• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the President a Laughingstock?

Jack Hays said:
And yet not a single statement can be produced that uses 9/11 as a justification for the invasion of Iraq.
Click to expand...

hmmmm ... you must be the Board's revisionist historian ... that's cool ... still, we agree he wasted precious time and resources there, right?
 
After the G-20 meeting, Obama and Putin have a wide-ranging understanding.
AlabamaPaul said:
If he does decide to let the cruise missiles fly, it will be without Congressional approval or public support which would not be good heading into an election year...
Click to expand...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
If he does decide to let the cruise missiles fly, it will be without Congressional approval or public support which would not be good heading into an election year...
Click to expand...

He has no more elections. He knows he will not get Congressional approval. Politically,if he were to bomb, just doing it and taking the heat to prevent this from being an election issue for democrats who voted for or against wouldn't be the worst idea ever.
 
Fisher said:
He has no more elections. He knows he will not get Congressional approval. Politically,if he were to bomb, just doing it and taking the heat to prevent this from being an election issue for democrats who voted for or against wouldn't be the worst idea ever.
Click to expand...

Agreed...
 
specklebang said:
So you are suggesting that 2 years ago, at the start of the civil war, we should have come to the aid of who? Assad hasn't done anything to the US. He's a Dictator, that's all. It's not like his replacement will be a Democracy. If anybody at all should have assisted the "Rebels", assuming you could even define who they were, wouldn't that be a function for Israel? But why should they bother? I think there is no particular point or purpose to have chosen sides, then or now. Problem is that once The Big O opened his mouth, we got stuck with choices - none of them a benefit for us no matter what the end result is.



I think we're agreeing that we are in a lose-lose situation with Syria and the best thing we could have done was express shock and horror at the use of CWs and then taken the rest of the day off. I mean, why exactly should we give a **** who does what with what to who? None of them are our friends. There is no US friendly opposition government in exile. Sure, murdering kids with CWs is ugly but so is murdering them with guns or bombs.
Click to expand...

good response ... Do we intervene in every civil war? Also, I recall that during the Iraq/Iran war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and we knew it and did nothing to stop it (and why was that? we all know) ... we were also the first to drop an atomic bomb on civilian populations ... and remember agent orange from Vietnam? we, in effect, "gased" our own soldiers (Veterans' Diseases Associated with Agent Orange - Public Health) ... and, yes, if you killed my child, I wouldn't give a **** if you did it with gas or with a bomb ... before the chemical attacks, how many civilians had been slaughtered? thanks for the post ...
 
Republican Rep. Cotton from Arkansas supports bombing the man from Genocide. Cotton is an Army Veteran.
He was felt to have a great chance to defeat incumbent Sen. Pryor, a NO, but normally a YES.
If it wasn't for need to keep the Senate, I would pull for Cotton. Politics goes both ways.
Fisher said:
He has no more elections. He knows he will not get Congressional approval. Politically,if he were to bomb, just doing it and taking the heat to prevent this from being an election issue for democrats who voted for or against wouldn't be the worst idea ever.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
Republican Rep. Cotton from Arkansas supports bombing the man from Genocide. Cotton is an Army Veteran.
He was felt to have a great chance to defeat incumbent Sen. Pryor, a NO, but normally a YES.
If it wasn't for need to keep the Senate, I would pull for Cotton. Politics goes both ways.
Click to expand...

Cotton will probably win easily in any case.
 
NIMBY said:
How quickly you forget your trouncing in the Senate last year, locally and nationally.
Click to expand...

Since I have no party it is impossible for me to experience either victory or a "trouncing." Regardless, Pryor is the deadest of ducks.
 
Jack Hays said:
Our President Is a Laughing Stock - Glenn Reynolds, USA Today

Remember that dumb cowboy George W. Bush, who alienated all our allies and dragged us into wars of choice in the Mideast? And remember that goofball Mitt Romney, whom Joe Biden a year ago accused of wanting to go to war in Syria?
Both of them must be having a big laugh over the way things are going for Obama now. When I wrote last week on our bumbling Syria diplomacy, it seemed that things couldn't possibly go further downhill. Boy, was I wrong.:peace
Click to expand...
Jack, I don’t know about the laughing stock. For those of us who are not die hard any party, the fact we haven’t struck Syria or went to war over there is a plus. I will admit his handling of this situation left a lot to be desired, but so far no war. I do think, personally, if the president was serious about the red line, then within hours after Assad used chemical weapons, then he should have struck. Then gone on TV and said something like an hour or two ago, we launched missiles at such and such in retaliation for Assad’s use of chemical weapons. That if Assad uses them again, this strike will only feel like a pin prick.

Then he could let the 60 or 90 period of the WPA begin. When one is the leader of the USA, of NATO, of the free world, words mean things and should have consequences. Who is going to trust a man or a nation who doesn’t keep his or its word.

