Obama has Failed at Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

But it doesn’t much matter what they gave up since they already used them.
[/quote]

My last post: This is very wrong, and it illustrates why I don’t want to continue having this conversation.

It doesn’t much matter? International relations is a game for the callous more than it’s a game for people with bleeding hearts: What didn’t much matter to American interests was, in fact, the Ghouta attack. Some Syrian civilians died…and? Obama kills Arab civilians by dropping things on them on a monthly if not weekly basis. Do we like seeing civilians die? No. But our generals aren’t losing sleep over the women and children of Ghouta.

What does matter to us is the stockpile of chemical weapons in unstable regions of the world. Though they aren’t really all that powerful or all that much worse than “conventional” weapons, they represent a path of escalation that leads much more quickly and much more decidedly in the direction of total war. They are also better suited for attacks on urban civilian populations than on military targets. Does that sound like the kind of thing we want lying around a failing state that’s being overrun by jihadists? No.

So, we want the weapons out and gone. And what do we get? The weapons out and gone. How do we get it? We make a threat, the threat goes unheeded, we move to strike, and Assad capitulates. Not because Russia fuckin asked him to–because “America is going to attack you” is not a pleasant thing for foreign leaders to hear, and this is exactly what Assad was hearing in September 2013.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say on the subject. If you don’t agree, I’m alright with that.[/quote]

Where’s your evidence that Assad was actually afraid of an American military strike? Where is your evidence that Assad capitulated to pressure by the U.S.?[/quote]

That they rushed to sign a deal. Obviously.

[quote]
Kerry’s threat was that they turn over their chemical weapons in a week, they did not and we did not respond militarily.[/quote]

There were 4-5 days between Kerry’s hint and the finalization of the agreement to surrender. What are you talking about?

62

AP: Syria on Monday quickly welcomed a call from Russia, its close ally, to place Syrian chemical arsenals under international control, then destroy them to avert a U.S. strike, but did not offer a time frame or any other specifics.

BBC: Russia has asked Syria to put its chemical weapons stockpiles under international control and then have them destroyed, in an attempt to avoid US military strikes.

Latimes: “The United States and Russia reached a surprise diplomatic breakthrough Saturday, agreeing to an ambitious deal that would strip Syria of chemical weapons by mid-2014 and shelve the prospect of a U.S. military strike.”

Wapo: “There are two ways to look at Russia’s proposal. Either it’s an earnest proposal that has a good chance of actually happening or it’s a shrewd delaying tactic. The former would be much better news for Syria than the latter. But, in either case, it suggests that Russia sincerely believes the U.S. may go through with the strikes ? and that it wants badly to prevent this. Even if Russia’s proposal is just a bluff, it shows that President Obama’s threat has backed Moscow into a bit of a corner, and has forced Russian officials to at least pretend to negotiate seriously for the first time in a long time.” [It turned out to be the former, an earnest proposal.]

…And, most importantly, simple common sense, like, Syria never admits it even has weapons, and then, five days after the U.S. threatens a strike because of the weapons, Syria suddenly not only admits to having them, but is offering to give them up. You know why they made that offer, and any attempt to suggest that you believe otherwise is disingenuous.

63

But, on the other hand, Assad says it’s got nothing to do with the threatened strikes!

Shit, I guess we’ll never know, right?

64

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But, on the other hand, Assad says it’s got nothing to do with the threatened strikes!

Shit, I guess we’ll never know, right?[/quote]

Why would you trust the word of man who is willing to gas his own people ?

66

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But, on the other hand, Assad says it’s got nothing to do with the threatened strikes!

Shit, I guess we’ll never know, right?[/quote]

Why would you trust the word of man who is willing to gas his own people ?

[/quote]

My point exactly, good sir.

Edit: Especially when we know without doubt that his words are obviously, inarguably false.

67

[quote]Edgy wrote:
i think it’s ironic that a powerlifting/bodybuilding website killed a forum like SAMA, yet kept a politics forum so the same crew of opinionated meatheads have a place to discuss shit that they know nothing about, with no basis on fact, or historic reference.

what were you thinking, TN?[/quote]

You’re absolutely right, perhaps we should all move over to GAL and discuss if it’s morally reprehensible or not to cheat on your wife?

68

[quote]Edgy wrote:
so the same crew of opinionated meatheads have a place to discuss shit that they know nothing about, with no basis on fact, or historic reference.[/quote]

So you mean… Just like SAMA?

