Obama has Failed at Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
641

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?

interesting how you ignored this. [/quote]

I get your point, but how about this analogy.

Gun man seizes a school. Police surround school and warn gunman not to shoot or they will be forced to take action.
Gunman shoots up the school, gunman is forced to give up his guns and ammo.
Did the warning from the po-po work?
Do you like that analogy?

642

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?

interesting how you ignored this. [/quote]

?

So we should let the rapist still have the tools to continually perform the act?

Apprehending/punishing offenders - in anyway shape or form - is not a success?

[/quote]

Is taking away his tools the only thing that should happen to him?

643

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?

interesting how you ignored this. [/quote]

I get your point, but how about this analogy.

Gun man seizes a school. Police surround school and warn gunman not to shoot or they will be forced to take action.
Gunman shoots up the school, gunman is forced to give up his guns and ammo.
Did the warning from the po-po work?
Do you like that analogy?[/quote]

Here’s a better analogy.

The corrupt mayor of a town has a fleet of heavy armoured vehicles, which he threatens to have his SWAT teams roll through the street, squashing a group of protestors. The state governor grows concerned that this tactic is heavy-handed, so he warns the mayor not to run over any protestors using armoured SWAT vehicles, or he will be forced to take action.

The state government drafts a new law, banning heavy armoured SWAT vehicles.

A state legislator, who is a friend of the mayor, convinces him to give up all of his SWAT vehicles, And the mayor grudgingly complies. All of the SWAT vehicles are carted off to the scrap heap.

But then word comes that a bike cop has just bludgeoned a protestor to death with his bicycle.

It wasn’t a heavy armoured SWAT vehicle, but a vehicle nonetheless, and it was used to kill someone.

Would you say that the Armoured SWAT Vehicle ban, and therefore the governor who sponsored it, were failures because they did not prevent the protestor getting beaten to death by a bicycle?

644

I’d say some uber wealthy CEO’s and Wall Street fatcats would completely disagree with this statement. They adore Obama.

645

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?

interesting how you ignored this. [/quote]

I get your point, but how about this analogy.

Gun man seizes a school. Police surround school and warn gunman not to shoot or they will be forced to take action.
Gunman shoots up the school, gunman is forced to give up his guns and ammo.
Did the warning from the po-po work?
Do you like that analogy?[/quote]

Here’s a better analogy.

The corrupt mayor of a town has a fleet of heavy armoured vehicles, which he threatens to have his SWAT teams roll through the street, squashing a group of protestors. The state governor grows concerned that this tactic is heavy-handed, so he warns the mayor not to run over any protestors using armoured SWAT vehicles, or he will be forced to take action.

The state government drafts a new law, banning heavy armoured SWAT vehicles.

A state legislator, who is a friend of the mayor, convinces him to give up all of his SWAT vehicles, And the mayor grudgingly complies. All of the SWAT vehicles are carted off to the scrap heap.

But then word comes that a bike cop has just bludgeoned a protestor to death with his bicycle.

It wasn’t a heavy armoured SWAT vehicle, but a vehicle nonetheless, and it was used to kill someone.

Would you say that the Armoured SWAT Vehicle ban, and therefore the governor who sponsored it, were failures because they did not prevent the protestor getting beaten to death by a bicycle?[/quote]

Okay, let’s say that’s a better analogy. What’s it analogous to? This makes no sense whatsoever at any level.

646

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?

interesting how you ignored this. [/quote]

I get your point, but how about this analogy.

Gun man seizes a school. Police surround school and warn gunman not to shoot or they will be forced to take action.
Gunman shoots up the school, gunman is forced to give up his guns and ammo.
Did the warning from the po-po work?
Do you like that analogy?[/quote]

Here’s a better analogy.

The corrupt mayor of a town has a fleet of heavy armoured vehicles, which he threatens to have his SWAT teams roll through the street, squashing a group of protestors. The state governor grows concerned that this tactic is heavy-handed, so he warns the mayor not to run over any protestors using armoured SWAT vehicles, or he will be forced to take action.

The state government drafts a new law, banning heavy armoured SWAT vehicles.

A state legislator, who is a friend of the mayor, convinces him to give up all of his SWAT vehicles, And the mayor grudgingly complies. All of the SWAT vehicles are carted off to the scrap heap.

But then word comes that a bike cop has just bludgeoned a protestor to death with his bicycle.

It wasn’t a heavy armoured SWAT vehicle, but a vehicle nonetheless, and it was used to kill someone.

Would you say that the Armoured SWAT Vehicle ban, and therefore the governor who sponsored it, were failures because they did not prevent the protestor getting beaten to death by a bicycle?[/quote]

Okay, let’s say that’s a better analogy. What’s it analogous to? This makes no sense whatsoever at any level.
[/quote]

I don’t like to question your intelligence, Pat, but you do seem to lack imagination.

Corrupt mayor = Bashir al-Assad
Town = Syria
armored vehicles = chemical weapons
SWAT team = Syrian army
Protestors = Assad’s enemies
Governor = Barack Obama
State legislator = Vladimir Putin
Armored Vehicle Ban = Chemical Weapons Convention
bicycle = chlorine gas

I hope you can make sense of the analogy now, on some level.

