The Red Line: Part Deux

#776
#776
MG1968 said:
and now those who oppose another war in the Middle East are both unpatriotic and racist
Click to expand...

Pay attention everyone: you're about to see the one-party system in action. You know you're screwed when John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Nancy Pelosi, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz agree on something.

pelosi-assad.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#779
#779
lawgator1 said:
Read it. It does not come close to saying that.
Click to expand...

Of for God's sake man would you make up your mind - in one post you make hugely exaggerated claims about GOP motivations for this or that then you pull something like this where you nitpick.

Let's just say she stated her conversation as some decision making rationale -- it's still moronic and her grandson was a no vote.
 
#780
#780
volinbham said:
Of for God's sake man would you make up your mind - in one post you make hugely exaggerated claims about GOP motivations for this or that then you pull something like this where you nitpick.

Let's just say she stated her conversation as some decision making rationale -- it's still moronic and her grandson was a no vote.
Click to expand...


Seems to me she's just proud of her 5 yr old grandson for having some sense of what is going on and having an opinion at that age. And you posted that and took a jab at her for it.

And then you say I'm nitpicking? Ha. Classic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#781
#781
lawgator1 said:
You said "we have been told" that the plan isn't to do something to degrade their capacity to use chemweps down the line, but in fact we have been told that is a key objective.

Will it be successful? I don't know, my crystal ball is in the shop.
Click to expand...

I'll play your game - that is a patently false representation of what MG said.
 
#782
#782
This is not going to be a Repub or Dem resolution.. There are going to be some strange bed fellows voting together on this.
 
#783
#783
MG1968 said:
what is the purpose of a strike? We've been told that it is not to remove chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

lawgator1 said:
You said "we have been told" that the plan isn't to do something to degrade their capacity to use chemweps down the line, but in fact we have been told that is a key objective.
Click to expand...

volinbham said:
I'll play your game - that is a patently false representation of what MG said.
Click to expand...


I feel like I got pretty close.

tumblr_m32dqvzv1j1qfx9ajo1_400.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#784
#784
Gramps said:
That is not the reason we were sold to go into Iraq.
Click to expand...

Pay attention.

That is not what I was getting at, LG was justifying his support of action against Syria due to the use of CWs while at the same time deriding our reasons for invading Iraq.

If military action is justified against Syria then he has no beef with what we did to Iraq. He is a hypocrite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#785
#785
lawgator1 said:
Seems to me she's just proud of her 5 yr old grandson for having some sense of what is going on and having an opinion at that age. And you posted that and took a jab at her for it.

And then you say I'm nitpicking? Ha. Classic.
Click to expand...

She used it as a story in her justification of why she supports military action. She deserves a jab for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#786
#786
lawgator1 said:
These are the kinds of things that they would be briefed on and discuss with the administration and the military.....

If they bothered to pay any attention.

I just think that there are certain members who are going to vote yes just because its Obama who has proposed it.
Click to expand...

fyp
 
#787
#787
Gramps said:
This is not going to be a Repub or Dem resolution.. There are going to be some strange bed fellows voting together on this.
Click to expand...

Exactly, although I wouldn't use the term "strange bed fellows." You'll see the Demicans and Republicrats come together and do what the country has been so desperate to see -- a "bipartisan" agreement.

Frankly, I'd be shocked to see a use of force authorization fail. It just goes to show you what we're up against with these spineless politicians.
 
#788
#788
So we go from no boots on the ground to potentially boots on the ground. Just brilliant.
 
#789
#789
Burhead said:
So we go from no boots on the ground to potentially boots on the ground. Just brilliant.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I don't like that comment, either. Better for him to just say he cannot comment on strategic plans, then let some low level staffers tell reporters we have no plan to put boots on the ground and would be extremely reluctant to ever do so. Leave it at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#792
#792
#793
#793
Here's the justification - staggering that it is said with a straight face

Hagel added that a failure to punish Syria for the use of chemical weapons would damage U.S. national security interests and American credibility.
"A refusal to act would undermine the credibility of America's other security commitments - including the president's commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," he said. "The word of the United States must mean something."
Click to expand...

We must bomb them because we said we'd do something.

Kerry says Syria authorization should not preclude 'boots on the ground' | Reuters
 
#795
#795
Two devil's advocate thoughts.

1) Having your word mean something is the bedrock of any successful diplomacy (and avoid war). Doesn't excuse making unnecessary ultimatums.

2) If those CW's get in the wrong hands (plenty of those in Syria) and used against the US, Obama and those that vote against taking action will get blamed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#797
#797
Burhead said:
So we go from no boots on the ground to potentially boots on the ground. Just brilliant.
Click to expand...

Are you surprised? Obama has been in power almost 5 years and hasn't had his turn in starting a war, its only fair.
 
#798
#798
PKT_VOL said:
Two devil's advocate thoughts.

1) Having your word mean something is the bedrock of any successful diplomacy (and avoid war). Doesn't excuse making unnecessary ultimatums.

2) If those CW's get in the wrong hands (plenty of those in Syria) and used against the US, Obama and those that vote against taking action will get blamed.
Click to expand...

On #1 you are correct but we never said the response would be a military strike. I think the core criticism is that we had no strategy surrounding the ultimatum and there is huge skepticism that this is much more than a symbolic action. If only symbolic does your word really mean anything?

As an aside, the general that testified today said his instructions are to degrade capabilities but not change momentum. Not sure how you thread that needle.

On #2 we are always in that situation. I refer back to #1 - the real criticism lies in the lack of a strategy for Syria and for the larger ME. This lack of strategy led to the off-the-cuff bravado of the red line and left us with no plan for the red line being violated.

Prior to Iraq I'd have felt #2 was more legit than I do know. The risks of someone getting Syria's chem weapons and killing a couple thousand US citizens don't outweigh the risks of the protracted efforts required to ensure that could never happen IMHO.

If we are really down to "blame calculus" the smart money is still on no action since it is likely Obama will be long gone before (and if) this happened. Clinton dodged almost all blame for AQ ascendency and 9/11 even though it happened both on his watch and shortly after his watch.
 
Last edited:
#800
#800
Hillary sure did dodge a bullet (no Bosnia pun intended) on this one. I bet she's laughing her arse off watching Kerry defend what she would have had to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top