The Red Line: Part Deux

[lawgator1]

Why are so many long time Obama supporters in complete disagreement with you on this? Think about that for a while and get back to us.

You are (I think intentionally) mixing issues.

A lot of people are opposed to Obama's position on strikes. I'm one of those people.

But the people who are making an issue out of an op-Ed that Putin didn't even write, or that are denying that the diplomatic solution on the table right now is the result of Obama's policy on this, are overwhelmingly GOPers or their mouthpieces.

Though I disagree with strikes, I'm not so obtuse as you as to deny that the threat has caused a pretty significant action. Or promise of one so far, anyway.

I think the fact that I oppose the strikes, but admit of the effect of the threat, is an honest assessment of the situation. The GOP's constant flip flopping around so as to always argue that Obama is wrong is utter politics, purely.

 

[BigPapaVol]

How is the status quo a victory for the guy stomping his feet over the status quo? Particularly after his own influence was massively diminished in the situation?

 

[volinbham]

You are (I think intentionally) mixing issues.

A lot of people are opposed to Obama's position on strikes. I'm one of those people.

But the people who are making an issue out of an op-Ed that Putin didn't even write, or that are denying that the diplomatic solution on the table right now is the result of Obama's policy on this, are overwhelmingly GOPers or their mouthpieces.

Though I disagree with strikes, I'm not so obtuse as you as to deny that the threat has caused a pretty significant action. Or promise of one so far, anyway.

I think the fact that I oppose the strikes, but admit of the effect of the threat, is an honest assessment of the situation. The GOP's constant flip flopping around so as to always argue that Obama is wrong is utter politics, purely.

The "he didn't write it" issue is absurd. Does Obama write his speeches? Do you think he wrote the 3 op-eds that I posted? Red herring.

As I stated before - even hardcore Obamaphiles are in complete disagreement that Obama played this well and the "solution" on the table is the result of some coherent Obama policy. It's about 10 - 1 in editorials suggesting Obama fumbled his way into a potential solution so pretending it's some partisan BS to criticize Obama is patently absurd.

Finally, it's laughable that you complain of GOP flip-flopping on the issue. The vast majority of both pro and anti-Obama commentators have reached the same conclusion; Obama is the bumbler here.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Huh?

The people saying that are Obama-bashers. Everyone else is, correctly, pointing out that the only reason we are at this stage is that Obama was tough and took the moral high ground from the getgo.

Do I really need to go back in this thread and show you all the Obama bashers complaining about him being weak? You mean to tell me that Putin has the moral high ground because he proposed a diplomatic solution? A solution created solely by the fact that Obama stuck to his guns? And you are going to credit Putin for this, not Obama !?

That makes no sense. And you know it. And that is what pisses you off. Obama won again.

That's why one administration insider referred to this as the "most embarrassing moment in presidential history." The only thing Obama did was ensure future decisions in the Middle East go through Moscow. The Russians are getting everything they wanted out of this. Putin is laughing his ass off right now.

Your defense of this president is laughable. Please tell me what's so appealing about Obama. I have to know.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

All I know is I see a bunch of Republicans and their minions at conservative blogs and Fox -- who usually seem to bash Putin and say he cannot be trusted -- suddenly parading around Putin's op-ed criticizing Obama as though it were a just discovered new testament.

Could it be that you are suddenly doing an about face on Putin just because it gives you a chance to bash Obama over something so trivial as an op-ed piece? Nah ....

They're "parading" because Putin's op-ed piece, written by a speechwriter, is having its intended effect. Putin put Obama over his knee and spanked him. That's why it's getting a lot of press.

 

[utvolpj]

what's sad is this legitimizes Putin in the world view and inserts Russia directly to the front of world politics. It was a brilliant move to pounce on the opportunity and just shows the US admin is amateur hour in comparison

 

[utvolpj]

oh yeah, and the leader of the Syrian resistance fighters al-Nusra (aka Al-Qaeda) also called for this

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri urged small-scale attacks inside the United States to "bleed America economically", adding he hoped eventually to see a more significant strike, according to the SITE monitoring service.

"We should bleed America economically by provoking it to continue in its massive expenditure on its security, for the weak point of America is its economy, which has already begun to stagger due to the military and security expenditure," he said.

Al Qaeda calls for attacks inside United States

good thing we're arming that group huh?

 

[82_VOL_83]

The long line of Obama defenders that are trashing him (see Joe Klein as one of many, many examples) are not enough for you?

Putin doesn't have high moral ground but to claim that Obama has won or even any kind of victory here is insane even for you.

No, but when you dig a hole as deep as Barry has, everything looks like high ground.

 

[82_VOL_83]

You are (I think intentionally) mixing issues.

A lot of people are opposed to Obama's position on strikes. I'm one of those people.

But the people who are making an issue out of an op-Ed that Putin didn't even write, or that are denying that the diplomatic solution on the table right now is the result of Obama's policy on this, are overwhelmingly GOPers or their mouthpieces.

Though I disagree with strikes, I'm not so obtuse as you as to deny that the threat has caused a pretty significant action. Or promise of one so far, anyway.

I think the fact that I oppose the strikes, but admit of the effect of the threat, is an honest assessment of the situation. The GOP's constant flip flopping around so as to always argue that Obama is wrong is utter politics, purely.

What you are failing (quite well I might add) to understand is that Russia and Assad are allies. One friend walks over to the other and says, hey, give me a couple of your missiles, I'll extort a promise out of Bozo over there not to attack, and you and I will win this war for you. I will give you so many conventional weapons that you'll be done in a week. Do you not understand that you and all the other Bozo chin wipers look like idiots? This "treaty" isn't going to solve a damn thing in Syria other than to castrate our country. Although since Barry and Karry are leading the charge, what can you expect.

 

[lawgator1]

What you are failing (quite well I might add) to understand is that Russia and Assad are allies. One friend walks over to the other and says, hey, give me a couple of your missiles, I'll extort a promise out of Bozo over there not to attack, and you and I will win this war for you. I will give you so many conventional weapons that you'll be done in a week. Do you not understand that you and all the other Bozo chin wipers look like idiots? This "treaty" isn't going to solve a damn thing in Syria other than to castrate our country. Although since Barry and Karry are leading the charge, what can you expect.

You are now shifting the goal to be regime change. And you are arguing that if we fail to achieve that, then its Obama's fault. Of course, the immediate goal wasto stop any more use of chemical weapons, and it looks like that might work out.

If you want to debate regime change, and how we go about it if that is what we want, that is a good debate to have. There are pros and cons, and indeed when it appeared that was the goal, the GOP was criticizing Obama for THAT, largely on the theory that whoever takes over could be worse.

So, the first thing you need to do is identify the goal you support here. So which is it? Regime change or stopping use of chemical weapons? Or something else?

 

[82_VOL_83]

You are now shifting the goal to be regime change. And you are arguing that if we fail to achieve that, then its Obama's fault. Of course, the immediate goal wasto stop any more use of chemical weapons, and it looks like that might work out.

If you want to debate regime change, and how we go about it if that is what we want, that is a good debate to have. There are pros and cons, and indeed when it appeared that was the goal, the GOP was criticizing Obama for THAT, largely on the theory that whoever takes over could be worse.

So, the first thing you need to do is identify the goal you support here. So which is it? Regime change or stopping use of chemical weapons? Or something else?

OK, I will type s l o w l y... Assad wants to win the war. He needs more Russian help to do it. He needs the US to not be snooping around and involved in his war. He makes a phony deal with Russia, Russia brokers the phony deal, Russia keeps the US out of Syria, Assad wins the war. Barry's support for the Rebels other than a few truck loads of weapons is stopped. What part of OBOZO is playing right into their hands do you not get? Do you think that Assad gives on shiite about that stupid treaty? It is a treaty with the WEST. He will sign it and break it in the same day if he wants. He WILL NOT get rid of all of his CW. You may believe that because you are notoriously gullible, but I don't believe it for a second. There is NO WAY to know if they are all turned in. If he is losing and in imminent danger of going down, he will gas everyone in sight.

 

[82_VOL_83]

You are now shifting the goal to be regime change. And you are arguing that if we fail to achieve that, then its Obama's fault. Of course, the immediate goal wasto stop any more use of chemical weapons, and it looks like that might work out.

If you want to debate regime change, and how we go about it if that is what we want, that is a good debate to have. There are pros and cons, and indeed when it appeared that was the goal, the GOP was criticizing Obama for THAT, largely on the theory that whoever takes over could be worse.

So, the first thing you need to do is identify the goal you support here. So which is it? Regime change or stopping use of chemical weapons? Or something else?

I realize that making guns illegal will do no more to stop gun violence than this BS treaty that Barry is touting will do to stop Assad using CW. Did you know that gullible isn't in the dictionary?

Edit: I don't think we should be doing a damn thing over there to stop anything. If the people want to support a gov't that gasses them, then f'ing let them fly. WMD's will eventually kill enough of them that a few drones will get the rest. I am f'ing sick of hearing about the ME. When they are ready to do something to help themselves and allow freedom for EVERYONE in the country, not just the males in the reigning sect, I will be for helping them. Otherwise, f'em.

 

[hog88]

I think we have LG's real name from writing letters to the editor, either that or the talking points were emailed out yesterday.

From the Tennessean today:

Obama neutralized doubters

Sep. 12, 2013 2:30 PM |

Could it be that our president has outfoxed his detractors with a strategy that neutralizes the opposition, places responsibility where it belongs, reflects the voice of a nation, and achieves his real goals of negotiated peace in the Middle East? I’m inclined to believe so — perhaps a modern-day Solomon.

I call that effective leadership, world-class statesmanship.

Steve Tippens

Nashville 37205

 

[volinbham]

You are now shifting the goal to be regime change.

Interestingly enough, almost 2 years ago Obama repeatedly said Assad must go.

Interesting to that the administration at the time said they were "certain" Assad was on his way out. This "diplomatic pause" results in Assad being viewed as the legit leader of Syria and the with whom the UN will negotiate.

 

[lawgator1]

Interestingly enough, almost 2 years ago Obama repeatedly said Assad must go.

Interesting to that the administration at the time said they were "certain" Assad was on his way out. This "diplomatic pause" results in Assad being viewed as the legit leader of Syria and the with whom the UN will negotiate.

That should make the GOP happy since they view the opposition as Al-Qaeda.

Or, at least that is what they have said up until now.

That changing already?

Hmmm ....

Guess its time for GOP about face # 37 in the last two weeks.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

WSJ article out today about how the public now trust Republicans over Dems on both the economy and foreign relations

Forward!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

That should make the GOP happy since they view the opposition as Al-Qaeda.

Or, at least that is what they have said up until now.

That changing already?

Hmmm ....

Guess its time for GOP about face # 37 in the last two weeks.

ranting about shifting positions - priceless

 

[Gannon Goodson]

That should make the GOP happy since they view the opposition as Al-Qaeda.

Or, at least that is what they have said up until now.

That changing already?

Hmmm ....

Guess its time for GOP about face # 37 in the last two weeks.

Hmmm, the GOP has argued that some factions of the opposition are made up of groups sympathetic to al-Qaeda. That hasn't changed.

On a side note: It's nice to see you finally came out in opposition of strikes when it's obvious they're not going to happen. Way to stand on principles. You make the perfect liberal.

 

[lawgator1]

Hmmm, the GOP has argued that some factions of the opposition are made up of groups sympathetic to al-Qaeda. That hasn't changed.

On a side note: It's nice to see you finally came out in opposition of strikes when it's obvious they're not going to happen. Way to stand on principles. You make the perfect liberal.

Read back a lot further and get your facts right before you call people out.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

WSJ article out today about how the public now trust Republicans over Dems on both the economy and foreign relations

Forward!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

:unsure: sounds a little too late for that now.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I think we have LG's real name from writing letters to the editor, either that or the talking points were emailed out yesterday.

From the Tennessean today:

LOLOLOLOL :lolabove::lolabove:lol:lol:

The only person that moron outfoxed was himself. Wow, liberals are all about not calling a spade a spade (no racist).

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

OK, I will type s l o w l y... Assad wants to win the war. He needs more Russian help to do it. He needs the US to not be snooping around and involved in his war. He makes a phony deal with Russia, Russia brokers the phony deal, Russia keeps the US out of Syria, Assad wins the war. Barry's support for the Rebels other than a few truck loads of weapons is stopped. What part of OBOZO is playing right into their hands do you not get? Do you think that Assad gives on shiite about that stupid treaty? It is a treaty with the WEST. He will sign it and break it in the same day if he wants. He WILL NOT get rid of all of his CW. You may believe that because you are notoriously gullible, but I don't believe it for a second. There is NO WAY to know if they are all turned in. If he is losing and in imminent danger of going down, he will gas everyone in sight.

:good!: very good & calling it like it is post here.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Read back a lot further and get your facts right before you call people out.

It only took a couple of weeks to get that out of you. If I wanted to call you out, I'd probably call you a political hack and a spineless shill for the Democratic Party.

Hey, since you're spiking the ball for Obama, I have a question. Did Obama's "credible threat" of an "unbelievably small" military response with "no boots on the ground" finally scare Assad into giving his chemical weapons to Vladimir Putin? :clapping:

 

[PKT_VOL]

OK, I will type s l o w l y... Assad wants to win the war. He needs more Russian help to do it. He needs the US to not be snooping around and involved in his war. He makes a phony deal with Russia, Russia brokers the phony deal, Russia keeps the US out of Syria, Assad wins the war. Barry's support for the Rebels other than a few truck loads of weapons is stopped. What part of OBOZO is playing right into their hands do you not get? Do you think that Assad gives on shiite about that stupid treaty? It is a treaty with the WEST. He will sign it and break it in the same day if he wants. He WILL NOT get rid of all of his CW. You may believe that because you are notoriously gullible, but I don't believe it for a second. There is NO WAY to know if they are all turned in. If he is losing and in imminent danger of going down, he will gas everyone in sight.

I realize that making guns illegal will do no more to stop gun violence than this BS treaty that Barry is touting will do to stop Assad using CW. Did you know that gullible isn't in the dictionary?

Edit: I don't think we should be doing a damn thing over there to stop anything. If the people want to support a gov't that gasses them, then f'ing let them fly. WMD's will eventually kill enough of them that a few drones will get the rest. I am f'ing sick of hearing about the ME. When they are ready to do something to help themselves and allow freedom for EVERYONE in the country, not just the males in the reigning sect, I will be for helping them. Otherwise, f'em.

Of that 1,000 tons of CW, if none of it is destroyed/secured, you are eventually going to see that here in the good ole US of A. This idea that we (the US) don't have have nation security interests in Syria is ridiculous.

That said, this is either going to be a huge success or colossal failure for Obama. These things are judged on their outcome, not their public appearance process (as everyone bashing in this thread have criticized) . The one thing that give me hope is that Russia, after public grandstanding (what they are doing now), has similar interests of getting Syria's chemical weapons destroyed/secured.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Of that 1,000 tons of CW, if none of it is destroyed/secured, you are eventually going to see that here in the good ole US of A. This idea that we (the US) don't have have nation security interests in Syria is ridiculous.

That said, this is either going to be a huge success or colossal failure for Obama. These things are judged on their outcome, not their public appearance process (as everyone bashing in this thread have criticized) . The one thing that give me hope is that Russia, after public grandstanding (what they are doing now), has similar interests of getting Syria's chemical weapons destroyed/secured.

Russia's interest lie in seeing Assad stay in power. If that means gassing a few thousand people, then so be it.