Which Gas attack did POTUS Really Really Really Mean Would be a Trigge

[birdog1960]

No one said any of that gibberish......................why do you constantly put your bias into others replies ?

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.powerline...ed (Power Line)

 

 

 

.

and he's standing by those words. he's not making a unilateral decision. i don't get the argument. enlighten me.

[Doc]

you're a scientist, right. where's the evidence? they looked far and wide at enormous cost and you're asking for a leap of faith? in bush? rumsfeld? and since when is paul politically correct? this was like the boardroom scene in "network" i'm so fond of. oh, and by the way the israelis, saudi's, kuwaiti's and emirati's(?) care. a lot..

Word at the time was that Saddam had enough time to move the WMDs into Syria. And ten years later, chemical weapons are being used in Syria. It's hardly a leap of faith and even if true, still doesn't justify invading Iraq IMHO.

 

Paul would never say "who the F cares," regardless of how politically incorrect he may be. If he did, I can see the 2014 elections now "vote dem because repubs don't give a F if women and children are gassed!"

 

If those countries care so much, let them be the ones to do the dirty work. Remember, it's "the world's red line."

[birdog1960]

a caricature and oversimplification, to be sure. but on point in essence none the less and apologies in advance for linking several times :

. bush, clinton and obama likely absorbed this . their tacks at the problem were very different. history will decide which approached was best . paul, not so much. but who is being most honest? i agree, the countries most at stake should do the dirty work but in this context they aren't likely to.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Annnnnd...

 

With that, I think the faux-public debate between the warfare-welfare party and the domestic warfare-international warfare party is over.

Edited September 5, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

so that makes obama's deliberation and failure to immediately pull the trigger more suspect how exactly? and were to take putin's word as gospel? he should dictate our foreign policy?

 

Ten years ago, our unilateral actions without Putin's agreement and the damage it was causing our relationship with Russia was a disaster of such epic proportions that the current administration's first foreign policy action was to address it (albeit in one of the most insanely insipid demonstrations of international politics ever.)

 

Now...Putin? Who cares?

 

I love the way that every single argument every Democrat ever made during the Bush administration has been turned completely on its head in the past two weeks. Is it even possible for you shills to be more inconsistent?

[birdog1960]

Ten years ago, our unilateral actions without Putin's agreement and the damage it was causing our relationship with Russia was a disaster of such epic proportions that the current administration's first foreign policy action was to address it (albeit in one of the most insanely insipid demonstrations of international politics ever.)

 

Now...Putin? Who cares?

 

I love the way that every single argument every Democrat ever made during the Bush administration has been turned completely on its head in the past two weeks. Is it even possible for you shills to be more inconsistent?

yeah, that's what kept me awake at night about the iraq war: that we offended putin and alienated russia.

[/dev/null]

Oh those wacky Syrian moderates

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=0

[GG]

just stop. this is grown up stuff with the gravity of the situation and decision made clear to all observers. this is how it should be deliberated at the adult table.

 

Are you kidding me? I just heard the replay of his Stockholm speech, and to me it sounded exactly like my seven year old arguing that he didn't spill his bottle on the table.

[B-Man]

Something Mickey and Goofy and Pluto over at the White House should be told.

 

 

Alleged chemical weapons sites can’t be bombed safely: experts

 

Washington, AP: You can’t safely bomb a chemical weapon storehouse into oblivion, experts say. That’s why they say the United States is probably targeting something other than Syria’s nerve agents.

 

Now, however, there is concern that bombing other sites could accidentally release dangerous chemical weapons that the U.S. military did not know were there because they’ve lost track of some of the suspected nerve agents.

 

Bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons — purposely or accidentally — will likely kill nearby civilians in an accidental nerve agent release, create a long-lasting environmental catastrophe or both, experts said. That’s because under ideal conditions — and conditions wouldn’t be ideal in Syria — explosives would leave at least 20 to 30 percent of the poison in lethal form.

 

 

http://www.japantime...s/#.UifWpz8o5jE

[IDBillzFan]

Are you kidding me? I just heard the replay of his Stockholm speech, and to me it sounded exactly like my seven year old arguing that he didn't spill his bottle on the table.

