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 4)
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I mean, you don't see how bad this makes Obama look on the world stage? This is Putin's show now. Obama's just along for the ride. he failed with his foreign policy here, and I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.
Obama failed to get a war. Is this supposed to bother me? For those of us who considered chemical weapons a bridge too far but also held reservations about either intervening or tipping the balance of power in the conflict, what is the downside?



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Does it even matter? Of course Putin is going to jump on a chance to undermine our influence and make us look like idiots while protecting their interests. They've already done a damn good job of it so far.
Undermine our influence? By preventing limited airstrikes? This is quickly turning into manufacturing a loss where we're getting a win.


Syria is going to lose the ability to wantonly subject its people to chemical weapons and we won't have to spend a single $ on missiles. How is this not a win for everyone involved? Because Russia gets the credit?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Obama failed to get a war. Is this supposed to bother me? For those of us who considered chemical weapons a bridge too far but also held reservations about either intervening or tipping the balance of power in the conflict, what is the downside?
No, Dakar. Obama failed with his foreign policy which was going to lead to a war, had Russia not stepped in to make it right. It should bother you that we needed Putin of all people save us from that. I don't trust Putin at all and neither should the US government.


Undermine our influence? By preventing limited airstrikes? This is quickly turning into manufacturing a loss where we're getting a win.
No, by making our president and his administration look foolish and incompetent in front of all of our allies. Make no mistake, Dakar, this whole situation is a loss for the US no matter the outcome. It was lost before Syria used chemical weapons. It would be a loss if we deployed our military and it would have been a loss had we done nothing. It was a loss the minute Obama set a red-line with absolutely no plan whatsoever should that red line be crossed. It was, and Obama could have taken a freaking vacation and we'd still have the same outcome - Russia saving our asses from a no-win situation (which itself is a loss).

Syria is going to lose the ability to wantonly subject its people to chemical weapons and we won't have to spend a single $ on missiles. How is this not a win for everyone involved? Because Russia gets the credit?
A few points here.
1. So Kerry was wrong 2 days ago when he said it was "impossible"? What changed? Or was our secretary of state completely wrong about that?
2. How sure are you Assad will comply? In what timeline? Libya took 5 years and there wasn't even a war going on.
3. Does Assad just get to go free about his business after committing a war crime? A free pass is ok with you? He should hang for it. But its ok, because ....wait why again? What happens if he wins the civil war? You think he wouldn't obtain some more chemical weapons given the leverage they gave him this time around?
4. What about the Syrian people? Not our problem? We're going to let Russia take care of the Syrian people? Really? Or do we just not give a shit? If so, why didn't we say that 2 years ago? Why did we blabber on about a red line if we weren't going to do jack shit about it?


Obama had a chance years ago to bring Russia and China in line with the rest of the world to bring the Syrian conflict to an end by pressuring the only two nations propping up Assad. Obama failed miserably to end this conflict diplomatically or economically, and now sits back as we let a country with one of the worst human rights records in the history of man take the reins after we told the world about a "red-line" that would have "dire-consequences." The red line was crossed, and we didn't do shit. Our best allies wouldn't even back us on this one. This doesn't trouble you at all? You think Putin is the man for this job?


So for future reference. US policy is that If there's a red-line and you cross it, you're going to have to deal with Russia! What a great message to send the rogue-states of the world like Iran and NK (who are friendly with Russia and China?).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Okay, how is it embarrassing for Obama and Kerry?
When you ask questions that means you already see/know the counterpoint.
"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 11, 2013, 03:35 PM
 
It was a bad idea for Obama to make that red line comment, to be sure, I agree with the right on this.

However, it was also a rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question, not some sort of commitment that required a plan. Obama should have simply not answered the rhetorical question. Of course, during campaign season he would have been slammed by that from his opponents, but better to take that hit than paint yourself into a corner.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It was a bad idea for Obama to make that red line comment, to be sure, I agree with the right on this.

However, it was also a rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question, not some sort of commitment that required a plan. Obama should have simply not answered the rhetorical question.
and you could say the same thing about Bush with Iraq. If Putin hadn't yanked Obama's pants down and spanked his ass, he'd be in the same spot Dubya was in over a decade ago.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
No, Dakar. Obama failed with his foreign policy which was going to lead to a war
His foreign policy is an overbroad term. Could you be more specific?

No, I don't trust Putin either. I'm curious how this will be all verified.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
No, by making our president and his administration look foolish and incompetent in front of all of our allies.
Obviously opinion, but I have a feeling this doesn't hold a candle compared to Iraq, internationally.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It was lost before Syria used chemical weapons.
Explain.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
A few points here.
1. So Kerry was wrong 2 days ago when he said it was "impossible"? What changed? Or was our secretary of state completely wrong about that?
2. How sure are you Assad will comply? In what timeline? Libya took 5 years and there wasn't even a war going on.
3. Does Assad just get to go free about his business after committing a war crime? A free pass is ok with you? He should hang for it. But its ok, because ....wait why again? What happens if he wins the civil war? You think he wouldn't obtain some more chemical weapons given the leverage they gave him this time around?
4. What about the Syrian people? Not our problem? We're going to let Russia take care of the Syrian people? Really? Or do we just not give a shit? If so, why didn't we say that 2 years ago? Why did we blabber on about a red line if we weren't going to do jack shit about it?
There's a few relevant questions here, so if I may ask, what would you have us do?


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Obama had a chance years ago to bring Russia and China in line with the rest of the world to bring the Syrian conflict to an end by pressuring the only two nations propping up Assad. Obama failed miserably to end this conflict diplomatically or economically, and now sits back as we let a country with one of the worst human rights records in the history of man take the reins after we told the world about a "red-line" that would have "dire-consequences." The red line was crossed, and we didn't do shit. Our best allies wouldn't even back us on this one. This doesn't trouble you at all? You think Putin is the man for this job?
I think Putin is the best available option that doesn't involve the US blowing up shit. I'm all ears for alternatives.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So for future reference. US policy is that If there's a red-line and you cross it, you're going to have to deal with Russia! What a great message to send the rogue-states of the world like Iran and NK (who are friendly with Russia and China?).
FFS, you're being melodramatic. This is as asinine as Peter King going off on Obama diminishing the power of the executive by going to congress for military approval. One event does not irrevocably set precedent nor determine the outcome of all future events.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
and you could say the same thing about Bush with Iraq. If Putin hadn't yanked Obama's pants down and spanked his ass, he'd be in the same spot Dubya was in over a decade ago.
How so? Did Bush make similar rhetorical red line-esque comments pertaining to Iraq?

If he did, we should all be thankful that Obama doesn't appear to be willing to push onwards unilaterally. This isn't my defense of his original statement, I just mean from our vantage point we should feel thankful that it looks like we might be escaping another war.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
When you ask questions that means you already see/know the counterpoint.
Heh, I'm not sure if I've been complimented – am I getting accused of playing 11th dimensional chess here?

Can I get a handbook on when I'm allowed to ask questions?


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How so? Did Bush make similar rhetorical red line-esque comments pertaining to Iraq?

If he did, we should all be thankful that Obama doesn't appear to be willing to push onwards unilaterally. This isn't my defense of his original statement, I just mean from our vantage point we should feel thankful that it looks like we might be escaping another war.
Bush told Saddam he'd have to completely disarm to avoid the invasion. Obama didn't give Assad an out, but Putin has brought one to the table (which may or may not have been discussed at the G20). What I'm now seeing is a bunch of people who ranged from ambivalent to against the proposed air strikes now giving Obama shit because he wasn't the one to propose this. I'm more than happy to admit this isn't ideal, but really, there's no pleasing you people.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How so? Did Bush make similar rhetorical red line-esque comments pertaining to Iraq?
He blew hot air all the way up to the day he started the "shock and awe" campaign.

If he did, we should all be thankful that Obama doesn't appear to be willing to push onwards unilaterally. This isn't my defense of his original statement, I just mean from our vantage point we should feel thankful that it looks like we might be escaping another war.
Only because a suitably mighty foreign power stepped in this time, otherwise we'd be in yet another crusade to save humanity from itself, by killing everyone within specific geographic locations.
"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 11, 2013, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
He blew hot air all the way up to the day he started the "shock and awe" campaign.



Only because a suitably mighty foreign power stepped in this time, otherwise we'd be in yet another crusade to save humanity from itself, by killing everyone within specific geographic locations.

I think Dakar says it well, I agree with him:

What I'm now seeing is a bunch of people who ranged from ambivalent to against the proposed air strikes now giving Obama smoke because he wasn't the one to propose this. I'm more than happy to admit this isn't ideal, but really, there's no pleasing you people.

To add to this though, let's look at the entire picture...

It was campaign season, Obama regrettably painted himself into a corner with his tough talk, but if he didn't he would have been slammed for evading that question, and he might have been slammed for being a pussy too and not doling out the tough talk.

My point is that maybe there is a lesson here for all of us: maybe we shouldn't reward the tough cowboy talk from our presidents?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 05:16 PM
 
I think Obama's reasoning may have been less nefarious: Riding the high of having successfully carried a clean military operation in Syria he may have thought he had the necessary capital to make a threat about using chemical weapons feel forceful enough to heed. Unfortunately it appears he failed to consider that a desperate man, particularly a dictator, is capable of anything when he wants to remain in power. Also, something something, meddling in the mideast.

Landwar in Asia and all that.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 05:37 PM
 
Of course you're more understanding of his position, because he pays lip service to being on your side of the political divide. It's much easier to be sympathetic with someone who claims to share your views (regardless of whether they actually practice what they preach most of the time). What's more difficult to see is the objective reality of how similar Bush and Obama are, specifically WRT foreign policy, the main difference being external factors at play; Russia's economic interests and Obama being further removed from the reality of what happened on 9/11.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
My point is that maybe there is a lesson here for all of us: maybe we shouldn't reward the tough cowboy talk from our presidents?
Whats that saying? Oh yes. "Speak softly and carry a big stick"
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Whats that saying? Oh yes. "Speak softly and carry a big stick"
Exactly. This would probably be a good philosophy for Americans to take for a while.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Whats that saying? Oh yes. "Speak softly and carry a big stick"
One of the greatest world leaders, ever. Very tough son of a bitch, to boot.

