The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

[unofan]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

So Obama is going to punish the Syrian government by talking them to death?

Seriously??

So what is he supposed to do? You're against military action, you're against diplomacy, you're against ignoring it.

Tell us what you think he should do, or shut the fark up.

 

[walrus]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/z-sdO6pwVHQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Second city

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/z-sdO6pwVHQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Second city

Where do I get those "kick a*s breakfast burritos"?

 

[sagard]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

So what is he supposed to do? You're against military action, you're against diplomacy, you're against ignoring it.

Tell us what you think he should do, or shut the fark up.

From the outset he should have told Vlad that he owns this one. He also should have had a better idea of who he wanted to win the conflict before making threats.

 

[MattS]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

Unimpressed. Not that I really expected anything more. But that speech isn't going to sway the majority of Americans to the war cause.

 

[walrus]

Unimpressed. Not that I really expected anything more. But that speech isn't going to sway the majority of Americans to the war cause.

Did he say do it for the children?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

This is the speech he should have given after he smoked Assad. With the implicit message "There's more where that came from." So now POTUS simpers up to that thug Putin, and hides behind his skirts. Not exactly a "Profile in Courage." At least he gets to avoid a humiliating defeat in Congress.

BTW, he ought to tell Sec Horseface that the "United States doesn't do pinpr*cks," because Kerry's been describing the mission as "unbelievably small" (not that it matters, but Kerry's had so many botox treatments, his face is like a Halloween mask).

On this matter, at least, Jimmy Obama has shown himself to be totally out of his depth on the world stage. A true embarrassment.

 

[XYZ]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

So what is he supposed to do? You're against military action, you're against diplomacy, you're against ignoring it.

Tell us what you think he should do, or shut the fark up.

What's with you and the use of "fark"? What is this, 2009?

Carry on.

 

[MattS]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

Did he say do it for the children?

I recall he at least once invoked the "think of the children" argument.

 

[geezer]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

I'm no expert, but is it really necessary to let "Vladimir" Putin call our foreign policy shots for us? What power does he really have if we just were to refuse his prescriptions? I think we're giving him waaaaay to much credit by trying to suck up to his every whim. Russia ain't what it used to be, I doubt he would have any recourse if we just cut ties and decided to run our own government.

 

[Rover]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

As usual I'm more than a bit bemused out of my knuckledragger friends. I think I can sum up conservatism's position as such: "we don't know what to do, we just know whatever Obama does is wrong". Americans want solutions not whining, and recall the feeling you had going into election day last year, then the feeling you had when the results started rolling in...

There's a reason why conservatives have the popularity of sh ! t and the trust level of used car salesmen. Simply put the ideology has lost its brain and its balls, so I'm not sure what good it is. However, to the subject at hand:

Obama said he wanted to punish Assad so that would never use chemical weapons again. This proposal put forth takes away his chemical weapons from his hands and has them destroyed via a UN resolution supported by the international community. What exactly is the problem here? He got what he wanted out of a nearly impossible situation. I'm sorry for you knucks' if the US didn't suffer an embarrasing defeat, as clearly you're willing to side with Assad over Obama but as I said before, be careful who you choose to get into bed with.

Obviously we need to verify, but the funny thing is the simplistic people on the right who feel that international diplomacy is a staged event like a WWF wresting match. Its not, and while the Russians may have called the US' bluff on giving up the WMD's, the French called the Russians bluff on going thru the UN. End result - exactly what we wanted without putting troops in harms way.

 

[unofan]

What's with you and the use of "fark"? What is this, 2009?

Carry on.

Since the filter blocks the appropriate word, it's my goto substitute.

 

[geezer]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

Obviously we need to verify,

I think you're a day behind. NPR this morning had it that whatever deal was put forth yesterday, "Vladimir" Putin said he's going to force his b**** Barry to forego the use of any and all force forever and ever to keep it on the table.
I don't know why we put up with it. What gives "Vladimir" the right to run our foreign policy? Again, why not just ignore him? Obama gives him more respect than he gives his own people, by letting him run our foreign policy according to his whims. Enough already, let's get rid of them both.

edit: And don't we employ our own Secretary of State that *should* be doing this work of negotiating? Where's Hillary hiding?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

I think you're a day behind. NPR this morning had it that whatever deal was put forth yesterday, "Vladimir" Putin said he's going to force his b**** Barry to forego the use of any and all force forever and ever to keep it on the table.
I don't know why we put up with it. What gives "Vladimir" the right to run our foreign policy? Again, why not just ignore him? Obama gives him more respect than he gives his own people, by letting him run our foreign policy according to his whims. Enough already, let's get rid of them both.

edit: And don't we employ our own Secretary of State that *should* be doing this work of negotiating? Where's Hillary hiding?

2012 called - they want their SoS back. And John Kerry says, "hi."


edit: I think it's funny that Putin is getting all the credit for this idea, when Kerry was the one who initially proposed it, albeit sarcastically. "Yeah, sure, we'd agree not to bomb him if he did something as ridiculously unlikely as giving up his stockpiles willingly, but that's not going to happen so bomb, baby, bomb!" Um, Mr. Secretary, they're calling your bluff. "Wait, what???"

 

[Rover]

I think you're a day behind. NPR this morning had it that whatever deal was put forth yesterday, "Vladimir" Putin said he's going to force his b**** Barry to forego the use of any and all force forever and ever to keep it on the table.
I don't know why we put up with it. What gives "Vladimir" the right to run our foreign policy? Again, why not just ignore him? Obama gives him more respect than he gives his own people, by letting him run our foreign policy according to his whims. Enough already, let's get rid of them both.

edit: And don't we employ our own Secretary of State that *should* be doing this work of negotiating? Where's Hillary hiding?

Methinks you've been drinking knuckledragger Kool-Aid again. Of course Putin is going to demand the US doesn't stike Syria. Obama is going to demand the ability to bomb Syria if Assad looks at him crosseyed. Its called "negotiating". Putin is proposing nothing of consequence, as the US has no reason to attack Syria if they give up their chemical weapons (which, if you recall, was the point of all of this). If they don't, all bets are off. I can easily see a resolution whereby the US promises not to attack provided independent international monitors are allowed to secure and destroy the WMD's. However, if Syria is not in compliance the US can resort to all other means. Keep it vague, but the threat is there.

So think about it, why exactly is Assad giving up his weapons? Out of the kindness of his own heart? Why is Russia eager to have this happen? Because Putin is suddenly a altruistic fellow? Or because he realized he was powerless to stop a US attack on his pal, and the only way for him to stay relevant on the world stage was to sell out Assad and take credit for brokering a peace deal?

 

[geezer]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

2012 called - they want their SoS back. And John Kerry says, "hi."

Oh yeah... You know what, that explains a lot.

Hillary has much bigger balls than Kerry. He's so worried about finding out today's marching orders from "Vladimir" Putin that he forgot who he works for. Again, what's the worst Putin could do to us if we refused to obey?

 

[geezer]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

Methinks you've been drinking knuckledragger Kool-Aid again. Of course Putin is going to demand the US doesn't stike Syria. Obama is going to demand the ability to bomb Syria if Assad looks at him crosseyed. Its called "negotiating". Putin is proposing nothing of consequence, as the US has no reason to attack Syria if they give up their chemical weapons (which, if you recall, was the point of all of this). If they don't, all bets are off. I can easily see a resolution whereby the US promises not to attack provided independent international monitors are allowed to secure and destroy the WMD's. However, if Syria is not in compliance the US can resort to all other means. Keep it vague, but the threat is there.

So think about it, why exactly is Assad giving up his weapons? Out of the kindness of his own heart? Why is Russia eager to have this happen? Because Putin is suddenly a altruistic fellow? Or because he realized he was powerless to stop a US attack on his pal, and the only way for him to stay relevant on the world stage was to sell out Assad and take credit for brokering a peace deal?

I've got to put aside my assholism for just a second and say, well done. I really hope you're right with this analysis and it's not just wishful thinking. This really is the best case scenario, win/win.

 

[Rover]

I've got to put aside my assholism for just a second and say, well done. I really hope you're right with this analysis and it's not just wishful thinking. This really is the best case scenario, win/win.

Thanks. This whole thing reminds me of an All In the Family episode I saw once where Lionel Jefferson moved into Archie's house after fighting with his father. In trying to get the kid to move back to George Jefferson's place, Archie asked if it was okay of he moved in for good which forced a reconciliation between father and son (after a few "off color" remarks of course )

At the end Edith is asking him about it, and Archie says "its called diplomacy Edith. That's when you get a guy to do somethin' he don't wanna do, by promising to do somethin' you have no intention of doin'." I always liked that line.

 

[SteveP]

Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

There's a reason why conservatives have the popularity of sh ! t and the trust level of used car salesmen. Simply put the ideology has lost its brain and its balls, so I'm not sure what good it is.

Meanwhile, your guy is such a hit with Americans of all stripes. Oh wait....

According to a Wall Street Journal/ NBC News survey conducted Sept. 5-8, just 33 percent of respondents believe Congress should approve the president's proposal for U.S. military strikes against Syria, and less than a quarter think military action is in the national interest.

The survey of 1,000 adults also found that in just two weeks, support among Americans for limited airstrikes against Syrian military targets has slid from 50 percent to 44 percent.
"As the public hears more information, they are coming down on the side of 'Don't do it,'" said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducted the survey with Democratic pollsters Fred Yang and Peter Hart.

The poll found that almost 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Obama has dealt with the conflict, compared to just one-third who say he has made a convincing case for U.S. strikes in the wake of Syrian President Bashar Assad's reported use of chemical weapons against his own people.

 

[Rover]

Meanwhile, your guy is such a hit with Americans of all stripes. Oh wait....

And the point is...?

If its people don't want to get involved in another Middle East war after a decade plus of fighting two of them, no sh ! t Sherlock. Small wonder polls also wouldn't be too happy about a President advocating such a thing. Problem is you can't take a referendum every time a crisis arises. Not sure how much Americans were itching to confront Hitler either pre-Pearl Harbor. Good thing FDR didn't use that as an excuse to leave England high and dry.

(and yes Sparky, before you go all Bluto Blutarski on me I do know that the Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor)