or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Our President's Weakness & Incompetence Will Lead to War
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Our President's Weakness & Incompetence Will Lead to War - Page 3

post #81 of 101

You have a lot of patience to post like this I see.
 

post #82 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post
 

 

That's a pretty well rounded summary IMHO. I am skeptical however, that Assad would use chemical weapons, knowing that it would be the trigger for  Western (read US) military action against his regime. Assad is one of those guys who *enjoys* power - and I cannot acknowledge that he's oblivious to reality, and stupid enough to play directly into the hands of those who want regime change in Syria.

 

Secretary of State John Kerry recently has compared Assad to Hitler (!). That's quite a stretch, especially considering that Kerry and his wife were seen and photographed enjoying a cozy dinner with the Assads just 3 years ago. The picture looks legitimate... and it appears they were on good terms back then...what suddenly changed?

 

 

 

Chemical weapons were used in Syria, but Obama and crew have presented no proof re. whodunnit. It looks as if he's trying to do his "war president" bit.

 

 

Yeah, I saw that.  Hillary and Obama were calling Assad a "reformer" a few years ago, too.  My take on what happened is this:  We were fine with Assad (and he with us) until this civil war got going.  He used brutal force.  His forces committed war crimes by targeting civilians.  We started supporting the rebels covertly, with some openly calling for them to be armed directly by the United States.  The rebels became more effective and organized, and Assad started to panic.   The Obama Admin knew that he had a large number of chemical weapons, and became concerned about those weapons falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda and/or being used by Assad directly.  So, Obama warned them, but did so vaguely with his "red line" comment.   I think they thought that without the threat of a US military strike, Assad might just become desperate (to hold on to power, as you note) enough to use his weapons.  The problem was that Obama's warning wasn't clear, specific or credible.  Given his other waffling on every issue imaginable (see:  Egypt), Assad concluded he wasn't serious.  

 

I think the first use of chemical weapons actually happened six months ago.  What happened from there is less clear.  Either Obama knew it and believed it, or he refused to.  It's possible we've spent the last six months secretly trying to prepare for this, but I'm inclined to think Obama's ego refused to let him accept that Assad would actually defy him.  That would explain all the hemming and hawing once we learned of chemical weapons use the first time.   They were "investigating" and "evaluating" and making any excuse they could as to not acknowledge that Assad had, in fact, used WMD.  However, Obama couldn't ignore the blatant second use, with videos posted on YouTube.     I think this one actually caught the admin off guard.  Suddenly there was massive pressure to respond with force, which resulted in this bungling response of the last week.  They failed at the UN (big surprise).  They were about to strike, and then the liberals and libertarians (and Putin) got to the weak Vacillator-in-Chief, and he decided to throw it in Congress's lap.   In classic Obama fashion though, he wouldn't commit to abide by their decision.   In jimmac's words..."Jesus!"  

 

Watching the hearings during the last few days, I got the distinct impression it was nothing more than a dog and pony show.  McCain was up there tossing softballs so Kerry could hit them out of the park.  I also felt like members on the fence or leaning against the resolution were being blackmailed, so to speak.  Obama's nearly unimaginable bungling has left them with few options, and no good ones.  They are told that if they don't approve strikes, it will be a "disaster for American credibility and national security."  On the other hand, if they do approve strikes, they may contribute to a broader war, siding with AQ, escalation in general, and terrorism.   They also have to face their constituents, who are telling them "NO" in the clearest way possible.  And here's the thing...those choices are real.  We DO lose credibility if we do nothing, and the risks outlined are real.   

 

What a mess.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by notstayinglong View Post

I am actually not too bothered by the waffling on Syria as I am with the lack of follow up on Benghazi. Syria should be left alone. We don't need to be involved there. Those who attacked American soil, on the other hand, needed to be turned into nice red smears the night of the attack. Unfortunately our leadership failed to act and has only invited further, bolder actions against us in the future.

 

Well put.  I agree.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #83 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

 

 

Yeah, I saw that.  Hillary and Obama were calling Assad a "reformer" a few years ago, too.  My take on what happened is this:  We were fine with Assad (and he with us) until this civil war got going.  He used brutal force.  His forces committed war crimes by targeting civilians.  We started supporting the rebels covertly, with some openly calling for them to be armed directly by the United States.  The rebels became more effective and organized, and Assad started to panic.   The Obama Admin knew that he had a large number of chemical weapons, and became concerned about those weapons falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda and/or being used by Assad directly.  So, Obama warned them, but did so vaguely with his "red line" comment.   I think they thought that without the threat of a US military strike, Assad might just become desperate (to hold on to power, as you note) enough to use his weapons.  The problem was that Obama's warning wasn't clear, specific or credible.  Given his other waffling on every issue imaginable (see:  Egypt), Assad concluded he wasn't serious.  

