Obama's Red Line.....

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

Israel is redrawing the line.

 

[Beco]

Not doing anything on Syria is the best thing Obama has done so far....Stay out of it, I say...let the damn Arab League or Jordan or Turkey handle this....

 

[Busybody]

“If he drops sarin on his own people, what’s that got to do with us?”



I agree

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[run_silent]

I feel sad about saying this. Let the whole middle east blow itself up. Let them wipe out who the will. We will deal with the last man standing. It's looking like that is will end up anyway.

 

[Ramone45]

Simple question; Why did he say it? Did he not understand the ramifications of the world's most powerful country not fulfilling a declaration? It emboldens evil doers. It would have been better had he said nothing. He may be intelligent, but he is not smart.

 

[Busybody]

Simple question; Why did he say it? Did he not understand the ramifications of the world's most powerful country not fulfilling a declaration? It emboldens evil doers. It would have been better had he said nothing. He may be intelligent, but he is not smart.

he isn't that bright

 

[eyer]

Not doing anything on Syria is the best thing Obama has done so far....Stay out of it, I say...

Wow...

...Obama has been the main enabler of the rebellion for the past two years; the rebels are armed by Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar - all covertly furnished by the Pentagon and CIA; American military and CIA are covertly conducting training and coordinating logistics for the rebels; Obama has fabricated the government-in-waiting ready for Assad to flee (Obama's first pick for head of that government quit soon after being appointed because it was such a figurehead position); Obama is just publicly coming out for overt aid to the rebels.

Now, he's letting Israel get its hands dirty doing something about that "red line" Obama extolled so presidentially about, just so he can keep his pr white gloves on as long as possible.

There would be no armed rebellion going on currently if not for the concrete involvement of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner intentionally attempting to illegally overthrow yet another UN-recognized government.

 

[Busybody]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Squibbs]

*laughs at stupid old people*

 

[phrodeau]

John "Bomb Iran" McCain criticizes Obama's "red line" comments. Funny guy.

 

[brw02]

I'm hardly surprised at the right-wingers who have a penchant for making rash statements. Syria is highly problematic because neither side can be trusted. Al Qaeda is deeply involved in the rebel movement while Iran and Hezbollah are supporting the Assad regime. The "red line" comments (I have heard them from not only Obama, but also from Netanyahu and Ehud Barak) are kind of meaningless because the consequences of crossing the "red line" are never spelled out. There are many different actions that could be taken in retaliation.

The war hawks (like McCain and Lindsay Graham) would be dangerous if they ever got into power. War hawks got us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and VietNam before that. All of these wars have been costly on so many levels. It's somewhat comforting to know that Obama is a thoughtful man who weighs out his options carefully.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

LAst I heard it was still just accusations, if it's been proven that gas was used we have to do something. Perhaps Obama shouldn't have said anything but he did.

Has it been confirmed or is it still in the accusation stage (for the second time)

 

[brw02]

All three of those conflicts were ordered by the Congress.

Congress was asked to fund all three conflicts; they hold the pursestrings. But all three wars originated in the DOD, and they requested the funding from Congress. The architect of the VietNam War was Defense Sec. Robert McNamara. The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were promoted by Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld. All three wars were costly in terms of money and lives. None could be declared successful by any intelligent individual.

 

[brw02]

LAst I heard it was still just accusations, if it's been proven that gas was used we have to do something. Perhaps Obama shouldn't have said anything but he did.

Has it been confirmed or is it still in the accusation stage (for the second time)

There is evidence that Sarin has been used in Syria. It is not clear who used it. Neither side is trustworthy.

 

[Sean Renaud]

There is evidence that Sarin has been used in Syria. It is not clear who used it. Neither side is trustworthy.

Considering that as things stand it only counts if one side uses Sarin, that is what one would call an accusation.

But thank you for the clarification.

 

[eyer]

None could be declared successful by any intelligent individual.

Evidently, you consider yourself to be such an "intelligent individual"...

..so, let me ask you:

How's Obama's drone war going? Can you share with us how many hundreds of more innocent people have been killed by his authorization, compared to the actual targeted?

What did you think of Obama overthrowing the legitimate (UN recognized) government of Libya? Is it OK with you 'cause Obama didn't employ American boots on the ground?

