DC Tom Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Point being complaining about how we handle something is better than complaining about how we create a disaster out of something. Point being nothing was "handled". The administration flailed around aimlessly and cluelessly until a deus ex Moskva came down and rescued them from their own stupidity. And the administration STILL can't formulate a coherent policy on Syria. What's the story now? Promote closer ties between Russia and Syria while giving Assad's government more recognition and security than you've wanted to, while simultaneously supporting the rebels...maybe? Any idea what Turkey and Jordan think about this? Any idea what the State Department and White House think about Turkey and Jordan? If so, let State know...I doubt they know what they think at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Point being complaining about how we handle something is better than complaining about how we create a disaster out of something. And you continue to reinforce the classic liberal trap. A high level agreement was reached on the news, and you think that something tangible has been accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Point being complaining about how we handle something is better than complaining about how we create a disaster out of something. This is far from over and even if you get the results you want the road taken there could be disastrous or lead to future disasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Who do you give credit for us not bombing? We didn't bomb them, someone else didn't make that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 (edited) This is far from over and even if you get the results you want the road taken there could be disastrous or lead to future disasters. And bombing the **** out of a country to prove a point to Russia and the world has neverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr lead this country down a road toward future disasters. Point being nothing was "handled". The administration flailed around aimlessly and cluelessly until a deus ex Moskva came down and rescued them from their own stupidity. Who cares who gets the credit if the threat is taken off the table? (big if there, I'll grant you). Edited September 18, 2013 by tgreg99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 And bombing the **** out of a country to prove a point to Russia and the world has neverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr lead this country down a road toward future disasters. How about not making the threat to begin with? Ever heard the term "don't write a cheque your ass can't cash". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 How about not making the threat to begin with? Ever heard the term "don't write a cheque your ass can't cash". Without the threat of force, no deal would even be considered.... Sometimes unintended consequences work in your favoror. Or would you prefer the US stand down and say nothing when chemical weapons are deployed? We've done that before too, didn't solve the problem and eventually led us into an invasion of Iraq that we are going to be paying for long after our children's children are dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Without the threat of force, no deal would even be considered.... Sometimes unintended consequences work in your favoror. Or would you prefer the US stand down and say nothing when chemical weapons are deployed? We've done that before too, didn't solve the problem and eventually led us into an invasion of Iraq that we are going to be paying for long after our children's children are dead. Why are chemical weapons the red line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Why are chemical weapons the red line? That's a different argument for a different thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 That's a different argument for a different thread. No it's related perfectly. Mr Magoo's foreign policy is not coherent (I could thank Jon Stewart for the reference). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Without the threat of force, no deal would even be considered.... Sometimes unintended consequences work in your favoror. Or would you prefer the US stand down and say nothing when chemical weapons are deployed? We've done that before too, didn't solve the problem and eventually led us into an invasion of Iraq that we are going to be paying for long after our children's children are dead. Key phrase. "Unintended consequences," be they good are bad, are the result of a half-assed policy. It's not about credit. It's about the fact that the foreign policy of this administration (and not just on Syria) here is incoherent ****-ass "policy" of being "tough" without being at all responsible for your actions or lack thereof. A policy of "bloviate and pass the buck" is not a sound policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Key phrase. "Unintended consequences," be they good are bad, are the result of a half-assed policy. It's not about credit. It's about the fact that the foreign policy of this administration (and not just on Syria) here is incoherent ****-ass "policy" of being "tough" without being at all responsible for your actions or lack thereof. A policy of "bloviate and pass the buck" is not a sound policy. And if Obama had said !@#$k off to the Russian offer and lobbed a bunch of cruise missiles into Damascus for five days, what would you be saying about his policy then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 And if Obama had said !@#$k off to the Russian offer and lobbed a bunch of cruise missiles into Damascus for five days, what would you be saying about his policy then? Umm that he shouldn't have issues a red line to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 And if Obama had said !@#$k off to the Russian offer and lobbed a bunch of cruise missiles into Damascus for five days, what would you be saying about his policy then? Good leaders typically don't put themselves in damned if you do/dambed if you don't situations. These folks are beginning to get real good at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 And if Obama had said !@#$k off to the Russian offer and lobbed a bunch of cruise missiles into Damascus for five days, what would you be saying about his policy then? That would be Obama policy there. Avoiding bombing is random luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 That would be Obama policy there. Avoiding bombing is random luck. Funny. So when kerry went off script and the state dept corrected him, was that also obama genius? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 BTW were do we stand with this or has everything in Syria been put on hold until we're done here in the US talking about gun control (and coffee)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 BTW were do we stand with this or has everything in Syria been put on hold until we're done here in the US talking about gun control (and coffee)? If Obama was drinking coffee, it'd be a Tim Hortons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 (edited) It begins: State Dept says Syria’s 7-day deadline for chemical weapons list not really 7 days Syria basically says: So sue me.......................................... State Dept. says: Pretty please. We've been rolled. Via L.A. Times: PS: New York Times Editors, Columnists Met Off-The-Record With Obama During Syria Push. . Edited September 18, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Watching FoxNews interview between Dennis Kucinich and Bashar Al-Assad. BA-A seems to be coming across as more rational and reasonable than Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts