he most certainly does not, he points out the many missteps and the ways in which he's painted himself into a corner resulting in "amature hour", he's very clear that he would NOT would have done "basically the same thing" and your statement bears no resemblance to the truth...nice try though:uhuh: not a hawk...a zombie :shocked:

Once we elected Obama, I thought his presence would be a rallying point for the reast of the world to get behind us, whereas Bush was a cowboy who didn't try to get international support. How is that working out? Are our allies indicating that they are willing to pitch in?

Obama can't get one right even by accident. How does it make us look, when Obama talks tough, then punts it to Congress, then goes golfing?

It's all about making republicans look bad. Now he can say, the GOP doesn't care about Syrians being gassed . It's getting down right embarrassing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It certainly is.

Actually the GOP is this fool's biggest backer right now.

Think about this:We have a president in so far above his head with this "red-line" sh!t that he's actually allying himself with McCain and Beohner to save any credibility he has left.All the while we have Pelosi calling it "humanities line" and an entire Congress unsure of itself and the decisions it can make all because of political ambition.

Wake up ladies.......this guy could put us in a place we all don't need to be so that he doesn't look like a pussy.

Agreed basswipe. This is bad. I bet Kerry wants to run for president next and this is his chance to take the stage for some chest thumping.
Meanwhile, radioactive water is flooding I to the pacific from Fukushima. Why don't we focus on that?? That seems more important to me. The people of Syria can fight their own battle. Perpetual war does not mean perpetual peace.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And this radioactive will stay around as long as the middle east has been fighting each other. Thousands of years! Go green! Clean up the plastic in the Pacific.
Let them kill each other, why is it our problem again?

we should be exporting something to make them as passive as O and O.

I don't consider Beohner or McCain mainstream GOP by any stretch. I don't think the resolution will pass . After yesterday's hearings...holy sheet, is our leadership a mess
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=justplugit;1012055]Hope your right Buck, but politicians make strange bed fellows.
I admire Mc Cain for his bravery and military service and tough stances,
one of the main reasons I voted for him, and he certainly wouldn't have made a worldwide tour putting America down and whispering in Putin's ear.
That being said I don't see him as a military strategist and don't agree with
his wanting to use force in this instance.
If O was so concerned about his red line , he should have started immediately buildinga contingency plan, a coalition and a strategy in place including an end plan.
As usual, a day late and a dollar short, what else is new?

He made and address on the worlds stage and basically said the world, not he, drew the red line and then proceeded to say that there really wasn't an emanate threat to the US. Thereby admitting he had to ask for a congressional resolution . What a tool bag !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Building a coalition implies you're going to take action. Unless you plan to invade preemptive a public facing coalition does nothing.

The tough talk is because you assume they're not going to think they can get away with it.

Not attacking right away and working to build consensus takes a lot more resolve than simply pushing the button.

-spence

He is not going to build any consensus! Keep dreaming.
Every time he opens mouth we lose more credibility . He's no George Bush that's for sure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What a relief.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

on George bushes Last speech he just couldn't wait to say PHEW!
because he knew it was his last...he was after all :point: BURNT OUT

Barry has already reached that phase of his presidency

Did I hear that right???? Markey voted "present "
That's hilarious
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't throwing down a red line mean you plan to take action "IF". A true leader, after making a red line statement, would have started to find the countries who would back him and how far they were willing to go.

Your second quote is just exactly what O didn't do. It was an immediate reaction
to use missiles launched from our ships, targets announced and a statement that he was willing to go it alone. Now he announces that it wasn't his red line but the world's red line. I must not of had my hearing aide on ?????

I'm thinking if we are going to send a message , lets jut bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and get it over with. That red lines going to be crossed soon.
Message sent to Syria, Iran and that nutty Nprth Korean.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You truly believe Paul and Cruz are the mainstream then?

I'm very torn on this issue.
On one hand, we should stay the F out of the middle east. on the other, they used chemical weapons, and that's a line that can't be crossed without repercussions... I really can't decide where I stand on this one...

They used them before this time and Iraq did too. Hate to see world war 3 started over this . Then what? He lines up 1k people and machine guns them. So we only go in because of the means by which they were killed?
And yes , I do believe the latter two do have more in common with conservative believes .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

whatever happened to sitting down with these dictators over tea, without any pre-conditions and fixing these problems without having to resort to military action?

wasn't long ago that Pelosi, O, Kerry, Clinton and others were telling us that Assad was brilliant, highly educated, a reformer who would fundamentally change his country, Hope & Change for Syria or something....guess we never learn

best quote of the weekend by one of the befuddled sycophant media types on one of the big three propaganda outlets ...."after making his statement in the Rose Garden, the President played a round of golf"

yup.....

Nero Fiddled
Zero Golfs
:uhuh:

"Building a coalition implies you're going to take action. Unless you plan to invade preemptive a public facing coalition does nothing."

Absolutely, totally, one hundred percent bullsh*t.

Consider NATO, which was a coalition formed to keep the Soviet Union from getting any ideas about invading member nations. The existence of NATO did not involve any pre-emptive military action against anyone, it was purely preventative. And it worked.

A coalition can be a very effective deterrent. Unfortunately, it requires that the leaders of the nations in the coalition, are taken seriously by their adversaries, and that's clearly not the case with our Dear Leader Obama.

We're talking about localized action here, not a long-term defence strategy...very different things.

-spence

I agree 100%.

On the one hand, this guy has killed tens of thousands of civilians with bullets. But we are only willing to attack when 1,000 more are killed with gas, and that's that much worse than killing a larger number of children with guns?

On the other hand, I do believe that the strong have the responsibility to protect the weak, and if no one else can save these kids, is it not worth doing? But then again, if we kill/remove Assad, there's no way of knowing that whoever replaces him, won't do the same thing to his political opponents?

It's a mess. That part of the world is a godawful mess. Very difficult to know what the right thing to do is. But when I was in the Marines, all I ever prayed for, was a worthwhile mission. Trying to save inncocent civilians is about as noble as it gets. But peace, at least lasting peace, doesn't seem to work in that part of the world.

I had a colonel who used to say, "as long as those people hate each other more than they love their own children, there can be no possible peace." I guess that just about sums it up.

So why can an international coalition work as a defensive deterrent against the Soviet Union, but not against pip-squeak Syria?

Enlighten me.

It's common sense Spence. Most people (not all, but most) can be controlled with a sufficient threat of force.

Very different situations. One if focused on a long-term defensive position with a very clear mandate.

The other is reactive in nature, responding to an isolated and incremental event that has a less clear mandate.

Can't just rubber stamp on onto the other...very different.

-spence

Spence, seriously you think this will be a localized action???
No one can predict what the outcome will be. We are not talking Grenada here
but a match that could set off the start of WW 111.
There are no simple solutions to this problem. Either side ,in this on going war,
could spread these chemical weapons, and neither side can be trusted.
Throwing a few missiles will not destroy all their chemical weapons and it
will end up being our troops on the ground to find and destroy them.
Once started this will neither be localized or short term.

The WW3 talk is just fear mongering. None of the major players would benefit from it and hence it's not likely.

The point here wasn't to destroy all the chemical weapons, it was to send a message that the international community doesn't allow the use of them. At this point what's the cost of doing nothing?

-spence

Spoken like a true disciple of Obama, who via his penchant for voting "present", is a great believer in doing nothing.

Spence, the potential cost of doing nothing, is enormous. I cannot believe you don't already know this, but the cost of doing nohting, is that it sends a message to Assad and others like him, that the US is too impotent to prevent this kind of thing in the future.

The cost of doing nothing is that it invites subsequent war crimes.

How can you really ask that? Are you that naive? Or do you literally have zero empathy for anyone who wasn't as lucky as you and I, to be born in a place that values freedom?

Jim, I believe you are actually agreeing with Spence on this. Spence backs doing something, sending the message that the "international community," whatever that is, does not allow the use of really nasty weapons. Good old fashioned guns, and such, (the very weapons that regular folks should not possess and would be banned by the "international community") are OK.

Apparently, the "international community" is divided on many, many issues. Various nations within that "community" have stockpiles of such weapons. Not sure of why this international community would produce and stock stuff that it doesn't allow the use of.

And this "community" seems often to be paralyzed against "doing" something because, it seems, it usually contradicts itself. It really appears to be a house divided against itself, a rather rickety, crumbling house. Within such a "community" the cost of doing nothing, in the end, is not much different than doing "something."

The difference, when the dust settles, temporarily, is who gets what. Who is getting what in the dispute between tyrants and jihadists might make a difference to the U.S., but the tyrants may be more to our benefit than the others. And if it were really for the liberation of individuals from the oppression of a dictatorial State, and from the tyranny of an intolerant religion, it might be beneficial for us to actually fight for that liberation rather than merely send a message. Even unilaterally. But the Arab Spring, so far, doesn't indicate such liberation.

LOL.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fear mongering and not likely?????
If you really think that, you have your head in the sand.
Iran would use any excuse for attacking Israel preemptively before Israel could
destroy their growing nuclear program. You don't think Israel would hesitate to
use nuclear weapons if attacked with chemical weapons? Once nuclear weapons are in play, it's any body's guess. Your not dealing with rational people here but with a myriad of countries with different agendas.
As stated before, NO ONE knows what the outcome of either attacking or not attacking would lead to. O got us into this mess with his pre election rhetoric.

BTW, please explain what O's red line is when it comes to Iran getting nuclear weapons in the very near future and what will he do. Hope he has built up a coalition and has a plan. Not likely.
Spence, this is not like Clinton sending a missile into an abandoned aspirin factory.

I think there's zero chance Iran makes a pre-emptive strike on Israel. They are fully aware Tehran would be vaporized in an hour. Iran has no where to hide.

And for all of them the number one agenda item is staying in power.

This is pretty much the Syria story as well. Assad recognized he need to start showing some reforms as the Arab Spring heated up and had a new administration willing to talk...but the resistance was more than he gambled on and escalated quickly into a full on civil war.

That's nonsense, it would be a messy situation no matter what.

Iran will get a nuke regardless of any red line...even Israel can't stop them now...the bigger question is if that's a show stopper. Remember, that regime doesn't want to lose power as well.

-spence

"I think there's zero chance Iran makes a pre-emptive strike on Israel. They are fully aware Tehran would be vaporized in an hour. Iran has no where to hide"

Spence, think for a minute. Many of these people (perhaps the leaders of Iran, perhaps not) are so committed to their cause, that they don't fear consequences, that's how you get so many suicide bombers. You can't necessarily apply logic to these people. The kooky president of Iran has said he would gladly be a martyr to wipe Israel off the map. Whether or not he means it, who knows?

"for all of them the number one agenda item is staying in power."

Not for all of them. For some, the really scary ones, the number one item is serving Allah, even if, or especially if, they have to die in the process.

"Iran will get a nuke regardless of any red line...even Israel can't stop them now"

Sure they can. Israel has nukes today. Iran doesn't.

My bet is that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, and it won't be Obama that stops them, it will be Israel. The Israelis will never allow Iran to get a nuke, they will do whatever it takes to stop that, and they will be justified to do it. That's my prediction.

Spence, Jim did a nice job answering you point for point. Nothing further to say.

You and I are both speculating here as to the results of O's plan of a "shot across the bow" working,without need for further action or escalation of problems in the region. If that is your thinking, and it works, my hat will be off to you.
My problem has been, since day one, that there was no strategy or end game plan
and shooting from the hip, instead of looking at all your options , usually
doesn't turn out well. No crystal ball here, just looking at present and past history in that region.

Only time will tell.

Backing the uprising in Iran sure looks like it might have been a good move .
Since this is all about credibility, won't that all change with a new President? I thought that's what happened when Bush left?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The number one tool that governments use to strengthen their power hold on their country is fear. All this stuff is is fear mongering to get the people of this world to give in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reuters- Russia sending a missile cruiser into the Mediteranian
to be joined by a destroyer and frigate.
No problem here, they say they don't want to get involved in a conflict in Syria.
We should feel much better now. Just a scare tactic, nothing could escalate.

Fearmongering
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device