647

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?

interesting how you ignored this. [/quote]

I get your point, but how about this analogy.

Gun man seizes a school. Police surround school and warn gunman not to shoot or they will be forced to take action.
Gunman shoots up the school, gunman is forced to give up his guns and ammo.
Did the warning from the po-po work?
Do you like that analogy?[/quote]

Here’s a better analogy.

The corrupt mayor of a town has a fleet of heavy armoured vehicles, which he threatens to have his SWAT teams roll through the street, squashing a group of protestors. The state governor grows concerned that this tactic is heavy-handed, so he warns the mayor not to run over any protestors using armoured SWAT vehicles, or he will be forced to take action.

The state government drafts a new law, banning heavy armoured SWAT vehicles.

A state legislator, who is a friend of the mayor, convinces him to give up all of his SWAT vehicles, And the mayor grudgingly complies. All of the SWAT vehicles are carted off to the scrap heap.

But then word comes that a bike cop has just bludgeoned a protestor to death with his bicycle.

It wasn’t a heavy armoured SWAT vehicle, but a vehicle nonetheless, and it was used to kill someone.

Would you say that the Armoured SWAT Vehicle ban, and therefore the governor who sponsored it, were failures because they did not prevent the protestor getting beaten to death by a bicycle?[/quote]

Okay, let’s say that’s a better analogy. What’s it analogous to? This makes no sense whatsoever at any level.
[/quote]

I don’t like to question your intelligence, Pat, but you do seem to lack imagination.

Corrupt mayor = Bashir al-Assad
Town = Syria
armored vehicles = chemical weapons
SWAT team = Syrian army
Protestors = Assad’s enemies
Governor = Barack Obama
State legislator = Vladimir Putin
Armored Vehicle Ban = Chemical Weapons Convention
bicycle = chlorine gas

I hope you can make sense of the analogy now, on some level.
[/quote]

We were talking about the ‘red line’ and the violation of that. Not the further violation of it with regards to the chlorine gas attacks.
And it’s fine to question my intelligence since it seems to be a popular sport lately. I have been called an idiot in one form or another so much lately that it’s almost appealing.

648

[quote]pat wrote:
We were talking about the ‘red line’ and the violation of that. Not the further violation of it with regards to the chlorine gas attacks. [/quote]

Got it. My misunderstanding.

Nah, I’ll only go so far as to post pictures of Elmer Fudd with a shotgun.

649

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
We were talking about the ‘red line’ and the violation of that. Not the further violation of it with regards to the chlorine gas attacks. [/quote]

Got it. My misunderstanding.

Nah, I’ll only go so far as to post pictures of Elmer Fudd with a shotgun.[/quote]

You are hunting wabbits?

650

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
We were talking about the ‘red line’ and the violation of that. Not the further violation of it with regards to the chlorine gas attacks. [/quote]

Got it. My misunderstanding.

Nah, I’ll only go so far as to post pictures of Elmer Fudd with a shotgun.[/quote]

You are hunting wabbits?[/quote]

No, remember you implied that people were calling you a “nimrod” and I posted a picture of a “mighty hunter” worthy of the name.

651

[quote]kamui wrote:

Bad analogy.

No one said “don’t touch her” in this story.
At most, we said “Please put a condom before you rape my jihadist sister”.
And our rapist is now castrated.

[/quote]

So, you’ve not only condoned the use of chemical weapons, you’ve somehow made Assad OUR rapist. He was never our ally, never. Unless we are friends with Iran and Hezbollah as well.

652

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
To be fair, I was being a little too mocking, and a simple misinterpretation is not something that should be mocked, so you have my apologies.[/quote]

No problem. I don’t take offense to anything you write.

653

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?

interesting how you ignored this. [/quote]

?

So we should let the rapist still have the tools to continually perform the act?

Apprehending/punishing offenders - in anyway shape or form - is not a success?

[/quote]

Not my point really. Yeah, go a head, apprehend and punish him, go for it. No problem there. Cut his balls off, hell, cut his head off, I don’t care. Now he doesn’t have the tools to do the job, we agree…but he still did the job.

Anyway, I’m guessing it was a bad analogy for some reason.

All I meant was you can punish Assad all you want NOW that he has used chemical weapons if the basis of your red line was to KEEP HIM FROM USING THEM. That’s my point. That’s it. The red line was a success because the Russians came forth with a deal and took away Assad’s chemical weapons, once the basis for the red line had changed due to what I perceive as weakness. This is only so if the civilians and rebels who were killed are considered mere inconsequential pawns for a greater good conceived after their deaths.

654

[quote]pat wrote:

Obama laid ‘red line’ Assad crossed it. ← This isn’t difficult. The purpose of the red line was so Assad wouldn’t use chemical weapons. The only possible counter argument would be to say Assad didn’t use chemical weapons.
There are only 2 options here.
Or are you trying to say the red line wasn’t a threat against using chemical weapons? [/quote]

You don’t mind if I stop you here Pat?

Was the red line a threat against Syria using chemical weapons on his own people, yes or no?

655

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I do still want to know Gkhan’s answer to this question:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Russia implies that Israel should think twice about doing X to its own citizens.

Israel does X to its own citizens.

Russia prepares to bomb Israel.

The U.S. and Israel rush to offer the Russians the surrender of 2,000,000 pounds or Israeli armaments–armaments the dispossession of which represents a serious Russian security interest, one which had been impossible for more than a decade prior. They do this in a bid to stop Russia from punishing Israel.

Russia takes the armaments under threat of force.

In this scenario, the U.S. is strong, and Russia is weak? You come on to PWI and sing Obama’s praises?
[/quote]
[/quote]

I answered it above. you didn’t agree with my answer. Up to a point the Russians look weak.

If we brokered a deal to keep our ally in power, good for us. If Israel gave up her weapons, win for the Ruskies. Win win. I’ve said it a thousand times. No argument there. Never was.

656

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?

interesting how you ignored this. [/quote]

I get your point, but how about this analogy.

Gun man seizes a school. Police surround school and warn gunman not to shoot or they will be forced to take action.
Gunman shoots up the school, gunman is forced to give up his guns and ammo.
Did the warning from the po-po work?
Do you like that analogy?[/quote]

Here’s a better analogy.

The corrupt mayor of a town has a fleet of heavy armoured vehicles, which he threatens to have his SWAT teams roll through the street, squashing a group of protestors. The state governor grows concerned that this tactic is heavy-handed, so he warns the mayor not to run over any protestors using armoured SWAT vehicles, or he will be forced to take action.

The state government drafts a new law, banning heavy armoured SWAT vehicles.

A state legislator, who is a friend of the mayor, convinces him to give up all of his SWAT vehicles, And the mayor grudgingly complies. All of the SWAT vehicles are carted off to the scrap heap.

But then word comes that a bike cop has just bludgeoned a protestor to death with his bicycle.

It wasn’t a heavy armoured SWAT vehicle, but a vehicle nonetheless, and it was used to kill someone.

Would you say that the Armoured SWAT Vehicle ban, and therefore the governor who sponsored it, were failures because they did not prevent the protestor getting beaten to death by a bicycle?[/quote]

Varq, I don’t have a problem with the Armoured SWAT Vehicles being taken away. But they should punish who ever used that bicycle. How come the guy who killed someone with a bike gets off scott free?

657

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?

interesting how you ignored this. [/quote]

I get your point, but how about this analogy.

Gun man seizes a school. Police surround school and warn gunman not to shoot or they will be forced to take action.
Gunman shoots up the school, gunman is forced to give up his guns and ammo.
Did the warning from the po-po work?
Do you like that analogy?[/quote]

Here’s a better analogy.

The corrupt mayor of a town has a fleet of heavy armoured vehicles, which he threatens to have his SWAT teams roll through the street, squashing a group of protestors. The state governor grows concerned that this tactic is heavy-handed, so he warns the mayor not to run over any protestors using armoured SWAT vehicles, or he will be forced to take action.

The state government drafts a new law, banning heavy armoured SWAT vehicles.

A state legislator, who is a friend of the mayor, convinces him to give up all of his SWAT vehicles, And the mayor grudgingly complies. All of the SWAT vehicles are carted off to the scrap heap.

But then word comes that a bike cop has just bludgeoned a protestor to death with his bicycle.

It wasn’t a heavy armoured SWAT vehicle, but a vehicle nonetheless, and it was used to kill someone.

Would you say that the Armoured SWAT Vehicle ban, and therefore the governor who sponsored it, were failures because they did not prevent the protestor getting beaten to death by a bicycle?[/quote]

Varq, I don’t have a problem with the Armoured SWAT Vehicles being taken away. But they should punish who ever used that bicycle. How come the guy who killed someone with a bike gets off scott free?
[/quote]

Oh, I’m sure the bike cop will be severely reprimanded.

The cool thing about this analogy is that the state senator gets to play the hero for leaning on the mayor, but everyone forgets how the senator’s men squashed hundreds of people, both protestors and bystanders alike, with their own armoured SWAT vehicles, which remain safely in his motor pool.

658

The irony of ironies. Would it be in other towns with other mayors? Now those Armored Swat vehicles… MRAPs?

659

700×525 83.5 KB

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The irony of ironies. Would it be in other towns with other mayors? Now those Armored Swat vehicles… MRAPs?[/quote]

BTR-90s.

660

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Obama laid ‘red line’ Assad crossed it. ← This isn’t difficult. The purpose of the red line was so Assad wouldn’t use chemical weapons. The only possible counter argument would be to say Assad didn’t use chemical weapons.
There are only 2 options here.
Or are you trying to say the red line wasn’t a threat against using chemical weapons? [/quote]

You don’t mind if I stop you here Pat?

Was the red line a threat against Syria using chemical weapons on his own people, yes or no?[/quote]

Yes.