Personally, I am glad we have done nothing. There are no good choices except maybe do nothing. If the rebels win, changes are better than 50-50 Syria will end up with a government either affiliated with AQ or as an Islamic Republic. A government more hostile to the U.S. than the current Assad government. Perhaps the evil we know is better than the evil we don’t or the evil to come. Time will tell.
 
Perotista said:
Jack, I don’t know about the laughing stock. For those of us who are not die hard any party, the fact we haven’t struck Syria or went to war over there is a plus. I will admit his handling of this situation left a lot to be desired, but so far no war. I do think, personally, if the president was serious about the red line, then within hours after Assad used chemical weapons, then he should have struck. Then gone on TV and said something like an hour or two ago, we launched missiles at such and such in retaliation for Assad’s use of chemical weapons. That if Assad uses them again, this strike will only feel like a pin prick.

Then he could let the 60 or 90 period of the WPA begin. When one is the leader of the USA, of NATO, of the free world, words mean things and should have consequences. Who is going to trust a man or a nation who doesn’t keep his or its word.

Personally, I am glad we have done nothing. There are no good choices except maybe do nothing. If the rebels win, changes are better than 50-50 Syria will end up with a government either affiliated with AQ or as an Islamic Republic. A government more hostile to the U.S. than the current Assad government. Perhaps the evil we know is better than the evil we don’t or the evil to come. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Is there a third faction as well? Some independent group who want to make a Kurdish country?
 
Perotista said:
Jack, I don’t know about the laughing stock. For those of us who are not die hard any party, the fact we haven’t struck Syria or went to war over there is a plus. I will admit his handling of this situation left a lot to be desired, but so far no war. I do think, personally, if the president was serious about the red line, then within hours after Assad used chemical weapons, then he should have struck. Then gone on TV and said something like an hour or two ago, we launched missiles at such and such in retaliation for Assad’s use of chemical weapons. That if Assad uses them again, this strike will only feel like a pin prick.

Then he could let the 60 or 90 period of the WPA begin. When one is the leader of the USA, of NATO, of the free world, words mean things and should have consequences. Who is going to trust a man or a nation who doesn’t keep his or its word.

Personally, I am glad we have done nothing. There are no good choices except maybe do nothing. If the rebels win, changes are better than 50-50 Syria will end up with a government either affiliated with AQ or as an Islamic Republic. A government more hostile to the U.S. than the current Assad government. Perhaps the evil we know is better than the evil we don’t or the evil to come. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Pero.:2wave:
I merely asked the question, so I'm pretty broad minded about the responses. A couple of points are worth making though. The problem with Asad is not that he doesn't like us, but that he runs a Shia regime. He provides an essential supply line for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and he facilitates projection of Iranian influence in the Middle East. His opposition is Sunni and includes extremists, but Syria is no more likely to accept religious rule than was Egypt.:peace
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The President seems to "have more flexibility"... :shock:
Click to expand...

So do contortionists! Is that the way we're going to handle problems like this in the future? Twist, blame others, make secret agreements, lie a little? Not that it would surprise me, but c'mon! If finding solutions to problems were that easy, anyone could do it! :thumbdown:

Good evening, AP. :2wave:
 
specklebang said:
OK, both of you have offered a really good response. The flaw might be that Al Qaeda is not particularly friendly to the US or Israel so how does this switch benefit us? If anything, we (the US) have more grievance with Al Qaeda (particularly on this sad anniversary day) than we do with Hezbollah. So how could the US have supported Al Qaeda and provided them weapons?

So it seems to me that in a lose-lose situation like this, doing nothing might have been the only logical response. Had Fearless Leader kept his mouth shut, we at least wouldn't be in this awkward position. OTOH, if Russia intervenes and confiscates (or effectively prohibits the use of) the CWs, we can stay out of this one.
Click to expand...

We could have supported the Free Syrian Army a year ago before Al Qaeda was entrenched in Syria. There may be no good options, the Free Syrian Army might be the least bad.
 
polgara said:
So do contortionists! Is that the way we're going to handle problems like this in the future? Twist, blame others, make secret agreements, lie a little? Not that it would surprise me, but c'mon! If finding solutions to problems were that easy, anyone could do it! :thumbdown:

Good evening, AP. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Good evening pg. I don't think anything we do to involve ourselves in the outcome a civil war in Syria at this point will produce an outcome beneficial to the US. Kerry mde a gaff Monday, and now Putin is using his KGB training to play the President into doing what is in Russia's best interests...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Is there a third faction as well? Some independent group who want to make a Kurdish country?
Click to expand...

I don't know, most of the Kurds are in northern Iraq and southeastern Turkey. There very well could be a Kurdish faction in Syria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom