait until Congress is done enjoying their recess and then call for a vote which, ultimately could be a month from now. You want Congressional approval for urgent action, call them back into session.

Abject incompetence from US leadership results in the adventurism of Assad and others in the Middle East. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear this situation is going to get much worse before it gets better. Now. We've botched this one from beginning to end.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2013, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Naw... Iraq was entirely bipartisan. Either we'd have to severely loosen the definition of Neocon, or this is a mistaken analysis of recent history.

I meant among the people, who, according to this, mostly wanted more diplomacy and UN approval:

Opposition to the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're right though, apparently the senate vote was 77-23 for authorization of military force against Iraq, Joint Resolution 114.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2013, 10:17 PM
 
The key component to Iraq's bipartisan approval was Bush selling it as a mission to contain Saddm's WMD.

That wasn't really what it was for, as evidenced by the minimal resources actually expended containing them. If he had been more up front, I'm not so sure he would have gotten the same support.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2013, 10:43 PM
 
P.S. @ebuddy

Been busy. Will still respond to your post to me.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2013, 10:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The key component to Iraq's bipartisan approval was Bush selling it as a mission to contain Saddm's WMD.

That wasn't really what it was for, as evidenced by the minimal resources actually expended containing them. If he had been more up front, I'm not so sure he would have gotten the same support.

That and the Al Queda connection? I honestly don't remember if Bush ever said point blank that there was a connection between Saddam and Al Queda, but a lot of people certainly thought that.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2013, 11:03 PM
 
It was likely due to this quote from Bush:

"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 12:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I hope I'm wrong, but I fear this situation is going to get much worse before it gets better. Now. We've botched this one from beginning to end.
Can you imagine how bad it would have been if Obama would have been in charge around 9/11 ?

He would have, no doubt, f*cked it up even more than Bush.

-t
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 01:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Can you imagine how bad it would have been if Obama would have been in charge around 9/11 ?

He would have, no doubt, f*cked it up even more than Bush.

-t
His propensity to hinge every solitary move he makes on the breezes of politics is uncanny. It would've been an unmitigated disaster. He does a worse Bush than Bush ever dreamed.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 02:22 AM
 
Barack "Greg Stillson" Obama could be "fulfilling his destiny"



Isaiah 17
1 An oracle concerning Damascus. Behold, Damascus will cease to be a city, and will become a heap of ruins.
2 Her cities will be deserted for ever; they will be for flocks, which will lie down, and none will make them afraid.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 02:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
His propensity to hinge every solitary move he makes on the breezes of politics is uncanny. It would've been an unmitigated disaster. He does a worse Bush than Bush ever dreamed.

I'm assuming you are referring to being against seeking congressional approval for getting involved in Syria? How is this a bad thing? Wouldn't you be the first to complain if he didn't seek congressional approval and things went badly?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 08:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm assuming you are referring to being against seeking congressional approval for getting involved in Syria? How is this a bad thing? Wouldn't you be the first to complain if he didn't seek congressional approval and things went badly?
He was busily making the case that the level of urgency required immediate action. He put Kerry before the country explaining exactly how urgent it was and had been defending his right to act without Congressional approval. Okay, you feel congressional approval would be best and I'm inclined to agree to ensure all voices are heard on the matter, but you call them back from recess immediately because the aforementioned urgency seemed to call for it. Not claim you'll wait 9 days until they're back and then begin the arduous process of seeking their approval. This messaging had a number of nations and support on standby and were ready to go within 48 hours. Obama leaves the rose garden after the announcement and goes golfing. This, while Assad is afforded the opportunity to spirit away any remaining evidence and/or mount another attack.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 11:28 AM
 
My Dinner with Assad. Not a good pic for 2016.

¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
He was busily making the case that the level of urgency required immediate action. He put Kerry before the country explaining exactly how urgent it was and had been defending his right to act without Congressional approval. Okay, you feel congressional approval would be best and I'm inclined to agree to ensure all voices are heard on the matter, but you call them back from recess immediately because the aforementioned urgency seemed to call for it. Not claim you'll wait 9 days until they're back and then begin the arduous process of seeking their approval. This messaging had a number of nations and support on standby and were ready to go within 48 hours. Obama leaves the rose garden after the announcement and goes golfing. This, while Assad is afforded the opportunity to spirit away any remaining evidence and/or mount another attack.

