House of Commons says

[Jim in CT]

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?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's getting down right embarrassing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It certainly is.

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by basswipe

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.

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

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

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...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

[scottw]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I really can't decide where I stand on this one...

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.

[justplugit]

[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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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?

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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



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

-spence

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 ?????

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

"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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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 building
a contingency plan, build a coalition and a strategy in place including an end plan.
As usual, a day late and a dollar short.

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