 

My point exactly. That speech was a lot of things, but "grown up" wasn't one of them. He's being roundly mocked by many...for good reason.

[B-Man]

My point exactly. That speech was a lot of things, but "grown up" wasn't one of them. He's being roundly mocked by many...for good reason.

 

 

[birdog1960]

My point exactly. That speech was a lot of things, but "grown up" wasn't one of them. He's being roundly mocked by many...for good reason.

roundly mocked. is that the test of a bad president? then bush was the worst...um, well, yes that's true. i don't see how history is likely to condemn his reticence to use military force. now, if he were to rush to war, it quite likely would.

[Doc]

It's amazing the lengths that Barry supporters will go to make excuses/alter reality for him.

[B-Man]

Democrats Dragooned Into Supporting War: The president relies on party loyalty, not policy arguments.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who served on Capitol Hill for years as a top Democratic aide, put the party’s dilemma in stark terms on Wednesday: “I think the Democrats are going to be forced to sacrifice men and women who really, really don’t want to vote for this. They’re going to have to vote for it to save the president’s hide. That’s a bad position to put your party in.”

One reason it’s especially awkward is that on the substance, the White House isn’t doing well.

 

 

 

Andrew Klavan: Things That Don’t Matter When Deciding on Syria.

 

The Magical, Mysterious, Disappearing Obama Red Line.

 

 

Syria in Historical Context The lessons of past U.S. interventions.

 

 

The Pro-War Party Democrats find a commander they like.

[birdog1960]

Democrats Dragooned Into Supporting War: The president relies on party loyalty, not policy arguments.

 

Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who served on Capitol Hill for years as a top Democratic aide, put the party’s dilemma in stark terms on Wednesday: “I think the Democrats are going to be forced to sacrifice men and women who really, really don’t want to vote for this. They’re going to have to vote for it to save the president’s hide. That’s a bad position to put your party in.”

One reason it’s especially awkward is that on the substance, the White House isn’t doing well.

 

 

Andrew Klavan: Things That Don’t Matter When Deciding on Syria.

 

The Magical, Mysterious, Disappearing Obama Red Line.

 

 

Syria in Historical Context The lessons of past U.S. interventions.

 

 

The Pro-War Party Democrats find a commander they like.

interesting that the national review article considers iraq a success. i'm thinking that's not a consensus view. kinda puts me off looking at the other pieces.

 

It's amazing the lengths that Barry supporters will go to make excuses/alter reality for him.

what would your ideal action be right now? last week? just interested in what actions hcould have made that you'd be pleased and satisfied with.

[IDBillzFan]

roundly mocked. is that the test of a bad president? then bush was the worst...um, well, yes that's true. i don't see how history is likely to condemn his reticence to use military force. now, if he were to rush to war, it quite likely would.

 

So we're back to Bush again. Got it. Throwing the gun next, are you?

[B-Man]

interesting that the national review article considers iraq a success. i'm thinking that's not a consensus view. kinda puts me off looking at the other pieces.

 

 

 

As did President Obama throughout the 2012 campaign..............did you forget ?

 

.

[birdog1960]

So we're back to Bush again. Got it. Throwing the gun next, are you?

it's an apt comparison. facing a similar situation he shot and then(possibly) thought about the problem after. obama is cost/benefit analyzing before any actions are undertaken. it's a fundamental difference in philosophy. i'd choose the latter almost every time. but i suppose cowboys are more appealing to a certain section of the populace.

[Joe Miner]

roundly mocked. is that the test of a bad president? then bush was the worst...um, well, yes that's true. i don't see how history is likely to condemn his reticence to use military force. now, if he were to rush to war, it quite likely would.

 

It's not about going to war or not going to war. It's not about making a strike or not making a strike.

 

It's about leadership.

 

Or in this case a gross lack thereof. The leadership is so bad here that it's laughable, which to no surprise, is exactly what other nations are doing right now.

[Chef Jim]

roundly mocked. is that the test of a bad president? then bush was the worst...um, well, yes that's true. i don't see how history is likely to condemn his reticence to use military force. now, if he were to rush to war, it quite likely would.

 

You're kidding right? That's your best come back? Give it up man.