Reply With Quote
Link?
Pretty dumb assessment.Obomba doesn't have an objective with a noble endgame. He just wants to destabilize the Middle east. If that isn't his endgame, then he is really stupid to think it will end otherwise.
I disagree.
there is no solid evidence that is shared that Assad used chemical weapons, and we know as fact the rebels did some months back.
Obomba doesn't have an objective with a noble endgame. He just wants to destabilize the Middle east. If that isn't his endgame, then he is really stupid to think it will end otherwise.
Link?
Pretty dumb assessment.Obomba doesn't have an objective with a noble endgame. He just wants to destabilize the Middle east. If that isn't his endgame, then he is really stupid to think it will end otherwise.
If Obama's objective is to destabilize the Middle East, then wouldn't he have just gone to war without going to Congress first?
What do you think is his motivation for destabilizing the Middle East?
not according to his comments and Kerrys about the Red Line and the punishment coming. In fact nobody ever mentioned that until Kerry blurted it out
It's not an Obama decision. The decision has been made that Syria is next for a regime change. This goes higher than Obama.Do you think he would rather do it by bombing them, or by Putin doing it?
The American people want no part in the war. It's the Saudi/Israel/Military/Neocon lobbies that want to bomb SyriaDo you think the American people, overall, would prefer to bomb Syria, or to have Putin take care of it?
ing noDo you think that attacking Syria fits more along the lines of a policy you'd prefer?
it's a ing civil war. there will be bloodshed. I would actually stop training and arming the jihadists and also tell the Saudis to chill the outOr would you rather it be taken care of diplomatically without additional bloodshed?
I think Obama's comments on the "red line" were an indication that he would use military strikes to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons. Removing them would accomplish that.
Who's making the decision on Syria regime change? The lobbyists?
Overall, do you think that letting Putin/Russia handle it, rather than Obama/US, is a good thing? I certainly do. I don't care if it makes Obama/US look weak; I'd much rather look weak and have Putin handle Syria than be on the hook for it.
In my opionion it's not 1 person or even a small group of ppl. Again there are ppl higher in the food chain than Obama and this has been decided long ago. In my opinion it's a collection of different groups that have a common goal, to stop the influence of Iran and whether it be for money/oil/power/survival or just plain strategy, the next step is to rid Syria.
yes as I said. Putin involved puts a sort of balance in the whole situation. If not for Putin Assad would have been decapitated already and Syria would be burning in jihadi fire like Libya is not to mention the chemical weapons would be in their hands.Overall, do you think that letting Putin/Russia handle it, rather than Obama/US, is a good thing? I certainly do. I don't care if it makes Obama/US look weak; I'd much rather look weak and have Putin handle Syria than be on the hook for it.
I am on the same page as you. If I have to choose between American dominance/global hegemony, or actually not going trillions dollars into debt while pissing off every country in the Middle East... The choice seems pretty ing obvious to me.
Too bad the only way to be "serious" for those in power is to threaten military action in every scenario.
That's my point.
Look at those saying Assad used chemical weapons. Allegations with no proof. Of the several suspected and know chemical releases, some could have been bombing a chemical weapons storage.
What evidence is there that Assad used WMD?
Link please.
He needs cover, and I don't know why. I only see that he is supporting the worse of the sides in each case in the Middle East. Those in power and who have been ousted have maintained some control over their nations. these nations have become worse as their leaders were ousted.
Liberals and use of the military machine have never been a good mix. Look at the reasons. they claim the current administration is bad, harming people. Then we go in with these feel-good reasons to aide in regime change. then, we end up having a worse government than before.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-14-2013 at 11:27 AM.
Have you ever heard of FDR? Have you ever heard of George W. Bush?
Not the way I recall it. The red line was if WMD was used. Maybe someone has the relevant quotes. This gave the rebels the perfect chance to stage and frame Assad. I did hear a radio host air the original Obomba quote before the recent chemical attack. Obomba did a flip-flop after the attack and changed what he meant, which may be what you recall.
Who ever wins the civil war. It appears Obomba is going to help those wanting to reinstate strict Sharia law.
I think Putin has a clear concept of what's happening. Afterall, he has Muslims to deal with in Russia as well. He understands their culture, strengths, and weaknesses. Obomba most certainly doesn't. He only has an idealistic concept of it from his teachings as a school child. At least he knows there is 57 Islamic states.
Are you serious? Different time before democrats became infiltrated by haters of liberty and became a party of authoritarians. As for Bush, we had just cause at the tame and places we went.
Apples and Oranges.
Don't forget. Clinton signed into law, regime change for Iraq. He was already attacking Iraq regularly. He exhausted our inventory of cruise missiles when he was president.
We had 9/11. Iraq was put on notice to comply with the UN resolutions he kept dodging, and was given an ultimatum. A majority of democrats in the senate voted YES. 29-21 in the senate. House democrats was 81 to 126, but the total house vote was 296 to 133. the total senate vote was 77 to 23.
Think about that.
69% in the house and 77% in the senate.
Do you think Obomba would get anywhere close to that for any of the intervention he took in the Middle East?
Are you serious?
Absolutely.
You act like a child, who only knows of liberal reporting. Do you understand the history with Iraq since it invaded Kuwait?
Your point ids you lied?
OK.
How can you claim I lied? I said there is no released proof that Assad used WMD.
lol released
I guess you believed Assad for al those years he said he had no chemical weapons. You are very trusting of dictators when you dislike your own president.
That's your problem.
ASSuming again...
Typical Chumpmonkey.
No. A good leader doesn't give up state secrets. Are you really that stupid to assume I think one way?
ASSuming again.
Please show me where I gave any indication I trusted Assad. If you had enough brain cells to formulate anything accurate, you would realize I trust the rebels less.
Please stop being a stupid jackass. I just took you off IGNORE yesterday. You may quickly go right back to Iggyville, where Fuzzy still is.
The fact based reporting is that there were no WMDs and Bush said there were.
Yes, those are the facts.
There was no WMD found, but Saddam did have it. It is an absolutely known fact that he did have WMD. there was no guessing about it. It was also a well known fact that Saddam used his WMD. No disagreements there at all.
It is also claimed that by someone who should be believed, that Saddam shipped his WMD to Syria. Maybe the rebels?
Think about this...
He did have WMD.
He agreed to get rid of it.
He claimed he no longer had it, but showed no disposition records as required by the agreements he signed, to keep US troops from taking Baghdad...
How is this in any way, shape, or for, similar to what Obomba is doing?
Thanks for agreeing that the US not give up its secrets as to how it knows Syria used chemical weapons.
Iggyville?ASSuming again.
Please show me where I gave any indication I trusted Assad. If you had enough brain cells to formulate anything accurate, you would realize I trust the rebels less.
Please stop being a stupid jackass. I just took you off IGNORE yesterday. You may quickly go right back to Iggyville, where Fuzzy still is.
Did you just post the word Iggyville?
Seriously, you have lionzed Assad and Putin throughout this situation. You would sell out this country in a second if it reflected badly on Obama.
Assad has WMD.
Assad or someone supporting Assad used WMD.
He is agreeing to get rid of them.
Pretty similar so far.
True. So does most the rest of the more developed nations. We still have chemical and biological capabilities as well.
Not known as a certainty. As for your "or someone supporting," if this is true, it does not make Assad guilty if someone else was responsible.
Yes, but only with conditions. Saddam was given a choice to do XY and Z, or else we take Baghdad. this was after we were already engaged in an actual land war. following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
Who did Syria invade recently?
Similar? Very loosely for even your cherry picked statements. I guess it is similar for someone with a twisted mind, or someone with an agenda.
What about the things you didn't say, like knowing for a fact that Saddam did use his WMD? That We were actually in Iraq ready to take Baghdad?
lol capabilities.
You are to blinded by Obama hate to realize that is much more dangerous. That actually explains the Russian initiative better than anything else.Not known as a certainty. As for your "or someone supporting," if this is true, it does not make Assad guilty if someone else was responsible.
Assad is engaged in a war and was given a choice to do X and is taking it.Yes, but only with conditions. Saddam was given a choice to do XY and Z, or else we take Baghdad. this was after we were already engaged in an actual land war. following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
Who did Syria invade recently?
We didn't attack him when he used his WMDs. In fact, the Reagan administration helped Saddam in the targeting of the Iranians he gassed. You can't put on the white hat after that.Similar? Very loosely for even your cherry picked statements. I guess it is similar for someone with a twisted mind, or someone with an agenda.
What about the things you didn't say, like knowing for a fact that Saddam did use his WMD?
There you go again Chump.
Changing the argument.
Can't you keep the arguments strait, or do you have to keep adding ones that don't apply?
Us, aiding Iraq's chemical weapon usage?
Link please. I only find stuff like this when searching for your claim:
link: Situation report #27
Last page:
The Iraqis used tear gas effectively two weeks ago....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