Well, we're off, see you lot in a week or whatever.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 05:00 AM
 
Nevermind, there's `net access here already, and a working US proxy too. Sweet.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 07:36 AM
 
What the forum's left is missing here; Putin laid a condition on the peaceful removal of chemical weapons from Syria. The US must agree to take military action in Syria off the table. Obama has not shown a desire to do this and in his speech urged Congress to vote "yes" on military action, but to wait to have a vote. Unless we wait until Assad uses chemical weapons again or attempts an attack on neighboring regions, all those in-the-know suggest Obama doesn't have the votes he needs to attack Syria.

The "wait and see" option was given to Obama to leverage his foot-in-mouth syndrome with delayed military action. It's as simple as that. We knew who we would've been working with nearly two years ago, but the rebels have been infiltrated by opportunist Al Qaeda affiliates and Muslim Brotherhood and now military action is politically untenable. Again, extraction of WMDs takes years, not months. There's only a handful of possibilities here;
  1. Knowing his ass would be handed to him in Congress, the "Wait and See" option is exploited by Obama until Assad uses chemical weapons again or attempts to attack outside Syria. Then, he'll let this thing go to a vote which will go his way in spite of having botched his timetables for necessary, "urgent" action earlier.
  2. Russia will not follow through on their proposition because the US didn't remove the military option. Obama attacks Syria in the cover of night within the next month, not allowing a Congressional vote. Historically, better to ask forgiveness than permission. When trying to explain our actions, Obama will be at odds with the Secretary of State who will be at odds with the National Security Advisor, who will be at odds with the Press Secretary, whose story will not match _________. And everyone will be left to wonder why the hell he didn't just do this to begin with instead of moistening his index finger for the political winds.
  3. Russia is content enough to let Obama believe they're following through on removal of Syrian WMDs in spite of our unwillingness to take the military option off the table. Obama skirts political damage and Putin extends Assad's reign while the region continues in a hotbed of death and destruction from now to perpetuity. There isn't a single expert who believes removing the chemical weapons from Syria in its current state is anything less than a logistical nightmare. Or maybe not perpetuity, but until Option #1.

I'm guessing Option #2. Either way, a complete non-foreign policy.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Of course you're more understanding of his position, because he pays lip service to being on your side of the political divide. It's much easier to be sympathetic with someone who claims to share your views (regardless of whether they actually practice what they preach most of the time). What's more difficult to see is the objective reality of how similar Bush and Obama are, specifically WRT foreign policy, the main difference being external factors at play; Russia's economic interests and Obama being further removed from the reality of what happened on 9/11.
I'm not sure how seeing Obama has either naive or stupid rather than a liar on this particular subject is being sympathetic, but ok. I also think you're overestimating my "like" for Obama.


the reality of what happened on 9/11
Of course, I have no idea what you're specifically referring to here, either.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 03:58 PM
 
Now Assad is going on Russian Tv decrying the US and spreading his propaganda. He wants to "wait a month" before giving any information his chemical weapons (i.e. hide a bunch of them for later political leveraging).

Victory!
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2013, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Now Assad is going on Russian Tv decrying the US and spreading his propaganda. He wants to "wait a month" before giving any information his chemical weapons (i.e. hide a bunch of them for later political leveraging).

Victory!
...

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
so if I may ask, what would you have us do?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2013, 02:30 PM
 
Do not deal on Putin and Assad's terms.

Set a deadline for all Chemical weapons to be turned over for destruction, demand an international investigation into the use of chemical weapons, and demand that any deemed responsible to face charges in an international court for war crimes.

If these conditions are not met within a relatively short timeline, Issue a capture/kill for Assad and his family as well as blow up their weapons caches. Send a clear message as to what happens when you use chemical weapons and try to get away with it.

Oh yeah and next time don't piss off our closest allies.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2013, 03:56 PM
 
America's Syria policy makes us look like George Zimmerman:

Bill Maher: America's Syria Policy Makes Us Look Like George Zimmerman - YouTube
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2013, 06:41 PM
 
Oh yes, almost forgot.

Do not give Assad time to move the chemical weapons to hospitals and schools which i think is probably what's happening now, during the "month" Assad "needs" to turn over the information on his stockpiles.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2013, 03:48 AM
 
@ smowi : You're full of Obama.

I can tell you this about wars in the middle east : [ul=http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=palestinian+fakes+injury&oq=p alestinian+fakes+in&gs_l=youtube.3.0.33i21.1967.65 04.0.8175.20.15.0.5.5.0.163.1464.11j4.15.0...0.0.. .1ac.1.11.youtube.ceuB9LaYM6M]nothing[/url] is what it seems. You have zero certainity that what you see on the news is true. You can talk about supplies of gas that need to be administered, then I'm afraid you're looking at this too black and white, too.
{Animated sigs are not allowed.}
     
 
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 02:15 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2