I like you Edgy, and you’re more than welcome to voice your opinion on topic, but this type of posting will get you proverbially eaten alive around here.

I’d rather Zep and his Statist buddies to this type of off topic bullshit. Please whine about SAMA elsewhere.

69

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:
i think it’s ironic that a powerlifting/bodybuilding website killed a forum like SAMA, yet kept a politics forum so the same crew of opinionated meatheads have a place to discuss shit that they know nothing about, with no basis on fact, or historic reference.

what were you thinking, TN?[/quote]

You’re absolutely right, perhaps we should all move over to GAL and discuss if it’s morally reprehensible or not to cheat on your wife?[/quote]

I once waded into GAL, picked up on a strong men’s rights movement vibe, and backed away slowly. If I never read an embittered diatribe on “sexual market value” again, it will be too soon.

70

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:
i think it’s ironic that a powerlifting/bodybuilding website killed a forum like SAMA, yet kept a politics forum so the same crew of opinionated meatheads have a place to discuss shit that they know nothing about, with no basis on fact, or historic reference.

what were you thinking, TN?[/quote]

You’re absolutely right, perhaps we should all move over to GAL and discuss if it’s morally reprehensible or not to cheat on your wife?[/quote]

I once waded into GAL, picked up on a strong men’s rights movement vibe, and backed away slowly. If I never read an embittered diatribe on “sexual market value” again, it will be too soon.[/quote]

Lol, ya that’s certainly present at times.

71

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:
i think it’s ironic that a powerlifting/bodybuilding website killed a forum like SAMA, yet kept a politics forum so the same crew of opinionated meatheads have a place to discuss shit that they know nothing about, with no basis on fact, or historic reference.

what were you thinking, TN?[/quote]

You’re absolutely right, perhaps we should all move over to GAL and discuss if it’s morally reprehensible or not to cheat on your wife?[/quote]

zing

72

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:
i think it’s ironic that a powerlifting/bodybuilding website killed a forum like SAMA, yet kept a politics forum so the same crew of opinionated meatheads have a place to discuss shit that they know nothing about, with no basis on fact, or historic reference.

what were you thinking, TN?[/quote]

You’re absolutely right, perhaps we should all move over to GAL and discuss if it’s morally reprehensible or not to cheat on your wife?[/quote]

I once waded into GAL, picked up on a strong men’s rights movement vibe, and backed away slowly. If I never read an embittered diatribe on “sexual market value” again, it will be too soon.[/quote]

Lol, ya that’s certainly present at times. [/quote]

Not surprisingly, the Bill Burr thread went there in a hurry and got really heated.

73

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:
i think it’s ironic that a powerlifting/bodybuilding website killed a forum like SAMA, yet kept a politics forum so the same crew of opinionated meatheads have a place to discuss shit that they know nothing about, with no basis on fact, or historic reference.

what were you thinking, TN?[/quote]

You’re absolutely right, perhaps we should all move over to GAL and discuss if it’s morally reprehensible or not to cheat on your wife?[/quote]

good point - the idea was to identify what is regarded as cheating, but I get your point, and shall digress -

btw - much respect~

74

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:
so the same crew of opinionated meatheads have a place to discuss shit that they know nothing about, with no basis on fact, or historic reference.[/quote]

So you mean… Just like SAMA?

I like you Edgy, and you’re more than welcome to voice your opinion on topic, but this type of posting will get you proverbially eaten alive around here.

I’d rather Zep and his Statist buddies to this type of off topic bullshit. Please whine about SAMA elsewhere. [/quote]

will do, beansie~

btw - I did attempt a retraction of the comment after i had posted it, but the mods must have wanted to keep it as is - maybe they are bored and are waiting for this to get ugly?

I can see the mods eating popcorn, and thinking “this’ll be good”…

75

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:
i think it’s ironic that a powerlifting/bodybuilding website killed a forum like SAMA, yet kept a politics forum so the same crew of opinionated meatheads have a place to discuss shit that they know nothing about, with no basis on fact, or historic reference.

what were you thinking, TN?[/quote]

You’re absolutely right, perhaps we should all move over to GAL and discuss if it’s morally reprehensible or not to cheat on your wife?[/quote]

zing
[/quote]

Right? that dude was quick, and on the money~

76

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite him in a big way.[/quote]

Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]

The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell. [/quote]

The use of chemical weapons is not a sufficient nor prudent reason for initiating a war. Weapons of mass destruction is a normative term that cannot separate the emotional response their nature invokes from the rational assessment of the threat that they pose. As such, so called WMD are more accurately described as Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear weapons (CBRNS). [/quote]

you, of course mean CBRNPCs.

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear or Pressure Cookers.[/quote]

Legal definitions don’t always constitute analytical region. Such is the case with pressure cookers being included in the above category.

77

[quote]Edgy wrote:
i think it’s ironic that a powerlifting/bodybuilding website killed a forum like SAMA, yet kept a politics forum so the same crew of opinionated meatheads have a place to discuss shit that they know nothing about, with no basis on fact, or historic reference.

what were you thinking, TN?[/quote]

you guys are right, i apologize for wading into this discussion only to interject my bullshit - srsly - next time i get bored and in a shitty mood i’ll think twice about getting in this forum~

i srsly apologize~

Edgy~

78

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite him in a big way.[/quote]

Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]

The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell. [/quote]

The use of chemical weapons is not a sufficient nor prudent reason for initiating a war. Weapons of mass destruction is a normative term that cannot separate the emotional response their nature invokes from the rational assessment of the threat that they pose. As such, so called WMD are more accurately described as Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear weapons (CBRNS). [/quote]

you, of course mean CBRNPCs.

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear or Pressure Cookers.[/quote]

Legal definitions don’t always constitute analytical region. Such is the case with pressure cookers being included in the above category. [/quote]

The fact that a pressure cooker can be considered a weapon of mass destruction is somehow more scary than the chance of a CBRN attack actually happening.

Because what’s the next thing they’re going to expand their classification to include?

Already we’ve got Homeland Security busting drug gangs…I thought Homeland Security was supposed to keep us safe from terrorist attacks. Picking up drug members is the job of the police and the FBI.

Creeping Fascism is what I call it.

79

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite him in a big way.[/quote]

Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]

The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell. [/quote]

The use of chemical weapons is not a sufficient nor prudent reason for initiating a war. [/quote]

Obama said it was…then backed down because of Russian pressure. If they are not a good reason to start a war, why did Obama feel he had to threaten Syria? Was it because Assad’s father used chemical weapons to subdue a rebellion in the early 80’s? If it is not a sufficient nor prudent reason for starting a war, why was the rumor that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction the reason we invaded Iraq in the first place?

History has proven your statement incorrect.[/quote]

Refer to SMH’s excellent posts regarding the successful compellence of the Syria regime and Russia by the American threat of force.

It justified the invasion, which I assert was intended to establish Iraq as a bastion of democracy that would radiate throughout a strategically vital region. The Bush administration was a disciple of democratic peace theory.

History has proven what, exactly? That one administration will threaten punitive and limited airstrikes if chemical weapons are used and another will manufacture false intelligence to justify a preventative invasion because of their supposed existence? Again, I stated the limited use of chemical weapons are neither a SUFFICIENT NOR PRUDENT reason for using significant military force. They serve as combiner political scapegoats because they are lumped into the erroneous WND categorization. The onus is upon you to demonstrate that chemical weapons belong in the same strategic and tactical category as nuclear weapons or weapons grade biological weapons.

80

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite him in a big way.[/quote]

Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]

The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell. [/quote]

The use of chemical weapons is not a sufficient nor prudent reason for initiating a war. Weapons of mass destruction is a normative term that cannot separate the emotional response their nature invokes from the rational assessment of the threat that they pose. As such, so called WMD are more accurately described as Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear weapons (CBRNS). [/quote]

you, of course mean CBRNPCs.

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear or Pressure Cookers.[/quote]

Legal definitions don’t always constitute analytical region. Such is the case with pressure cookers being included in the above category. [/quote]

The fact that a pressure cooker can be considered a weapon of mass destruction is somehow more scary than the chance of a CBRN attack actually happening.

Because what’s the next thing they’re going to expand their classification to include?

Already we’ve got Homeland Security busting drug gangs…I thought Homeland Security was supposed to keep us safe from terrorist attacks. Picking up drug members is the job of the police and the FBI.

Creeping Fascism is what I call it.
[/quote]

Only by fools taking advantage of the fear of their peers.

Transnational crime falls within the purview of DHS.