Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
His only saving grace is Obama will be considered even more inept.
Actually it was pretty obvious to me that, even though he was an incompetent president, he was a man of character.
Obama's role for the UN.
This is one of the most racist drawings I have ever seen. Obama given monkey ears and monkey feet, and squatting like a monkey does when it goes to the bathroom. This post infers that blacks are not human, but are monkeys. I am going to report this post to the moderators.
It's another bad case of the Mohammed Cartoon Syndrome.
Moderator's Warning: |
When posting on a forum, a poster should be mindful of posting rules. The drawing depicts Obama, a Black man, as a monkey that is flinging feces onto walls. This violates to ToS. If you do not agree with the ToS for this site, go to StormFront, where race baiting is acceptable.
Debate Politics Forums - Forum Rules
18. Hate Messages - Hate Messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as a comment using one of the following towards a “protected group” or an individual based on their identity in a “protected group” in an extreme manner:
Protected groups under this rule:
a) Race
b) Ethnicity
c) Religion (also atheists)
d) Sexual orientation
e) National origin
f) Gender (including transgendered)
g) Disability
"Ceremony" because the ninny-poo has already broadcast what he's going to do, so by the time he musters whatever it is he musters to do other than play golf, whatever targets his missiles hit will have been long abandoned. Of course, true to form he'll take credit for "showing them who's boss" while the rest of the world scratches their head in wonder how one man that ignorant and incompetent could ever have been voted into the most powerful office in the worl.
This is not the time to be attacking anything, least of all Syria, and especially with this yahoo in the White House.
To what end do you believe we should attack Syria, and why?There is a limit to how much you can shield and protect as a conventional military force by shunting equipment around and pushing it into urban areas. Aircraft, helicopters, vehicle parks, air strips, fixed military facilities, naval emplacements, munitions depots, etc. If we decide to strike (and I hope we do) there will still be ample targets to hit for it to be punishing. Moreover there is the massive psychological impact. If you are a Syrian soldier fighting for Assad you probably are fighting in part because you hope victory is attainable. The prospect of Western intervention even in limited form opens up the possibility that further strikes can occur and the distinct chance that the West will 'not allow' you to win. That can be crippling for a regime military that has been afraid to use large formations for fear of mass defections.
To what end do you believe we should attack Syria, and why?
While that may be true history tells us that a few bombs will be dropped, the American citizenry will protest, and there will be a retreat of some sort, with no credibility gained at all. There just isn't the will in the American people, or its politicians, for any more wars, no matter how good the cause may appear.At this stage? 1. The protection of US credibility after having come so close to the brink. It is imperative that regional opponents and global ones not believe that the US is retreating in the face of Iraq fatigue. How we handle this crisis is being watched from the Kremlin to Beijing.
While that may be true history tells us that a few bombs will be dropped, the American citizenry will protest, and there will be a retreat of some sort, with no credibility gained at all. There just isn't the will in the American people, or its politicians, for any more wars, no matter how good the cause may appear.
What matters are that a few bombs are dropped so that others know we still have the willpower to do so. Perception is more important than practical gain in this instance.
At any stage. What are U.S. interests in Syria?At this stage?
I think the only person's "credibility" that's up for question right now is Barack Obama's - and it's only his face we'll be saving (ostensibly) were we to attack Syria.1. The protection of US credibility after having come so close to the brink. It is imperative that regional opponents and global ones not believe that the US is retreating in the face of Iraq fatigue. How we handle this crisis is being watched from the Kremlin to Beijing.
I don't think there is any question the use of chemical weapons is horrific and wholly objectionable. I don't know of any civilized western nation that condones its use, under any circumstances.2. The importance of demonstrating that the use of chemical weapons which for all the comparisons between conventional weapons are still uniquely dangerous (It took a light bombardment of a Damascus suburb to kill 1,400 people in an hour, the equivalent of 1/100th of the casualties for the whole war thus far)
Why? To achieve what end? And on what basis?I'd also like a wider involvement in Syria but that is beyond what is being discussed at this stage since only a limited action is being reviewed.
So, short of anything practical to gain, we lob a couple bombs their direction so they will perceive we have the willpower do so?What matters are that a few bombs are dropped so that others know we still have the willpower to do so. Perception is more important than practical gain in this instance.
So, short of anything practical to gain, we lob a couple bombs their direction so they will perceive we have the willpower do so?
Sadly two things Barack Obama can neither claim nor muster, even if he lobbed a couple bombs their direction.In foreign policy that is gain in and of itself. Nothing is more valuable than credibility and fear.
Sadly two things Barack Obama can neither claim nor muster, even if he lobbed a couple bombs their direction.
That might have had some credibility had he remained silent instead of sniping at his successors and now even suggesting what the current President should do. His day is past but he refuses to recognize it. He should have grown old gracefully.
You may be right.The way I see it is that Carter wants Carter Jr. (Obomba) to complete the Middle East destabilization process he started in '79, in the name of peace!
You may be right.
His peace initiative didn't help Anwar Sadat at all, nor the Israelis, nor those who were kidnapped or those who tried to free them.
Nonetheless this history of failure has to repeat itself every generation or so because someone like Obama (as Carter) feel they can solve problems with their smile, charm and the 'let's all be adults about this' approach.
He actually did sign a peace treaty with Israel and yes, the anti-Israeli Islamists got to him.Anwar Sadat was murdered because he defied the fanatics of his country and actually tried to sign a peace treaty with isreal.
Really, it's not that bad to be on the side with Carter, on such matters he's always the calm head that wants diplomacy first. And despite Obama's campaign promises, the US has engaged in no diplomacy with Syria.
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?