Do you, as a self-proclaimed "intelligent individual", consider Obama's illegal Libyan adventure to be a "success"? What do you think the 4 murdered Americans' families think? What do you think of the fact that some of the same strain of jihadis who killed those Americans in Obama's vanquished Libya are now fighting in Syria for the same cause as Obama's?

What do you think of Obama being the main instigator for the last 2+ years now of overthrowing another legitimate (UN recognized) government, this time Syria's? How many tens of thousands of innocent Syrians have been killed because the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner has dictated that Assad must go?

What do you think of Obama covertly arming, training, and supplying logistics and tactical support to many of the same jihadists he employed in overthrowing and murdering Gaddafi, now repeating their killing act against Assad and innocent Syria citizens?

And again, as a self-proclaimed "intelligent individual", do you think when the jihadis that Obama has covertly empowered and almost have Assad whipped now take control of Syria, that's going to be a "success" for America?

 

[brw02]

Yes, and the next guy will say that Obama has not done nearly enough. Obama-haters will criticize him no matter what he does. The Libyan mission is not relevant to this discussion. Your allegations may or may not be accurate. The UN may have recognized Libya but no one with any knowledge of Libya would know that Khadafi was a tyrant who killed thousands of his own people. Good riddance to him, however it came about.

Libya was not as problematic as Syria would be. The Syrian air defense network is far more sophisticated, and Assad has access to a large stockpile of chemical weapons. Your allegation that Obama has been providing large-scale military assistance to the Syrian rebels is unproven and you don't provide much evidence to support it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by brw02 View Post
I'm hardly surprised at the right-wingers who have a penchant for making rash statements. Syria is highly problematic because neither side can be trusted. Al Qaeda is deeply involved in the rebel movement while Iran and Hezbollah are supporting the Assad regime. The "red line" comments (I have heard them from not only Obama, but also from Netanyahu and Ehud Barak) are kind of meaningless because the consequences of crossing the "red line" are never spelled out. There are many different actions that could be taken in retaliation.

The war hawks (like McCain and Lindsay Graham) would be dangerous if they ever got into power. War hawks got us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and VietNam before that. All of these wars have been costly on so many levels. It's somewhat comforting to know that Obama is a thoughtful man who weighs out his options carefully.

All three of those conflicts were ordered by the Congress.

And it was JFK who got us involved in Viet Nam.

 

[eyer]

Yes, and the next guy will say that Obama has not done nearly enough. Obama-haters will criticize him no matter what he does. The Libyan mission is not relevant to this discussion. Your allegations may or may not be accurate. The UN may have recognized Libya but no one with any knowledge of Libya would know that Khadafi was a tyrant who killed thousands of his own people. Good riddance to him, however it came about.

Libya was not as problematic as Syria would be. The Syrian air defense network is far more sophisticated, and Assad has access to a large stockpile of chemical weapons. Your allegation that Obama has been providing large-scale military assistance to the Syrian rebels is unproven and you don't provide much evidence to support it.

Pardon me if instead of automatically accepting your self-evaluation of being an "intelligent individual"...

...I read you as absolutely nothing more than just another politically partisan hack.

 

[eyer]

And it was JFK who got us involved in Viet Nam.

Actually, it was President Eisenhower of the Republican Party who first "got us involved in Viet Nam"...

...he didn't want to get us overtly involved, but then he did furnish hard-earned USSA taxpayer money as military aid to the French; and after the French surrendered to the Viet Minh, Eisenhower continued to use hard-earned USSA taxpayer money to aid anti-communist leader Ngo Dinh Diem in consolidating power in Saigon. Throughout his second term, Eisenhower remained committed to Diem's tyrannical regime.

JFK simply extended the USSA's involvement in Vietnam by then first sending "advisers" to train and assist the opposition to the North...

...Obama is already far past the Eisenhower stage in the Middle East, and American "advisers" are already on the ground in Jordan and Turkey - on the borders of Syria - "advising" the "rebel" troops who are now hitting Assad hard.

JFK continually increased the USSA's covert aid to South Vietnam and his Democrat successor, LBJ, finally overtly sent American boots on the ground to Da Nang in early 1965 (if I remember correctly).

What is going to be interesting to see is if the Syrian "rebels" are successful in ousting Assad is how disastrous a jihadist state Syria will then be...

...because then it might demand American boots on the ground to clean-up not only that mess, but the mess the IRGs of the Islamic Republic of Iran has promised to make if Assad is forcefully deposed.