The Red Line: Part Deux

#476
#476
Velo Vol said:
I'm not talking about transforming the region, I just don't think heads of state should feel they can gas sleeping children with impunity.

And like it or not, we have, and will, carry the albatross of Middle East policy because of its oil (and Israel). That's just the way the world is made.
Click to expand...

He has been bombing them with conventional weapons for 2 years, why the sudden outrage now that he changed killing methods?

If he did?
 
#477
#477
utvolpj said:
so let's say Obama goes ahead and launches 100 cruise missiles at Syria. Let's also say that 1-2 of those missiles don't hit their intended target and instead end up killing a few hundred civilians. Is that still a successful intervention? With the warning we've given Assad are we really likely to hit much of anything besides empty buildings and airstrips?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter where the missiles land or if in fact they actually kill anyone. Al Jazeera will be blasting footage all over the world showing how they blew up an orphanage.
 
#478
#478
lawgator1 said:
Before it was announced we are planning action you all complained about how soft Obama is.

As soon as it was announced, boom, you turn 180 and complain its not in our national interests.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't have a plan to deal with Syria. He felt pressured by his lack of any coherent story and he concocted a bluff to look like we had a strategy.

Assad appears to have called his bluff and now he's in save face mode.

There is no denying that he backed himself into this corner.

As an alternative he could have had the gonads to say our strategy was one of non-intervention; one that would mirror the Libya "pre-emptive human disaster" intervention or that we would be involved in some meaningful way. Instead he waffled and waivered then threw out the red line thinking it was an easy political stance. He was wrong.
 
Last edited:
#479
#479
Gramps said:
The leaders could end the recess and have a vote on this.
Sadly from what I have read if brought to a vote Obama would be given to okay to go ahead with the strike. Congress does not want to go on record with a vote.
Click to expand...

Obama's own leadership style is going to screw him here too. He's spent far too little time engaging with Congress (both sides of the aisle). I don't think he has the relationships and good will he needs from even Dems in Congress to get support.

Years of rhetoric, unilateral exercise of E-power and general lack of any discernible FP doctrine are coming home to roost.
 
#480
#480
To continue the leadership critique. Obama has been quite poor at building or at least maintaining relationships. His reset and subsequent hostility towards Russia means we can count on zero cooperation and more likely outright resistance in Syria. He hasn't forged a relationship with the UK the way that both Clinton and Bush has. He hasn't engaged China in any meaningful way and they take the Russia stance. I don't see evidence of a relationship with the Saudis that can assist in this matter.

in short, he has pretty much ignored the work of FP and we are seeing results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#481
#481
volinbham said:
To continue the leadership critique. Obama has been quite poor at building or at least maintaining relationships. His reset and subsequent hostility towards Russia means we can count on zero cooperation and more likely outright resistance in Syria. He hasn't forged a relationship with the UK the way that both Clinton and Bush has. He hasn't engaged China in any meaningful way and they take the Russia stance. I don't see evidence of a relationship with the Saudis that can assist in this matter.

in short, he has pretty much ignored the work of FP and we are seeing results.
Click to expand...

His relationship and interpersonal skills are evident in his relations with the Republicans. It's his way or no way.

We should expect nothing less in his dealings with foreign powers. Cracks me up that one of the biggest complaints the LGs of the world had against Bush was his foreign relations.
 
#483
#483
hog88 said:
His relationship and interpersonal skills are evident in his relations with the Republicans. It's his way or no way.

We should expect nothing less in his dealings with foreign powers. Cracks me up that one of the biggest complaints the LGs of the world had against Bush was his foreign relations.
Click to expand...

Man, it's really sad that this narcissistic buffoon was even re-elected. No plan on Foreign Affairs & No plan for recovery on the Home Front. The only thing he has done is run the very unpopular ACA down America's throat that nobody wants to have anything to do with. He's even using celebrities to get the word out about that POS legislation.
 
Last edited:
#486
#486
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Man, it's really sad that this narcissistic buffoon was even re-elected. No plan on Foreign Affairs & No plan for recovery on the Home Front.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Personally I think every Obama voter should be forced to tattoo it on their forehead. Be proud and wear it. Also gives us non-idiots a fair warning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#487
#487
volinbham said:
Obama's own leadership style is going to screw him here too. He's spent far too little time engaging with Congress (both sides of the aisle). I don't think he has the relationships and good will he needs from even Dems in Congress to get support.

Years of rhetoric, unilateral exercise of E-power and general lack of any discernible FP doctrine are coming home to roost.
Click to expand...

Obama has had a terrible relationship with Congress. He has not wanted to sincerely deal with them. I do not think Congress will act on Syria and if they did they would vote to give Obama the approval to strike.

I haven't heard any of the leaders say they are opposed to the strike or state that Obama does not have the authority to strike.

