disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
A slap on the wrist . . . sanction in the eyes of the world . . . hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure damage . . . loss of face at one's inability to do a damned thing about it . . . it's more than a slap on the wrist.
I was being facetious.Because you can't tax him. Sanctions are not going to work simply because too many countries will still deal with them.
Your vote?
Yea.
Nay.
Or Obama's favorite... Not Present.
###
At the moment I'd vote no.
This is all about Obama and covering his ass. He's looking to Republicans to save his ass. It's all political as everything is with this Amateur. First he says we can't tolerate this... then on Saturday before going golfing and everyone is expecting him to make a statement about upcoming bombings, he says he's going to Congress.
Isn't it amazing how Obama left Kerry out to hang?
The measures are half assed. A pin prick. Symbolic... Useless... and the problem is 100% of Obama's own making.
Where is the coalition?
Where is Obama's preparation after making the Red Line statement?
Let the Arab League sort this out. We've sold them enough hi-tech equipment... we can assist with AWACs and the like.
There is a reason to vote yea and it is because it's the US, and our credibility is on the line. But sorry, our credibility is damaged and the only thing that will restore it is having a mature adult as president, and the first opportunity for that it 2016.
It's beginning to look like what the president has in mind might be a little more than just a few bombs. What Obama is presenting us with is a confrontation with Syria, Iran, and Russia. Either we confront it as that, i.e., the reality, or we leave it alone. The other side of this is that an attack on Assad may actually force him to use CW in the near future to hang on to power. Then there's the chance that our attack will detonate some CW's there....A few bombs can do some pretty significant damage to his military power. He can withstand it certainly, but it will be a significant cost.
Because contrary to ad-nauseum leftist propaganda, conservatives can and do think rationally, especially in times of impending crisis.Why do I suspect that all the "Conservatives" voting no, you be shouting and screaming "USA,USA...." if a Republican President were considering bombing Syria?
As for myself....I don't support it under Obama any more than I would support it under a Bush or any other Republican.
Because contrary to ad-nauseum leftist propaganda, conservatives can and do think rationally, especially in times of impending crisis.
I think the Iraqi Kurds might have a little dispute with you over "potential".There's nothing rational about supporting a 10 year occupation in Iraq over the potential of having and using WMD's then not supporting strikes against a country that actually used WMD's.
Well now I'm truly curious. What is it that makes you think there are WMD's in Syria? ....as opposed to none in Iraq?There's nothing rational about supporting a 10 year occupation in Iraq over the potential of having and using WMD's then not supporting strikes against a country that actually used WMD's.
Do you, for a minute, believe that if the US bombs Syrian military facitilites and weapons that the Russians won't be right there in the next few days offloading replacement weapons and much, much more in a ramped up response to US action? And when that happens, is the President and all those pushing for "saving face" going to lose face then or go all in?
but you do realize I hope that once the bombing starts, not removing him from power would be seen as a political failure so if Obama goes in for a penny, he will go in for a pound. Politics always trumps strategy in politician's minds.
I was being facetious.
Precisely what is our interest in doing anything w/r to Syria? Saving Obama's face seems to be the only real goal in lobbing a few bombs onto targets that have long been moved now that we've broadcast our intentions.
And if the world isn't going to stand by us, regardless how heinous the use of chemical weapons may be - who are we to presume the right to do it in the world's stead?
Furthermore:
1) Who pulled the trigger on the use of chemical weapons? We have yet to be told who did it and why. And a bunch of liberals here want us to do it - without knowing that answer to that question. Why? All I can think of is to help Obama save face.
2) If we did bomb Assad, aren't we then helping the very people we've been fighting lo these past 12 years? How is it possible to save face given that is the practical consequence of attacking Assad, regardless our reasons?
This is such an ill-advised action it's appalling.
BBC News | Saddam's Iraq: Key eventsThere's nothing rational about supporting a 10 year occupation in Iraq over the potential of having and using WMD's then not supporting strikes against a country that actually used WMD's.
I think the Iraqi Kurds might have a little dispute with you over "potential".
It's beginning to look like what the president has in mind might be a little more than just a few bombs. What Obama is presenting us with is a confrontation with Syria, Iran, and Russia. Either we confront it as that, i.e., the reality, or we leave it alone. The other side of this is that an attack on Assad may actually force him to use CW in the near future to hang on to power. Then there's the chance that our attack will detonate some CW's there....
Well now I'm truly curious. What is it that makes you think there are WMD's in Syria? ....as opposed to none in Iraq?
The invasion of Iraq was not predicated on the existence of CW alone. The existence and use of CW in Syria is not the only consideration, either. Yep, it's bad, but it can be much, much worse unless we are prepared to maintain our presence and pressure for an extended time. You might want to take a quick look at the disposition of our Navy right now. What ships are in port, and why, before you get too enthusiastic.Well if you think conservatives are being "rational" not supporting action in Syria then you'll really have to explain to me how invading a country 20 years after the use of Chemical weapons is Kosher and military strikes soon after the use isn't.
I own lots of maps. So what? But if it's that easy, maybe you can spell it out for me - especially how owning a map let's you know who pulled the trigger on the use of chemical weapons, or why. And what does owning a map have to do with answering the question about why its in our interest to help the very people out whom we've been fighting for the past 12 years. Or what does owning a map have to do with our need to bomb Assad when the rest of the world refuses to stand by such an action.Really? What is our interest? Do you own a ****ing map?
I hope you're correct. We are not the only players in the area though, and some have far more to lose than we do.Niether Iran nor Russia stands to gain from pushing a confrontation beyond political with the US.
Because contrary to ad-nauseum leftist propaganda, conservatives can and do think rationally, especially in times of impending crisis.
Ok, then where's the beef with Bush's actions in Iraq? Surely you're aware that government used chemical weapons against their population too, right?Well for one the use of chemical weapons by the government against their population. That kind of leads me to believe they have WMD's....
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?