I'm not trying to defend Obama, but in the interest of fairness, you have no idea how this information unfolded, how Obama's thought process progressed, and the precise sequence in which all of this took place. This could be Obama playing politics, or it could be him changing his mind based on new thought process or new information. There could very well be info that has not been made public.

If you are going to blast me in the other thread about generalizations, is not this making assumptions influenced by your personal bias the same sort of thing? Like I said, I'd rather a president waffle if that means getting something right rather than making a decision and sticking to it until the bitter end, even as new information trickles in.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm not trying to defend Obama, but in the interest of fairness, you have no idea how this information unfolded, how Obama's thought process progressed, and the precise sequence in which all of this took place. This could be Obama playing politics, or it could be him changing his mind based on new thought process or new information. There could very well be info that has not been made public.

If you are going to blast me in the other thread about generalizations, is not this making assumptions influenced by your personal bias the same sort of thing? Like I said, I'd rather a president waffle if that means getting something right rather than making a decision and sticking to it until the bitter end, even as new information trickles in.

All of this being said ebuddy, if Obama does go to war and messes this up, I'll be right there with you in showing him no mercy. The process leading up to this I think we should take a wait-and-see approach, even though I'm far more inclined to want to sit this war out at this point.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Can you imagine how bad it would have been if Obama would have been in charge around 9/11 ?

He would have, no doubt, f*cked it up even more than Bush.
Harry Turtledove alternative history? I'll have a go.

Containment of the Taliban / Al-Qaida in Afghanistan with a UN sanctioned war. No attacking of Iraq, Saddam Hussein still being a twat.

Arab Spring touches not just North Africa but Iraq and Iran and we get still get the cluster**** that is the Middle East.

This is a non-solvable situation. It wasn't solved (and was probably aggravated by the Brits and Frogs after WW1) before and it won't be in my lifetime.
Before we begin, you must all be warned. Nothing here ... is vegetarian.
Hannibal Lecter.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 05:03 PM
 
I find this nascent US-France-Israel-Saudi Arabia chumminess odd.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 07:04 PM
 
Forget all the political intrigue and just follow the money, that makes everything crystal clear.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Forget all the political intrigue and just follow the money, that makes everything crystal clear.
The enemy of my economic competition is my friend. - US Government
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 09:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Forget all the political intrigue and just follow the money, that makes everything crystal clear.
This!

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 06:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm not trying to defend Obama, but in the interest of fairness, you have no idea how this information unfolded, how Obama's thought process progressed, and the precise sequence in which all of this took place. This could be Obama playing politics, or it could be him changing his mind based on new thought process or new information. There could very well be info that has not been made public.

If you are going to blast me in the other thread about generalizations, is not this making assumptions influenced by your personal bias the same sort of thing? Like I said, I'd rather a president waffle if that means getting something right rather than making a decision and sticking to it until the bitter end, even as new information trickles in.
Good question as there is likely a lot of information we do not have. The problems is -- how the information unfolded or how Obama's thought process developed, and the precise sequence of events have no bearing on what I said. Again, the Obama Administration made the case that urgent action was necessary. Kerry went before the public with a great deal of urgency to act. My complaint was the alleged, urgent need to act, followed by a decision really not to act for at least 9 days + the length of time needed to procure Congressional approval. He makes the announcement and then goes golfing sending a host of conflicting messages about the aforementioned urgency and marginalizes the horrors they had been decrying all week.

Why not call Congress back into session immediately? Wouldn't that seem a more appropriate degree of urgency, based on the statements of the Administration and wouldn't that produce a slightly timelier response to the atrocities in Syria? This seemed less a "response to events as they unfold" and more an Administration making up foreign policy as the political winds blow and not even doing that very effectively.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 11:47 AM
 
My head is spinning. So, over the weekend Obama announces he wants Congressional approval (Great way to back down without looking too awful bad – he already ignored the first chemical attack after all), gets called out by assholes like Peter King for not abusing executive power, has Kerry reaffirm his ability to act without congressional authority undermining his ploy for congressional approval, and McCain wants us to take out Assad. Unreal.

Given how controversial the Syrian war is (as in who the eff should we support), I think congressional approval is highly warranted here, political maneuvering notwithstanding.

As for McCain, I'm left not sure if he's just this much of a warmonger or this is politicking. The man sang about bombing Iran, but is he really ignorant to the question mark that is the rebel forces? I assume its politicking because I heard him on the radio this morning saying he couldn't vote for approving strikes if there wasn't something about taking out Assad – this is a great move if you don't want to grant approval but don't want to be seen as a Dove, either.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 12:04 PM
 
John Boehner has just announced that he would support the Syria strike.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 12:27 PM
 
Holy shit, did he just call someone's bluff?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 12:49 PM
 
More proof that Pres. Obama is more of a moderate than a liberal.

Maybe Pres. Obama can do a Reagan and secretly sell weapons to Iran illegally and fund the contras rebels in Nicaragua Syria. That way, you don't even need congressional approval. Then again, Dictator Reagan is a constitution hating, warmongering traitor who tripled the national debt.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
More proof that Pres. Obama is more of a moderate than a liberal.

Maybe Pres. Obama can do a Reagan and secretly sell weapons to Iran illegally and fund the contras rebels in Nicaragua Syria.
0-derail in two lines flat!

Hint: This thread ain't about Reagan.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
0-derail in two lines flat!

Hint: This thread ain't about Reagan.
But it's about Bush, Iraq, Kerry, and 2016 election?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
But it's about Bush, Iraq, Kerry, and 2016 election?
You're missing a "the" in front of 2016.

And your posts are incoherent.

P.S. You're welcome.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 04:54 PM
 
I wish blocking someone would disallow them from posting in one's thread.

Slowcheckit sucks.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 01:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're missing a "the" in front of 2016.

And your posts are incoherent.

P.S. You're welcome.
My posts are a lot more coherent than your long run-on sentences.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 01:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I wish blocking someone would disallow them from posting in one's thread.

Slowcheckit sucks.

-t
Turdle sucks.

You want to be a dictator like Dictator Ronald Reagan?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 01:57 AM
 
Dictator Ronald Reagan the Traitor invaded Grenada in 1983 and bombed Libya in 1986 without congressional approval.

At least Pres. Obama is asking for congressional approval.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 07:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Dictator Ronald Reagan the Traitor invaded Grenada in 1983
Yes, with overwhelming bipartisan Congressional support. The action was over within a matter of a couple of weeks, produced a clear US victory, restored a Constitutional Government, and is now celebrated annually by the people of Grenada as a national Day of Thanks. Tell me, do you have a view on action today in Syria -- in the year 2013? Do you see a clear goal and metric of success in Syria?

Just curious. This seems a bizarre fixation with 30 years ago, having skipped ever-so-daintily past any action by say... a Democratic President committing US military action without Congressional approval.

... and bombed Libya in 1986 without congressional approval.
I see what you're missing here; Libya twice, directly attacked the US. Libya attacked a discotheque killing two US soldiers and our action had the support of 79 countries as well as overwhelming Congressional support. Has Obama even gotten 4 countries to support action in Syria or even the majority of his own party in the US? Obama was contemplating action against a foe who has not done anything to us, much like in Libya. Remember, Obama has already done a Reagan. If you find Reagan's actions so detestable, why are you not seemingly the least bit concerned for what's going on today? Because there's a (D) after his name?!?
  • Ironically, an aide to Sen. Richard Lugar, R-IN, clarified one difference between Libya ’86 and Libya ’11: Reagan notified Congressional leaders of his intentions and said if they had any objection, he would call off the raid. Obama waited until Congress went on recess to launch a war (sound familiar?!? ) after consulting with the Arab League, the United Nations, and NATO.
  • In 1981, Qaddafi attempted to evict the U.S. military from a vast expanse of ocean waters he claimed in the name of Libya. That August, Ronald Reagan ordered the military to fly over the Gulf of Sidra as usual. If Libyan planes opened fire, he authorized American flyers to follow them “all the way into their hangar.” Two Libyan jets did just that and were quickly shot down. This was a purely defensive move, retaliation for a direct act of violence against the U.S. military.
Again, these were both responses to direct aggression against the US, unlike Syria. He consulted Congress and no one objected. He acted with a clear goal and Qaddafi was essentially silenced for 30 years even having abandoned his WMDs after action in Iraq. What did we do? Bombed Libya for UK oil.

Are you so bothered by Obama's actions that you'd rather discuss 30 years ago?

At least Pres. Obama is asking for congressional approval.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Dictator Ronald Reagan the Traitor invaded Grenada in 1983 and bombed Libya in 1986 without congressional approval.

At least Pres. Obama is asking for congressional approval.
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Turdle sucks.

