• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 459 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jan 27, 2013
1,363
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Sure. But what happened to the "red-line".... Obama's "change in calculus..."?

Why does Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi come out publicly in favor of action?

I don't disagree with your post. But we will get involved because Obama can't be viewed the way he's now viewed in that region.
The red line didn't have to be a big problem, has Assad crossed the line? Show me concrete proof says Obama...but nooo...cart before horse and all that. Creating facts to justify a predetermined outcome...
 
Scott SoCal said:
Obama made a huge mistake by giving an ultimatum. The "red-line" speech assumed that Obama would have his allies and the American people supporting military action and we now know he neither. Big mistake #1.

Now Obama has backed off the eminent attack rhetoric and has shown weakness to people you can't show weakness to (Iran, Hammas, Brotherhood, etc.) Big mistake #2.

He as no choice but to go in with force, IMO, which its now clear he doesn't want to do.
I asked you what you think Obama should do, not backdated info we already know. Why is it that you can never give an honest answer, I've asked?

At any rate the issue is really then why the US can't "show weakness" before Iran, Hammas (presumably in light of Israel and Russia, no?) and the Brotherhood (yet the Syrian rebels are Muslim fanatics who hate the US???, whereas the US is engaged in threatening the Egyptian army in support of the same brotherhood???)!

Thus your conclusions make no sense to me. Can you please think for yourself and not allow Fox News to do your thinking for you, I've asked, time and time again? It seem as if a Cold War and colonial mentality is still the most decisive these days that's for sure, which is ideology and can't provide solutions to today's geopolitical spectre.

And as for the said reasons...
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Sure. But what happened to the "red-line".... Obama's "change in calculus..."?

Why does Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi come out publicly in favor of action?

I don't disagree with your post. But we will get involved because Obama can't be viewed the way he's now viewed in that region.

Watch how twitchy Israel gets. Watch how bold Iran gets.
...well...Israel is most probably going to be twitchy and get twitchier if nothing happens soon ( ...because this is real important to their plans for the region...and having the US carry the heavy water is just perfect... )....as for the Iranians, they are way too smart to get too bold...

...as for the Red Line thingee...political rhetoric?...who knows...in retrospect a really dumb idea..

...as for Reid and Pelosi...really, who cares?...they have been idiots for years....in fact they are such asses they should by all rights be in the GOP caucus...

Cheers
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
I asked you what you think Obama should do, not backdated info we already know. Why is it that you can never give an honest answer, I've asked?

At any rate the issue is really then why the US can't "show weakness" before Iran, Hammas (presumably in light of Israel and Russia, no?) and the Brotherhood (yet the Syrian rebels are Muslim fanatics who hate the US???, whereas the US is engaged in threatening the Egyptian army in support of the same brotherhood???)!

Thus your conclusions make no sense to me. Can you please think for yourself and not allow Fox News to do your thinking for you, Ive asked, time and time again? It seem as if a Cold War and colonial mentality is still the most decisive these days that's for sure, which is ideology and can't provide solutions to today's geopolitical spectre.
I'll type more slowly. I don't think Obama has any choice. He's going to strike because of the corner he's painted himself in.

Not sure why this conclusion doesn't make sense to you.

And just so you know, I could be wrong.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
And just so you know, I could be wrong.
....oh please, say that ain't so...like I've done the math and what you are saying is simply not possible....I mean you have been so absolutely right about everything so far...:D

Cheers
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
blutto said:
....oh please, say that ain't so...like I've done the math and what you are saying is simply not possible....I mean you have so absolutely right about everything so far...:D

Cheers
I know. It's a burden.
 
Scott SoCal said:
I'll type more slowly. I don't think Obama has any choice. He's going to strike because of the corner he's painted himself in.

Not sure why this conclusion doesn't make sense to you.

And just so you know, I could be wrong.
You still haven't answered my question. WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE?

I'm not sure why this doesn't make sense to you.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Sure. But what happened to the "red-line".... Obama's "change in calculus..."?