 

I think the first use of chemical weapons actually happened six months ago.  What happened from there is less clear.  Either Obama knew it and believed it, or he refused to.  It's possible we've spent the last six months secretly trying to prepare for this, but I'm inclined to think Obama's ego refused to let him accept that Assad would actually defy him.  That would explain all the hemming and hawing once we learned of chemical weapons use the first time.   They were "investigating" and "evaluating" and making any excuse they could as to not acknowledge that Assad had, in fact, used WMD.  However, Obama couldn't ignore the blatant second use, with videos posted on YouTube.     I think this one actually caught the admin off guard.  Suddenly there was massive pressure to respond with force, which resulted in this bungling response of the last week.  They failed at the UN (big surprise).  They were about to strike, and then the liberals and libertarians (and Putin) got to the weak Vacillator-in-Chief, and he decided to throw it in Congress's lap.   In classic Obama fashion though, he wouldn't commit to abide by their decision.   In jimmac's words..."Jesus!"  

 

Watching the hearings during the last few days, I got the distinct impression it was nothing more than a dog and pony show.  McCain was up there tossing softballs so Kerry could hit them out of the park.  I also felt like members on the fence or leaning against the resolution were being blackmailed, so to speak.  Obama's nearly unimaginable bungling has left them with few options, and no good ones.  They are told that if they don't approve strikes, it will be a "disaster for American credibility and national security."  On the other hand, if they do approve strikes, they may contribute to a broader war, siding with AQ, escalation in general, and terrorism.   They also have to face their constituents, who are telling them "NO" in the clearest way possible.  And here's the thing...those choices are real.  We DO lose credibility if we do nothing, and the risks outlined are real.   

 

What a mess.  

 

 

Well put.  I agree.  

 

There are internationally recognized protocols, procedures and laws to deal with nations that violate the Chemical Weapons Convention. The full scale invasion of an offending nation is not included in those protocols. I get the impression that Obama is somewhat of an ego-maniac - and to rescue his flailing excuse of an administration, he is resorting to war, the catch-all solution that has a direct appeal to patriotism, to distract the public from the failures of his presidency, both domestically and abroad.,,, everything from ObamaCare to the Benghazi fiasco.

 

If the US strikes Syria (alone or with others), the consequences would range from bad (at best) to catastrophic (at worst). The Assad regime, as brutal as it is, is a relatively secular bulwark against hardline Islamic fundamentalism - oddly, Saddam Hussein's was a similar/parallel scenario. The overthrow of Assad would leave a power vacuum, and all manner of vying factions would end up fighting in amongst themselves to take control  - with a probable postwar Syria looking like the current postwar Iraq - ie politically unstable, dangerous, daily bombings etc. 

 

Then, to add further problems down the line, is the possibility of blowback. This hasn't happened to the US as a result of Iraq (I hope it never does, but it might). To add the possibility of a bunch of angry Syrians hell bent on revenge against the US is not, IMHO, in the interest of our national security. This is a local spat, and its best left as local as possible.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #84 of 101

Isn't Obama the one who scolded us about the long memory of the arab world and how they still speak of the crusades as if they happened yesterday? Did he forget that?

post #85 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post
 

 

There are internationally recognized protocols, procedures and laws to deal with nations that violate the Chemical Weapons Convention. 

 

What are they?  

 

Quote:
The full scale invasion of an offending nation is not included in those protocols.

 

To be fair, no one is talking about doing that.  

 

Quote:
I get the impression that Obama is somewhat of an ego-maniac - and to rescue his flailing excuse of an administration, he is resorting to war, the catch-all solution that has a direct appeal to patriotism, to distract the public from the failures of his presidency, both domestically and abroad.,,, everything from ObamaCare to the Benghazi fiasco.

 

I tend to agree, though  I don't think he views it like that.  I think it's all about ego.  It's all about him saving face.  

 

Quote:
If the US strikes Syria (alone or with others), the consequences would range from bad (at best) to catastrophic (at worst). The Assad regime, as brutal as it is, is a relatively secular bulwark against hardline Islamic fundamentalism - oddly, Saddam Hussein's was a similar/parallel scenario. The overthrow of Assad would leave a power vacuum, and all manner of vying factions would end up fighting in amongst themselves to take control  - with a probable postwar Syria looking like the current postwar Iraq - ie politically unstable, dangerous, daily bombings etc. 

 

I agree about the power vacuum.  In strictly strategic terms, I'm not sure I agree with the possible consequences you lay out.  It won't help our relations with the Muslim world, nor with Iran in particular.  But I actually think the chances of it blowing up into a regional war or provoking terrorist retaliation are fairly low.  That is, if we attack Assad the right way.  If we launch a few missiles and poke the bear....that's bad.  If we launch a significant operation that truly degrades his overall military capability, that's better.  I still don't think the latter is a good idea, but it's better than the "poke the bear" option.  

 

Quote:
Then, to add further problems down the line, is the possibility of blowback. This hasn't happened to the US as a result of Iraq (I hope it never does, but it might). To add the possibility of a bunch of angry Syrians hell bent on revenge against the US is not, IMHO, in the interest of our national security. This is a local spat, and its best left as local as possible.

 

I doubt that.  It doesn't make our actions right or wise, but I doubt it.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #86 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post
 

Isn't Obama the one who scolded us about the long memory of the arab world and how they still speak of the crusades as if they happened yesterday? Did he forget that?

 

Apparently.  The cognitive dissonance is amazing.  He talks of red lines and then, in the same breath, says he wasn't elected to start wars. He's a bumbling fool.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #87 of 101

"Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has made a "historic" decision to scrap his country's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and to allow international inspectors to verify and oversee the process."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1220-08.htm

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #88 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by notstayinglong View Post

I am actually not too bothered by the waffling on Syria as I am with the lack of follow up on Benghazi. Syria should be left alone. We don't need to be involved there. Those who attacked American soil, on the other hand, needed to be turned into nice red smears the night of the attack. Unfortunately our leadership failed to act and has only invited further, bolder actions against us in the future.

 

How do you feel about the Iraq war waged by GW over lies?  You know, the invasion of a sovereign land, the toppling of its leader, an there are many Muslims there!  Do you believe that that act increased or decreased danger to Americans around the globe?  How does it compare to Benghazi?  

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #89 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

How do you feel about the Iraq war waged by GW over lies?  You know, the invasion of a sovereign land, the toppling of its leader, an there are many Muslims there!  Do you believe that that act increased or decreased danger to Americans around the globe?  How does it compare to Benghazi?  

Especially since it was waged over a lie. We have all seen the photos coming out of Syria and if the pics of all the dead children doesn't break your heart and convince you that something has to be done then you're nuts.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #90 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

How do you feel about the Iraq war waged by GW over lies?  You know, the invasion of a sovereign land, the toppling of its leader, an there are many Muslims there!  Do you believe that that act increased or decreased danger to Americans around the globe?  How does it compare to Benghazi?

Especially since it was waged over a lie. We have all seen the photos coming out of Syria and if the pics of all the dead children doesn't break your heart and convince you that something has to be done then you're nuts.

 

 

Wasn't this the exact reasoning of those who endorsed Iraq when Colin Powell was talking about weapons of mass destruction at the U.N.?

 

That turned out to be misguided.

 

How do we make sure we aren't equally misguided this time? Why is it our job to make sure that when two factions within the same country are killiing each other, be it with conventional or chemical weapons, that they do it in a manner we approve?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #91 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Wasn't this the exact reasoning of those who endorsed Iraq when Colin Powell was talking about weapons of mass destruction at the U.N.?

That turned out to be misguided.

How do we make sure we aren't equally misguided this time? Why is it our job to make sure that when two factions within the same country are killiing each other, be it with conventional or chemical weapons, that they do it in a manner we approve?

There are rules to war. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited. (Hague IV). War is one thing, and war crimes is another. Chemical and biological warfare is addressed by both the Hague and Geneva laws. Declaration II of The Hague Peace Conference made deadly gas attacks illegal back in 1899. The 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibited lethal gas and bacterial methods of warfare. The Geneva Convention of 1972 reiterated this prohibition by outlawing the "development, production and stockpiling" of these weapons and insisting on the elimination of any already in existence.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #92 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Wasn't this the exact reasoning of those who endorsed Iraq when Colin Powell was talking about weapons of mass destruction at the U.N.?

That turned out to be misguided.

How do we make sure we aren't equally misguided this time? Why is it our job to make sure that when two factions within the same country are killiing each other, be it with conventional or chemical weapons, that they do it in a manner we approve?

There are rules to war. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited. (Hague IV). War is one thing, and war crimes is another. Chemical and biological warfare is addressed by both the Hague and Geneva laws. Declaration II of The Hague Peace Conference made deadly gas attacks illegal back in 1899. The 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibited lethal gas and bacterial methods of warfare. The Geneva Convention of 1972 reiterated this prohibition by outlawing the "development, production and stockpiling" of these weapons and insisting on the elimination of any already in existence.

 

 

I'm fully aware of the rules of war. However the answer isn't that the president of one country gets his coalition of no one, including not even support within the country, and takes action. Bush took his desires before the U.N. What has Obama done? Bush couldn't get the support he wanted at the U.N. and thus took a coaltion of countries that did support him and took action. Obama doesn't even have a coalition of countries willing to support his actions.

 

A treaty cannot be called upon to support the incompetence and warmongering of one man, even if he does have a peace prize.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #93 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


I'm fully aware of the rules of war. However the answer isn't that the president of one country gets his coalition of no one, including not even support within the country, and takes action. Bush took his desires before the U.N. What has Obama done? Bush couldn't get the support he wanted at the U.N. and thus took a coaltion of countries that did support him and took action. Obama doesn't even have a coalition of countries willing to support his actions.

A treaty cannot be called upon to support the incompetence and warmongering of one man, even if he does have a peace prize.

Agreed, but if nothing is done then what message are we sending to any would be war monger that decides to do the same or worse.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #94 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


I'm fully aware of the rules of war. However the answer isn't that the president of one country gets his coalition of no one, including not even support within the country, and takes action. Bush took his desires before the U.N. What has Obama done? Bush couldn't get the support he wanted at the U.N. and thus took a coaltion of countries that did support him and took action. Obama doesn't even have a coalition of countries willing to support his actions.

A treaty cannot be called upon to support the incompetence and warmongering of one man, even if he does have a peace prize.

Agreed, but if nothing is done then what message are we sending to any would be war monger that decides to do the same or worse.

 

The point of the treaties and the U.N. is to have the world agree that someone is a warmonger or at least a pretty decent size group who runs the proposal through the U.N. gets typical resistance and then moves on after having exhausted other measures.

 

The U.S. has been the world's cop for far too long. Perhaps when a few more things get busted, broken and stolen, they will wise up and grow up.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #95 of 101

Everybody who was not ignorant knew that the guy was merely a community organizer with no skills or experience at all, so nobody should be surprised that this whole Syria fiasco has already turned into amateur hour. I find the whole thing quite humorous. A rodeo clown could have handled the situation better and more professionally.

 

I am 100% against any action in Syria. Let both sides kill each other off, neither of them are any good, and the US shouldn't help any side. On one side you have a dictator and on the other side you have jihadists, Al Qaeda lunatics and other morons. Good riddance to both.

post #96 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

Everybody who was not ignorant knew that the guy was merely a community organizer with no skills or experience at all, so nobody should be surprised that this whole Syria fiasco has already turned into amateur hour. I find the whole thing quite humorous. A rodeo clown could have handled the situation better and more professionally.

 

I am 100% against any action in Syria. Let both sides kill each other off, neither of them are any good, and the US shouldn't help any side. On one side you have a dictator and on the other side you have jihadists, Al Qaeda lunatics and other morons. Good riddance to both.

 

How about the US arming both sides, as has been done many times in the past? This would allow our al Qaeda allies and Assad's military to kill each other off at a faster rate, and the corporate welfare queens in the defense (sic) sector could turn even larger profits on the taxpayer. 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #97 of 101

Help Kickstart World War III!

http://youtu.be/z-sdO6pwVHQ


Edited by FloorJack - 9/11/13 at 5:05pm
post #98 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

Everybody who was not ignorant knew that the guy was merely a community organizer with no skills or experience at all, so nobody should be surprised that this whole Syria fiasco has already turned into amateur hour.

 

It is amazing to see that those here who derided Obama's weak credentials for the Presidency (and were themselves chastised by the liberals who used to post here) have been vindicated.

 

The fact that Obama is out of his depth and completely outmatched by Putin cannot be credibly disputed, by any side.

 

The NYT article by Putin today is further evidence of how badly Obama is being outclassed. The world is laughing at the US presidency.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #99 of 101

Putin Plays Chess, Obama plays checkers (or Bingo)

 

https://www.ijreview.com/2013/09/78874-cartoon-obama-winning-bingo-checker-playing-chess-putin/

 


Edited by FloorJack - 9/13/13 at 8:18am
post #100 of 101

Er, no.The game is never lost, the winner always wins. Even a repub should understand that. 

 

Thank God the games changed to be exactly what it always was. Long live the King. France, UK and America back the hell out, because sovereignty still means more than slavery, and we (the people) shall never be slaves! 

 

Say No!, to an African and middle east Eurasia. Say no to this now! Learn what they want and take it behind the barn with a very very dull axe.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #101 of 101

Will do.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Our President's Weakness & Incompetence Will Lead to War