Boehner has been very cautious with his wording but all he has asked if for Obama to keep Congress in the loop.

McCain would vote to strike and he states Obama does not need Congress to do so.

Graham agrees with McCain , as usual.

Corker has stated he would vote to strike.

King has stated he is okay with the strike.

Pelosi is for striking.

I haven't heard anything from Reid or McConnell.

I personally think if we had a vote , it would sadly be to strike.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#488
#488
The President and his National Security team is meeting at the White House right now, Kerry due to speak at 12:30.
 
#490
#490
Gramps said:
or vote not to strike.

Is there any signs from the leadership that Congress will be called in session to debate and vote on this?
Click to expand...

There will be strikes, it will escalate and gas prices will be over $4 a gallon within the next 2 to 3 weeks.

Obama cannot not strike, he has run his mouth too much to back down now. He didn't leave himself an out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#491
#491
hog88 said:
There will be strikes, it will escalate and gas prices will be over $4 a gallon within the next 2 to 3 weeks.

Obama cannot not strike, he has run his mouth too much to back down now. He didn't leave himself an out.
Click to expand...

He has an out, same one as Cameron had.

Our Congress could act, get their butts back in session and vote not to strike.
 
#493
#493
Gramps said:
Obama has had a terrible relationship with Congress. He has not wanted to sincerely deal with them. I do not think Congress will act on Syria and if they did they would vote to give Obama the approval to strike.

I haven't heard any of the leaders say they are opposed to the strike or state that Obama does not have the authority to strike.

Boehner has been very cautious with his wording but all he has asked if for Obama to keep Congress in the loop.

McCain would vote to strike and he states Obama does not need Congress to do so.

Graham agrees with McCain , as usual.

Corker has stated he would vote to strike.

King has stated he is okay with the strike.

Pelosi is for striking.

I haven't heard anything from Reid or McConnell.

I personally think if we had a vote , it would sadly be to strike.
Click to expand...



It would be to give him authority, but have some strings attached. Reason is that GOP does not want to look weak-kneed next to Obama. Does not fit their narrative that he is soft on national defense, and they are strong.

But they will attach some nonsensical condition to it, just so they can say he did not fulfill it. And that way if things go south, they can distance themselves from it. And if things go well, they can say it was all their idea.

Pathetic that such gamesmanship taints such an important decision, but I suppose it is inevitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#494
#494
lawgator1 said:
It would be to give him authority, but have some strings attached. Reason is that GOP does not want to look weak-kneed next to Obama. Does not fit their narrative that he is soft on national defense, and they are strong.

But they will attach some nonsensical condition to it, just so they can say he did not fulfill it. And that way if things go south, they can distance themselves from it. And if things go well, they can say it was all their idea.

Pathetic that such gamesmanship taints such an important decision, but I suppose it is inevitable.
Click to expand...


I don't think the majority of GOP or Dems actually wants to have to vote on this one way or other. They rather sit back and either praise of damn Obama after they see what the outcome is.
 
#495
#495
Gramps said:
He has an out, same one as Cameron had.

Our Congress could act, get their butts back in session and vote not to strike.
Click to expand...

He won't call them back, he will make some concessions to some leaders then boom. He cant take the chance congress would vote no.

In all seriousness with Iran threatening, Russia sending ships and Syria threatening to attack Israel if hit, we could be looking at the start of WWIII if not handled correctly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#496
#496
Gramps said:
I don't think the majority of GOP or Dems actually wants to have to vote on this one way or other. They rather sit back and either praise of damn Obama after they see what the outcome is.
Click to expand...

Yes, because clearly the majority of Dems continually trash President Obama on the regular.

:crazy:
 
#497
#497
Gramps said:
I don't think the majority of GOP or Dems actually wants to have to vote on this one way or other. They rather sit back and either praise of damn Obama after they see what the outcome is.
Click to expand...


Problem is that the guys running for POTUS in the GOP want to force it so that they can run on that. Rand Paul was on Fox this morning demanding a vote by Congress, first.

Probably not a popular notion, you are right, but that's the deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#498
#498
hog88 said:
He won't call them back, he will make some concessions to some leaders then boom. He cant take the chance congress would vote no.

In all seriousness with Iran threatening, Russia sending ships and Syria threatening to attack Israel if hit, we could be looking at the start of WWIII if not handled correctly.
Click to expand...

I would think the leaders have already agreed to strike.

I have been thinking for a couple of days this could turn out terrible bad and could cause a World War.
 
#499
#499
VOLinthaNATI said:
Yes, because clearly the majority of Dems continually trash President Obama on the regular.

:crazy:
Click to expand...

I do not think the Dems have the guts to vote against Obama and there is enough Republicans in favor to get him his approval.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top