Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Really ....
You guys don't know this?
It will require a thread of it's own and I don't have the energy tonight to start it! But, I will soon ... I think!
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Syria: they're using chemical weapons...
- Thread starter cashmcall
- Start date
You guys don't know this?
It will require a thread of it's own and I don't have the energy tonight to start it! But, I will soon ... I think!
Werbung:
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
It was well calculated .... there is nothing incompetent about Obama or his agenda!!!!!!!!!!!!
It has long been established as part of the National Security Strategy of the United States that things like this cannot stand. You can read it here. It's easier to turn a blind eye to things when you don't publically declare that the use of chemical weapons is a "red line" that cannot be crossed -- especially when they then get used.
There is no evidence that the NSA is tracking the movements of all American citizens -- nor is that related to the issue. Obama's message is (I believe) is simple here. The United States does what it says it is going to do.
Any use of force issue has the potential to escalate. But that doesn't automatically mean use of force is the wrong path. There are plenty of factors that must be considered, and in the absence of Obama's idiotic "red line" comments I would agree we should stay out. However, he made them, and now we have to take some action. Obviously the downsides are huge, so we have to be very careful here.
I get that Obama has been one of the worst Presidents in regards to foreign policy ever...and I don't agree with much of what he does domestically...but I think that is a big difference between the question of is the President intentionally trying to the ruin the country. I don't think he is. I think he just has a dramatically different vision for the country -- one that I certainly don't support.
Perhaps. I'll be interested in t hat thread you start in response to Big Rob's question.
Sorry... Rob IMO the most compelling reason to stay out of Syria is that both sides are muslim, both hate us, and no matter how the conflict resolves, the winner and the loser will still hate us. so, result is the same no matter what we do. why expend one cent or one drop of sweat to achieve a bad result? the best policy is to stand back and cheer for both sides. To tell the truth I just don't know..
While Rob makes a valid point regarding the particulars of intolerable behaviors, there is no opposition that hasn't done as much. On the one side you have someone with no conscience and on the other side you have someone else with no conscience. I don't believe the thinking behind this strategy factored this into their conclusions.
I don't dispute that there is little tangible benefit for us, or among either the rebels or the Syrian regime should we intervene. But to me, that is not the point. The point is that by doing nothing (which is fully what I would want to do outside of President Obama idiotically putting us in this scenario), it will have tangible negatives for our policies around the world -- outside of Syria, and will make it that much harder down the road to further American interests abroad.
Last edited:
Exactly -- part of why the President should never have made his comments -- but he did, and here we are.
The power of words coming from someone with enormous power..
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Yes, but we have a POTUS who made an ignorant statement with his dumb red line comment. It appears that some believe when a POTUS says something dumb, our military is required to back it up. I do not accept this. Using military action to back up a dumb statement, is not effective foreign policy...to say nothing of the likely negative consequences of it.
BO should do nothing. If he acts, he looks weak. If he does not act, he looks weak. So, not acting is the obvious best strategy, since no good can come from it. He could use Congress as cover for his idiotic red line statement. Congress likely will demand we stay out, since a far majority of Americans believe we should not get involved in a crazy murderous muslim civil war.
I think we all agree his prior statements were ill concieved but there is a third option albiet a tough one. He could admit he made a mistake and has come to realizethat there is no appropriate action possible given the circumstances. Further he can vomdem the gassing as strongly as he wants and state that the matter us not settled nor will further gassing be acveptable. He can try th get Cameron on board with him and maybe take a stab at Vlad as well.
What POTUS says matters. And its not about Syria at this point -- yes the use of chemical weapons is absurd and really should not be tolerated -- but it is more about how others view our response. Nothing is not an option. We have to do something. It doesn't have to automatically be airstrikes (although that is probably the easiest thing to do), but something has to be done.
If he went to Congress with solid evidence of chemical weapon use, I would wager he would get approval for taking some action.
perhaps the Congress will bail Obama out of this one the same way Parliament bailed out David Cameron.
Werbung:
It is not a "bail out", it sends the same message as Obama just doing nothing. The only message that will be sent is that America doesn't have the stomach to respond when their interests are threatened/attacked.
Similar threads