Why does Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi come out publicly in favor of action?

I don't disagree with your post. But we will get involved because Obama can't be viewed the way he's now viewed in that region.

Watch how twitchy Israel gets. Watch how bold Iran gets.
Interesting, a president who has the ability to change his mind instead of being completely deaf to any intelligence or opinion that differs from what he has determined he will absolutely do no matter what (please tell me you recognize the end of that sentence as a description to the run-up to Iraq).

This isn't a failure, it's just a president reacting to reality. When you are asked continuously about something, you answer. It's what 'merica demands from our "news." If Obama had said nothing, then you Republicans would have hammered him over his reluctance to say anything about it...

Just admit the truth, no matter what he does (even if he adopts Republican ideas), you are going to call it "incompetent" and a "failure," but quit pretending it is anything but political football.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
rhubroma said:
You still haven't answered my question. WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE?

I'm not sure why this doesn't make sense to you.
Scott doesn't want to answer that question because it will put him in the place of having to defend what he believes on the topic. It's much easier to ignore being asked directly, and defer to criticizing and pointing fingers. Republicans are masters at doing that.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Scott doesn't want to answer that question because it will put him in the place of having to defend what he believes on the topic. It's much easier to ignore being asked directly, and defer to criticizing and pointing fingers. Republicans are masters at doing that.
Thanks, though I don't think it will make him show his cards as they say.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
You still haven't answered my question. WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE?

I'm not sure why this doesn't make sense to you.
I think Obama should resign.

But I don't think he will. Yet another mistake.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Scott doesn't want to answer that question because it will put him in the place of having to defend what he believes on the topic. It's much easier to ignore being asked directly, and defer to criticizing and pointing fingers. Republicans are masters at doing that.
And when he does it will be pure whimsey.

I think Obama should resign.

But I don't think he will. Yet another mistake.
See.:rolleyes:
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Scott doesn't want to answer that question because it will put him in the place of having to defend what he believes on the topic. It's much easier to ignore being asked directly, and defer to criticizing and pointing fingers. Republicans are masters at doing that.
It's not a matter of what I'd do. I'd never have thrown down an ultimatum that I now must do something about.

I think it's safe to say if Obama does nothing he will further alienate Israel and further embolden Iran. I know you wish him to do nothing and I don't really want to be involved in a Syrian civil war either. That is the very reason it would have been nice if Obama had not made the "red-line" speech, but he's so goddam arrogant that he says crap off the cuff thinking he can just pick up the phone and get whatever he needs. Foolish is too light of a word.

He has to act. There's no way out. Stupid? Yep.

Assuming Assad ordered the chemical weapon use, if I'm Obama, at this stage. I go after Assad specifically. I don't publicly admit it, but I go after him. When he winds up dead, then I re-evaluate.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,363
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh, lookey who made it back.

Cool. Now what would you do?

I just can't wait to hear your answer:rolleyes:
Tell the "truth" and disentangle from all the b.s. followed by taking a bullet to the head.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
It's not a matter of what I'd do. I'd never have thrown down an ultimatum that I now must do something about.

I think it's safe to say if Obama does nothing he will further alienate Israel and further embolden Iran. I know you wish him to do nothing and I don't really want to be involved in a Syrian civil war either. That is the very reason it would have been nice if Obama had not made the "red-line" speech, but he's so goddam arrogant that he says crap off the cuff thinking he can just pick up the phone and get whatever he needs. Foolish is too light of a word.

He has to act. There's no way out. Stupid? Yep.

Assuming Assad ordered the chemical weapon use, if I'm Obama, at this stage. I go after Assad specifically. I don't publicly admit it, but I go after him. When he winds up dead, then I re-evaluate.
Wait a minute, that sounds a lot like Obama's red line...because his "red line" involved action if Assad used chemical weapons...but you are in the cheap seats and haven't seen allies vow to not act (after vowing to act) because of the unpopular nature of the action...I guess every leader of every country is incompetent too...and you would be the singular leader to take action alone, with little to no public or international support...
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Wait a minute, that sounds a lot like Obama's red line...because his "red line" involved action if Assad used chemical weapons...but you are in the cheap seats and haven't seen allies vow to not act (after vowing to act) because of the unpopular nature of the action...I guess every leader of every country is incompetent too...and you would be the singular leader to take action alone, with little to no public or international support...
because his "red line" involved action if Assad used chemical weapons
Um, his red line speech was a year ago. He telegraphed what he's going to do. Or not going to do.

Depending on what congress says. Or not.

Didn't really have a coalition now did he? Or does he? Or will he? Yeah, maybe best not to commit to an action before you have your **** together. But then this kinda goes with the whole healing the oceans, post racial, post partisan bull**** we've come to know from this guy. Just more of the same. I must say, however, this is not totally his fault. Obama just took to heart some of his press clippings. Probably never should have read all that stuff.

but you are in the cheap seats and haven't seen allies vow to not act (after vowing to act) because of the unpopular nature of the action
Hmmmm, at least Cameron, as bad as he looks, didn't assume what parliament would do. Didn't shoot his mouth off a year ago assigning the UK to a position that he now must back up.

Cheap seats?

I guess every leader of every country is incompetent too...and you would be the singular leader to take action alone, with little to no public or international support
I don't have the best memory as you well know. So tell me, which of our allies made a red line speech?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
The decision of President Barack Obama to seek congressional approval for US military strikes in Syria is constitutionally sound, but strategically appalling. By not making it clear from the outset of the crisis that he would seek the approval of the Senate and House for a military response to the Assad regime’s chemical atrocity, the president’s jarring change of direction now runs the risk of thoroughly undermining whatever remains of allied confidence in his leadership. By not calling on Congress to return to Washington immediately the president conveys a sense of nonchalance that his newly discovered soaring rhetoric cannot disguise. Having taken a risk that is as profound as it is gratuitous, the administration would do well now to focus on that which it has avoided totally to date: creating and implementing an objectives-based strategy that would, among other things, employ sustained military strikes to destroy or significantly degrade the ability of Bashar al-Assad’s regime to commit mass murder in Syria.
What then is to be done? Before he heads off to the G20 summit in Russia next week, President Obama needs to be armed with a Syria strategy based on clear objectives. The mantra-like repetition of the phrase “there is no military solution to the war in Syria” is neither an objective nor a strategy. Indeed, according to the Assad regime, Russia, and Iran, it is not even a fact. President Obama may well wish to give his Russian counterpart one final opportunity to bring decency and statesmanship to bear in the Syrian context: “Vladimir, either you persuade your client to declare and enforce a unilateral ceasefire, call for and cooperate with UN observers, implement Kofi Annan’s six point plan, and send a team to Geneva next month prepared to facilitate real political transition, or I—with the approval of Congress—will ruin his whole day.” Even if Russia were willing to work to such an end, the chances of regime compliance would not be great. Yet an administration still dedicated to the one-sided, wishful proposition that this war cannot end with a military result would do well to run to ground, once and for all, the diplomatic possibilities.
Frederic Hof. Google him.

http://atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/syria-the-congressional-angle
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Um, his red line speech was a year ago. He telegraphed what he's going to do. Or not going to do.
Again, you guys can't tell the truth because that would f*ck-up your whole line of bullsh!t. Here are the quotes:

"We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people," Obama told reporters at the White House. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime -- but also to other players on the ground -- that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized...That would change my calculus; that would change my equation."
"We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that's a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons."
It's just unimaginable that the leader of the United States would suggest that there would be consequences for using weapons of mass destruction on your own people. (to more than just Assad) Unforgivable actually. What a completely unwarranted, idiotic statement...:rolleyes:
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I really want to know what you think is fu*ked up about his toilet paper choice...:rolleyes:
Okay...

Is there anything with the Syria situation that you will criticize Obama for? If your answer is "yes" please tell me what or where, in your view, he's gone wrong.

If your answer is "no" then I will happily STFU.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts