Wehrwolfen
Banned
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 402
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Posted by Gateway Guest Blogger on Sunday,
September 15, 2013
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton NoisyRoom.net
While our leaders in the House decided not to vote on Obama’s Syrian war (because it was just too embarrassing a defeat for the Obama), the threat of war has not gone away. The claim of ‘no boots on the ground’ has turned to ‘well, maybe:’ The White House and the Pentagon have repeatedly ruled out “boots on the ground” in Syria, but Defense Department officials were less certain Thursday on whether U.S. military personnel might be sent to help secure or destroy Syria’s chemical weapons. Pentagon Press Secretary George Little gave a vague answer when asked if U.S. troops were prepared to assist should an international agreement allow Russia to take control of the tons of chemical weapons believed to be in the stockpiles of President Bashar al-Assad. “I’m not going to speculate on who may or may not be participating in a process that may or may not take place,” Little said. “We’ve got to see where the process goes” before the U.S. military considers involvement, he said.
FLASHBACK: Obama “I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria!” -
See more at: The Gateway Pundit | Where Hope Finally Made a Comeback
But, bu, bu, bu...Both Obama and Kerry have told us there will be no boots on the ground.
So far he hasn't lied has he.But, bu, bu, bu... Both Obama and Kerry have told us there will be no boots on the ground.
So far he hasn't lied has he.
People are going to hate if he does a military strike, people are going to hate if he does nothing, people are going to hate when he uses diplomacy. Please tell me exactly how this should have been handled. Do you want the United States to make the chemical weapons magically disappear? Because if that was an option I would guess Obama might have already considered it.
Only when a leader paints himself into a corner. Obama's idea of strategy is checkers and not chess.
If he would have been "decisive" like all critics are blasting him for not being we could have gotten into an open-ended situation. Your warhawkness is clouding your judgement. Why is it worth it to piss of Syria, Iran, Russia, and China (among others) by using military force in the name of being decisive when there are other options on the table? It would be senseless to not at least try to find another option.
Are you now claiming that Obama's inept actions of foreign policy in the Middle East are really strokes of genius?
I'm sorry. I was under the impression that the OP was about Barack Obama, Syria and "boots on the ground". Did you wish to edit the OP?It depends on the meaning of has doesn't it. Do you mean he isn't lying now, or hasn't lied to us in the past? September 12th, 2012 comes to mind. Then there's those pearls of veracity about keeping your doctor if you want to, or that little lie about the ACA not costing a dime more. Care to try again?
20 Lies Caught on Video Prove Obama Is Lying About Syria, Too ...
patriotsandpaulies.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/20-obama-lies-caught...
Sep 11, 2013 · Obama denies drawing a line in Syrian Sand and 19 more blatant lies... Videos and Playlist credit:StopTheRobbery2 / StoptheRobbery.com Obama …
If he would have been "decisive" like all critics are blasting him for not being we could have gotten into an open-ended situation. Your warhawkness is clouding your judgement. Why is it worth it to piss of Syria, Iran, Russia, and China (among others) by using military force in the name of being decisive when there are other options on the table? It would be senseless to not at least try to find another option.
I'm sorry. I was under the impression that the OP was about Barack Obama, Syria and "boots on the ground". Did you wish to edit the OP?
OK. You're not editing it than I take it.You originally wrote: "So far he hasn't lied has he" I took that as a question. In the attempt to define your question, I qualified it with some known facts of Obama lies negating the premise that Obama hasn't lied.
Well, while there are certainly partisans out there who would hate anything Obama did, for me it's his lack of ability to stake out some decisive position, look strong as a leader, and steer policy and debate that I find problematic. And it's not something that has been limited to the conflict in Syria or even foreign policy, but a constant across his entire presidentcy
Basically, he does seem more reactive than active (checkers vs chess comment)
Again, what good does it do to get into a conflict without evaluating all the options simply for the sake of looking strong.
Why do you think showing leadership ability requires entering into a conflict?
If he would have been "decisive" like all critics are blasting him for not being we could have gotten into an open-ended situation. Your warhawkness is clouding your judgement. Why is it worth it to piss of Syria, Iran, Russia, and China (among others) by using military force in the name of being decisive when there are other options on the table? It would be senseless to not at least try to find another option.
I don't at all. That's what has been implied though by all the Obama haters.
Obama did not find another option; his position "evolved" as ususal. Just as the military coup in Egypt is not a military coup at all because that means we must stop our foreign aid to them. Libya is both a success and an impossible place to persue the Benghazi attackers in Obama speak. Syria is a place in which we must "punish" the regime, that we do not wish to change, for crossing the "red line" but we want to have it become democratic too, as we wait for a UN solution led by Russia that refuses to allow any UN solution. If you do not see "eventual" surrender/destruction of CWs in Syria as open-ended then why is a 10 month "solution" now preferable to a 10 day "solution"?
When you dismiss anyone that disagrees with you as an "Obama hater", I imagine it's rather easy to dismiss such criticism. But unfortunately it has been a charge leveled at him through pretty much every political crisis that he served as Potus over, and by many people who define themselves as democrats, liberals and supporters. In fact, the first such criticism I can recall was from a liberal criticizing his handling (or lack of) of the health care debate in a NYT editorial.
Also, I am perplexed by your need to turn someone pointing out a lack of leadership as a call to war. Just look to the example of JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In where the existential threat and likelihood of open conflict were all much more real. But the man never appeared weak.
I don't agree with Obama on Egypt, and I never supported him in Libya. In this event though it was a complex situation. Libya and Egypt are not as complex. Either way we are never going to get all the chemical weapons. At least in this case the Assad regime cannot elicit a large military intervention out of the United States by launching a larger attack on their people after the strikes.
I don't know where you got weak from. He is head of the strongest military in the world
his congress has the ability to declare a war even if he doesnt want it. I don't see how this makes the US look bad.
Meaning what? Do you wish to cease all U.S. aid to Egypt and acknowedge that it was due to a military coup?
Are you unaware we are speaking in the context of the presidency and how people conduct themselves in office? Are you also unaware that someone can be head of a powerful organization while conveying themselves in a weak manner?
Again, why do you continue to equate leadership with war? I just cited JFK as a positive example of leadership and the Cuban Missile Crisis did not lead to war.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?