The Red Line: Part Deux

#878
#878
After watching Kerry testify during lunch, I'm convinced the real reason behind this is to send a message to Iran that we will use force to prevent them from building a nuclear weapon capability. The problem is they just elected a moderate who wants to reach out to the west and this strike will simply cause them to tighten up, build up more fear and work to get their nucs built faster.

This guy thinks like I do...

Yahoo! News Canada - Latest News & Headlines
 
#879
#879
Yesterday a team of political advisors (Axelrod, Plouffe, Cutter, Gibbs, etc.) met and today we get the "I didn't set the redline, the world did" line that is being used by POTUS and others (Gibbs for example).

Is it any wonder people have such little trust in government?
 
#881
#881
YorkVol said:
After watching Kerry testify during lunch, I'm convinced the real reason behind this is to send a message to Iran that we will use force to prevent them from building a nuclear weapon capability. The problem is they just elected a moderate who wants to reach out to the west and this strike will simply cause them to tighten up, build up more fear and work to get their nucs built faster.

This guy thinks like I do...

Yahoo! News Canada - Latest News & Headlines
Click to expand...

The President isn't the power player in Iran, the Supreme Leader is.
 
#882
#882
Apparently backpedaling is contagious in two branches of government. Even Mr. Mustache John Bolton is saying the exact opposite of what he said in 2003. Our whole government makes us look like idiots to the world.
 
#883
#883
volinbham said:
Yesterday a team of political advisors (Axelrod, Plouffe, Cutter, Gibbs, etc.) met and today we get the "I didn't set the redline, the world did" line that is being used by POTUS and others (Gibbs for example).

Is it any wonder people have such little trust in government?
Click to expand...

:eek:lol:.......his political advisors. what a hoot they are.
 
#884
#884
Burhead said:
If bombing another sovereign country, who hasn't attacked us or threatens our national security interests, isn't war, what is?
Click to expand...

Two branches of government already said Syria does threaten our national security interest.
 
#885
#885
Burhead said:
The President isn't the power player in Iran, the Supreme Leader is.
Click to expand...

Right, but after the election Khamenei gave him tentative approval to begin reaching out to the west to develop better relationships and hopefully begin lessening the current economic sanctions imposed on Iran. President Rouhani is coming to New York to speak at the UN General Assembly this week. Once we strike the hardliners will simply say "we told you so" and close up the borders again.
 
#886
#886
CSpindizzy said:
Apparently backpedaling is contagious in two branches of government. Even Mr. Mustache John Bolton is saying the exact opposite of what he said in 2003. Our whole government makes us look like idiots to the world.
Click to expand...

Bolton works in the private sector. Who cares what he says
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#888
#888
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Bolton works in the private sector. Who cares what he says
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

He didn't back then. And he is considered an "expert" in the field. Point being how a standard set when one is in charge is a different standard set when your political opponent is in charge. Strange how the standards and conditions of foreign policy and going to war seem to be rearranged like chairs depending on who is running the show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#890
#890
VolsNSkinsFan said:
How do they threaten us?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Ask those who voted for the Act that said they did. Ask W who signed it. Ask the 398 in the House that voted for it. Ask the 89 in the Senate that voted for it. Our duly elected leaders determined that for us. No one seemed to care back then. They just rubber stamped it and set that 'red line' back in 2003 with almost nonexistent opposition.
 
#891
#891
CSpindizzy said:
Two branches of government already said Syria does threaten our national security interest.
Click to expand...

"We may not be directly imminently threatened by what's taking place in a Kosovo or a Syria or a Rawanda in the short-term but our long-term national security will be impacted in a profound way and our humanity's impacted in a profound way."
Click to expand...

if this is true then I'm not sure there's an action anywhere in the world that isn't a NS issue. There's still a difference in national security and national defense

a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Click to expand...
 
#892
#892
utvolpj said:
if this is true then I'm not sure there's an action anywhere in the world that isn't a NS issue. There's still a difference in national security and national defense
Click to expand...

I'm only pointing out the fallacies in the debate from our elected officials. And I am pointing out that most of those still in office already defined the red line on Syria specifically. Either they conveniently forgot it or they are as stupid as Obama is thinking evidence of past votes was shoved under a rug somewhere.

Feel free to go down the roll call of the House and Senate votes to see the names - almost all of those voting in support just on the R side are suddenly saying Syria's possession and use of WMD's does not matter and Syria has no ties to the national security interests of the United States - counter to the voting yes in 2003 that states otherwise.
 
#893
#893
BTVf0npCQAA-QrD.png
 
#895
#895
CSpindizzy said:
He didn't back then. And he is considered an "expert" in the field. Point being how a standard set when one is in charge is a different standard set when your political opponent is in charge. Strange how the standards and conditions of foreign policy and going to war seem to be rearranged like chairs depending on who is running the show.
Click to expand...

Saddam had a plot to blow up Bush Sr. It wasnt some bs plot either, the bomb was ready to go. Now tell me which POTUS Syria has threatened?
 
#896
#896
Consensus among my liberal coworkers this morning; tired of being the world police.
 
#900
#900
volinbham said:
Yesterday a team of political advisors (Axelrod, Plouffe, Cutter, Gibbs, etc.) met and today we get the "I didn't set the redline, the world did" line that is being used by POTUS and others (Gibbs for example).

Is it any wonder people have such little trust in government?
Click to expand...


As I said elsewhere, this is about depersonalizing it, and making it about something other than Obama personally saving face. It has to be done to give the GOP members who want to vote for authorization room to do so lest they be tagged by TPers in their primaries as having sided with Obama on anything.

Consider Liz Cheney, for example. she is running on a platform with one single principal of "Whatever he is for, I'm against." No rhyme. No reason. Just knee jerk.

We actually are seeing a lot of that on this very forum. Instead of debating the merits of use of force, some on here seem content to just make this about Obama's comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top