While Obama & Kerry Fiddle, Syria Hides its Nerve Gas

  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Sep 13, 2013 3:20 PM GMT
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324755104579071330713553794.html
    Any half-wit fool could have predicted this. Obama might just as well have sent Clinton's Warren Chistopher to wag his finger at Assad. Three more years of Cowardly Lion foreign policy is our future? Full of hot air, sound and fury, but accomplishing nothing? Hillary will probably be worse (and Bush was an idiot for sure).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2013 3:49 PM GMT
    Suetonious, elsewhere you wrote the following contradiction:

    "I would have done things differently if I were president (among other things, would have sent some missiles flying the first time Assad used nerve gas).

    AND YET A FEW LINES LATER YOU WROTE:

    But what I wonder about, is how the US could ever have asserted with a straight face, the moral high ground on the nerve gas issue, when the US assisted Sadam extensive use of nerve gas in the Iran-Iraq War? What short memories we have as a nation. And how hypocritical."


    So, you would have bombed while feeling hypocritical about it?

    IMHO that might be the appropriate response. We can still make moral decisions while recognizing our own flaws. Otherwise we allow true evil(Assad and Putin) to flourish while we focus on our own atonement.

  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 13, 2013 4:35 PM GMT
    SteveFla9 saidSuetonious, elsewhere you wrote the following contradiction:

    "I would have done things differently if I were president (among other things, would have sent some missiles flying the first time Assad used nerve gas).

    AND YET A FEW LINES LATER YOU WROTE:

    But what I wonder about, is how the US could ever have asserted with a straight face, the moral high ground on the nerve gas issue, when the US assisted Sadam extensive use of nerve gas in the Iran-Iraq War? What short memories we have as a nation. And how hypocritical."

    So, you would have bombed while feeling hypocritical about it?


    Good observation.

    As I pointed out, the fact that Republicans have no alternative ideas and just spend their time whining and complaining about Obama -- as this post does -- causes them to eventually contradict themselves. That's what happens when you're against everything no matter what.

    They can't keep their fake outrage straight.
  • mybud

    Posts: 11837

    Sep 13, 2013 4:57 PM GMT
    Obama goes to the republicans they say no to war..If Obama would have attacked the republicans would have said he didn't get the authority. Personally, I'm against any action that will prolong our involvement in the region but if Syria hedges and uses the gas again...MAKE THEM PAY.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Sep 13, 2013 5:22 PM GMT
    Would I have bombed Syria? Of course - that was the sane thing to do - whatever attack was planned should have been done a long time ago, when it would have some effect.

    Is it a bit "morally hypocritical? Yeah - a bit. (Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.) But the US has committed lots of "war crimes" in the past - denied it (we assisted Iraq in using nerve gas against Iran) - and went on to further missions. I don't think anyone should be using nerve gas today - and we could have kept Assad from using it the 2nd time. We should have. Now we have probably lost any real ability to deter its use.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2013 5:47 PM GMT
    Suetonius saidWould I have bombed Syria? Of course - that was the sane thing to do - whatever attack was planned should have been done a long time ago, when it would have some effect.

    Is it a bit "morally hypocritical? Yeah - a bit. (Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.) But the US has committed lots of "war crimes" in the past - denied it (we assisted Iraq in using nerve gas against Iran) - and went on to further missions. I don't think anyone should be using nerve gas today - and we could have kept Assad from using it the 2nd time. We should have. Now we have probably lost any real ability to deter its use.


    I'm mostly in agreement with you. The hypocrisy you admit to is what all of us should acknowledge here.

    We haven't lost the real ability to fight Assad's use of chemical weapons.
    BUT WE CAN GIVE UP. WE CAN DECLARE ASSAD AND PUTIN TO BE THE VICTORS.

    THAT is the obvious position of the Putin fanboys on this site.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 13, 2013 6:15 PM GMT
    Suetonius saidWould I have bombed Syria? Of course - that was the sane thing to do - whatever attack was planned should have been done a long time ago, when it would have some effect.



    This position is logically inconsistent with the Republicans' stated claims. Republicans are now howling that the President would be in violation of international law by bombing Syria to to stop chemical attacks on children, but are they also trying to argue he should have bombed Syria "along time ago" before those immoral chemical attacks? If it's not okay to bomb Assad now, under what pretext would Republicans rather Obama have bombed Syria long ago?

    *crickets*

    The truth of the matter is it doesn't matter when the attack was proposed because the same people opposing it now would have opposed it then, especially conservatives who have opposed everything the President has ever done even to the point of giving cover to anti-American tyrants like Assad and Putin.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Sep 13, 2013 6:33 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Suetonius saidWould I have bombed Syria? Of course - that was the sane thing to do - whatever attack was planned should have been done a long time ago, when it would have some effect.



    This position is logically inconsistent with the Republicans' stated claims. Republicans are now howling that the President would be in violation of international law by bombing Syria to to stop chemical attacks on children, but are they also trying to argue he should have bombed Syria "along time ago" before those immoral chemical attacks? If it's not okay to bomb Assad now, under what pretext would Republicans rather Obama have bombed Syria long ago?

    *crickets*

    The truth of the matter is it doesn't matter when the attack was proposed because the same people opposing it now would have opposed it then, especially conservatives who have opposed everything the President has ever done even to the point of giving cover to anti-American tyrants like Assad and Putin.

    I don't give a flying f*ck what republicans support or oppose. This is a national - not partisan issue. Obama should have just acted - not warned - not sought support - not asked the idiots in Congress - just done something. Cowardly lion still.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2013 6:56 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Suetonius said[/cite]
    Obama should have just acted - not warned - not sought support - not asked the idiots in Congress - just done something."

    Would IMPEACHMENT have followed?
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Sep 13, 2013 11:12 PM GMT
    SteveFla9 said[quote][cite]Suetonius said[/cite]
    Obama should have just acted - not warned - not sought support - not asked the idiots in Congress - just done something."

    Would IMPEACHMENT have followed?

    You think that the democrats would impeach a democratic president ? ? Not a possibility in the world I live in.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Sep 13, 2013 11:49 PM GMT
    Ah, Syria. That nation with a pot and a kettle sitting within its borders. Each calling the other black.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2013 3:04 AM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Suetonius saidWould I have bombed Syria? Of course - that was the sane thing to do - whatever attack was planned should have been done a long time ago, when it would have some effect.



    This position is logically inconsistent with the Republicans' stated claims. Republicans are now howling that the President would be in violation of international law by bombing Syria to to stop chemical attacks on children, but are they also trying to argue he should have bombed Syria "along time ago" before those immoral chemical attacks? If it's not okay to bomb Assad now, under what pretext would Republicans rather Obama have bombed Syria long ago?

    *crickets*

    First of all, you need to stop telling stories. Republicans are not "howling that the President would be in violation of international law", because they are jus as divided about this issue as Democrats are. Second it's the Un and the rest of the world who are against any action, something I've tried to point out to you already.Third you really should stop with your tired "children" meme, children being shot, dismembered alive with a saw or having their heads bashed in by the but of a gun are just as awful and just as dead as people that have had gas used on them.The false equivalency you keep parroting is ridiculous. pretending that using gas is somehow worse than being raped and shot, beheaded, dismembered or beaten is laughable!

    The truth of the matter is it doesn't matter when the attack was proposed because the same people opposing it now would have opposed it then, especially conservatives who have opposed everything the President has ever done even to the point of giving cover to anti-American tyrants like Assad and Putin.

    No one is giving Assad and Putin cover. But acting as the Air Force and Navy and arming the Islamist so they can use those weapons against us latter is hardly in the best interest of our National Security. But I wouldn't expect you to understand something so complicated as that.

    The one thing you and all of the great minds like you are missing is, Assad is going nowhere. Putin can't allow it. Russia has no warm water ports. Putin needs the warm water ports of Syria. He also needs the stability provided by an Assad or some one like him in order to make use of those warm water ports. One other thing your missing, there is a pipeline being built from Syria to Russia that Russia badly needs and Putin can't allow an unstable Islamist government to get in the way of that.

    Again I ask, what makes the use of chemical weapons any different this time than it was any of the other 13 times it's been used in the two and one half years of this "Civil War" ?





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2013 4:06 AM GMT
    Suetonius said
    TroyAthlete said
    Suetonius saidWould I have bombed Syria? Of course - that was the sane thing to do - whatever attack was planned should have been done a long time ago, when it would have some effect.


    I don't give a flying f*ck what republicans support or oppose. This is a national - not partisan issue. Obama should have just acted - not warned - not sought support - not asked the idiots in Congress - just done something. Cowardly lion still.




    Once we destabilize yet another country in the middle east, what do we do about those other countries barely holding on to stability?
    What becomes of Jordan?
    Saudi Arabia?
    Kuwait?
    Qatar?
    Bahrain?
    UAE ?
    Oman?
    Yemen?
    Lebanon?
    Eritrea?
    Djibouti?
    Egypt?
    Iraq?
    Afghanistan?
    All of those countries are barely holding on to stability right now. If you remove stability from Syria, they will all fall one by one.

    And what about the near by countries with varying degrees of radicalized Muslim populations?
    Pakistan?
    Tajikistan?
    Azerbaijan?
    Uzbekistan?
    Turkmenistan?
    Kyrgyzstan?
    Kazakhstan?
    Sudan?
    Ethiopia?

    Somalia.
    Libya.
    Tunisia.
    Turkey.
    These are all at various stages of devolving into uncivilized Islamist refuges, with varying degrees of chaos.

    Where does that leave Israel? Do you really think they could hold out for very long before they become the tragic study in genocide? The Nazis would get a second bite at the apple, now then wouldn't they?

    So once we fan the flames, then what do we do? I know what happens, I was in Somalia in '93-'94.Syria is the lynch pin. By weakening Assad, you have no idea what we would be unleashing!


  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Sep 14, 2013 6:12 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete saidRepublicans are now howling that the President would be in violation of international law by bombing Syria


    I guess you're living in a jungle somewhere with no access to TV, newspapers, or the internet. I hate to break it to you, but it's not just "Republicans" (some of whom actually have backed the President on this) howling, but many Democrats as well. In fact, last I checked something like 85% of the world is howling. Speaking of *crickets*!!! Sorry, but they're not exactly lining up to jump on the Obama "Let's Bomb Syria" train here in the U.S.A. or internationally.

    Look, I get your passion for the U.S. swooping in to "Save The Children", many of whom (it should be noted) would likely grow up to hate the U.S. anyway, but it's probably not going to happen without the United Nations sanctioning it. It is not my intention to in ANY way minimize the horrible tragedy that is going on in Syria to those being gassed, however, whether we go in or not, it's not likely to change much. That part of the world is in utter chaos. We'll only add to it. You're being naive if you think we can swoop in and "Save The Children" from the barbaric nut-bags running the place.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 14, 2013 9:16 PM GMT
    Suetonius saidI don't give a flying f*ck what republicans support or oppose. This is a national - not partisan issue. Obama should have just acted - not warned - not sought support - not asked the idiots in Congress - just done something. Cowardly lion still.


    You clearly also do not give a flying fuck about the Constitution. The President does not have that luxury.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Sep 14, 2013 9:33 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Suetonius saidI don't give a flying f*ck what republicans support or oppose. This is a national - not partisan issue. Obama should have just acted - not warned - not sought support - not asked the idiots in Congress - just done something. Cowardly lion still.


    You clearly also do not give a flying fuck about the Constitution. The President does not have that luxury.

    I guess I don't, if you say so - just about every president has done that, under the president's power as "commander in chief" of the armed forces. Never has the Supreme Court held such actions unconstitutional, (and they are not about to start now.)
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 14, 2013 9:37 PM GMT
    shybuffguy saidFirst of all, you need to stop telling stories. Republicans are not "howling that the President would be in violation of international law", because they are jus as divided about this issue as Democrats are. Second it's the Un and the rest of the world who are against any action, something I've tried to point out to you already.Third you really should stop with your tired "children" meme, children being shot, dismembered alive with a saw or having their heads bashed in by the but of a gun are just as awful and just as dead as people that have had gas used on them.The false equivalency you keep parroting is ridiculous. pretending that using gas is somehow worse than being raped and shot, beheaded, dismembered or beaten is laughable!

    No one is giving Assad and Putin cover. But acting as the Air Force and Navy and arming the Islamist so they can use those weapons against us latter is hardly in the best interest of our National Security. But I wouldn't expect you to understand something so complicated as that.