You want to be a dictator like Dictator Ronald Reagan?
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
My posts are a lot more coherent than your long run-on sentences.
Did you hit your head? You're making less sense than before.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 10:27 AM
 
English isn't hyteckit's first language. That doesn't make him any less of an idiot, but it does explain the incoherency of his posts (sometimes).

I'm more than a little concerned that Putin's made it clear Russia is going to retaliate against the US if we attack Syria.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 10:35 AM
 
President Obama WILL BOMB THEM ANYWAY. Its a smokescreen. No wonder why nobody wants to play with the USA anymore. I wonder what excuse they will lie about this time? Another YouTube video? Do we KNOW that Assad wasn't set up by those wonderful rebels? Why is everything such a BIG RUSH when they don't want us to pay that close attention to their narrative? Why do all of this admin's Sec.o State's seem have those emotional outbursts? Do they think we won't pursue lines of questions into their reasoning/incompetence if they yell?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 11:28 AM
 
I LOVE CaPiTaL lEtTeRs.
Before we begin, you must all be warned. Nothing here ... is vegetarian.
Hannibal Lecter.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 12:42 PM
 
If Obama had half a brain and a quarter of a spine, he would have attacked in direct response to the use of WMDs in Syria without waiting for the world to circle-jerk around a picture of him. I think Obama underestimated just how far he's fallen domestically and internationally. Sometimes its better to ask forgiveness then permission, but by trying play politics here he's screwed his own game-plan and those (including myself) in favor of obliterating Syrian WMD stockpiles, now believe the juice is not worth the squeeze.

Soon as they were confirmed they should have been obliterated, but instead now too many other factors have made that position untenable.

1300 innocent people were killed here guys.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If Obama had half a brain and a quarter of a spine, he would have attacked in direct response to the use of WMDs in Syria without waiting for the world to circle-jerk around a picture of him. I think Obama underestimated just how far he's fallen domestically and internationally. Sometimes its better to ask forgiveness then permission, but by trying play politics here he's screwed his own game-plan and those (including myself) in favor of obliterating Syrian WMD stockpiles, now believe the juice is not worth the squeeze.

Soon as they were confirmed they should have been obliterated, but instead now too many other factors have made that position untenable.

1300 innocent people were killed here guys.


This is B.S.

I'm really surprised that congress seems onboard with this. If Obama didn't seek congressional approval, it was likely that congress would moan and groan about their not being involved. They would have been against the war just because they'd be against Obama, they'd rally their right wing base around Obama bypassing them.

Obama was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Snow-i, from the Wikipedia page on the Darfur genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur):

In January 2010, The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters published an article in a special issue of The Lancet. The article, entitled Patterns of mortality rates in Darfur Conflict,[11] estimated, with 95% confidence, that the excess number of deaths is between 178,258 and 461,520 (the mean being 298,271), with 80% of these due to diseases.[166] 51 International peacekeepers have been killed in Darfur
The death toll numbers are irrelevant, the US government doesn't care about saving lives, it cares about geopolitical interests.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This is B.S.

I'm really surprised that congress seems onboard with this. If Obama didn't seek congressional approval, it was likely that congress would moan and groan about their not being involved. They would have been against the war just because they'd be against Obama, they'd rally their right wing base around Obama bypassing them.

Obama was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
I disagree. I think a lot of Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) feel it is the US' responsibility to check tyranny and genocide in Syria... because we're often the only ones who will. But the problem is they have zero confidence that this Administration is competent enough to execute military action or that it is properly weighing all the implications.

You're saying Obama was damned if he did and damned if he didn't as if our policy for Assad/Syria began the other day with whether or not to seek Congressional approval for an attack. I think Obama has to own the pickle he's in as much as you might be compelled to defend him.

Snow-i, from the Wikipedia page on the Darfur genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur):
The death toll numbers are irrelevant, the US government doesn't care about saving lives, it cares about geopolitical interests.
There generally has to be both and as heartless as the US government may appear with such a cold calculation; do you have even a small list of countries with a greater philanthropic output? To be clear, this isn't an international pissing contest, it's a matter of doing what you can. Your humanitarian goals should be attainable and sustainable on a longterm basis. Darfur? Otherwise you're mired in too much global atrocity to maintain the level of prosperity required at home to undertake small problems, let alone big ones like Darfur. One of the primary reasons I'm still opposed to action in Syria in spite of the horrific death tolls; there's absolutely nothing to tell me that our solution is any better than the current problem. Just nothing.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:20 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2