    The one thing you and all of the great minds like you are missing is, Assad is going nowhere. Putin can't allow it. Russia has no warm water ports. Putin needs the warm water ports of Syria. He also needs the stability provided by an Assad or some one like him in order to make use of those warm water ports. One other thing your missing, there is a pipeline being built from Syria to Russia that Russia badly needs and Putin can't allow an unstable Islamist government to get in the way of that.

    Again I ask, what makes the use of chemical weapons any different this time than it was any of the other 13 times it's been used in the two and one half years of this "Civil War" ?


    Your vague generalities that don't stand up to facts. The entire UN world are not against action in Syria, that's a lie.

    If there were the country where children were being being shot at, dismembered, and bashed and the US ignoring their plight means destabliziing the entire world like is happening with the Syrian refugee crisis, the point would still be moot. Just because detectives don't solve all cases does not mean they should not solve any cases. Hypothetical children being dismembered in ??? does not mean that the US should turn a blind eye to the plight of Syria's children and to a Civil War which could cause the world to blow up. You should lame false equivalences to justify the Republicans' indifference to the gassing of Syrian children.

    The international community which in 1925's Chemical Weapons Treaty singled out chemical weapons use as beyond the pale of standard war protocol, so right-wingers are in the minority in America and in the world if you don't think WMDs demand special attention. But nobody except Republicans to understand the complexities of the Geneva Conventions treaties.

    Congress approved this week in a bipartisan that the CIA should continue to arm US-friend non-Islamit Syrian rebels. So your riduculous Fox News talking points about being al-Qaeda's air force and arming Islamits is a lie so egregrious that reasonable Republicans slammed Ted Cruz for this kind of dishonest Limbaugh language. Voters have come to expect lies from the Tea Party.

    If Assad is not going anywhere, it's because of fringe leftists and fringe conservative fascists who colluded with Putin to undermine America and keep the tyrant in power. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    Assking what makes the Ghouta massacre a bigger deal than the previous attacks demonstrates your unawareness of the scale and horror of this incident and are therefore blowing smoke out of your but. Western diplomats reacted with universal outrage to Ghouta, one describing it as a "game-changer." You just weren't paying attention, which is your own fault.

    Even so, it's a moot question, tantamount to suggesting that police department does not catch a serial killer on the first try, they should no donthing. "What makes the 13th victim different from the killer's first murder?" It's a pointless question. So why increase pressure on Assad now? Why not now?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2013 8:18 AM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    shybuffguy saidFirst of all, you need to stop telling stories. Republicans are not "howling that the President would be in violation of international law", because they are jus as divided about this issue as Democrats are. Second it's the Un and the rest of the world who are against any action, something I've tried to point out to you already.Third you really should stop with your tired "children" meme, children being shot, dismembered alive with a saw or having their heads bashed in by the but of a gun are just as awful and just as dead as people that have had gas used on them.The false equivalency you keep parroting is ridiculous. pretending that using gas is somehow worse than being raped and shot, beheaded, dismembered or beaten is laughable!

    No one is giving Assad and Putin cover. But acting as the Air Force and Navy and arming the Islamist so they can use those weapons against us latter is hardly in the best interest of our National Security. But I wouldn't expect you to understand something so complicated as that.

    The one thing you and all of the great minds like you are missing is, Assad is going nowhere. Putin can't allow it. Russia has no warm water ports. Putin needs the warm water ports of Syria. He also needs the stability provided by an Assad or some one like him in order to make use of those warm water ports. One other thing your missing, there is a pipeline being built from Syria to Russia that Russia badly needs and Putin can't allow an unstable Islamist government to get in the way of that.

    Again I ask, what makes the use of chemical weapons any different this time than it was any of the other 13 times it's been used in the two and one half years of this "Civil War" ?


    Your vague generalities that don't stand up to facts. The entire UN world are not against action in Syria, that's a lie.

    If there were the country where children were being being shot at, dismembered, and bashed and the US ignoring their plight means destabliziing the entire world like is happening with the Syrian refugee crisis, the point would still be moot. Just because detectives don't solve all cases does not mean they should not solve any cases. Hypothetical children being dismembered in ??? does not mean that the US should turn a blind eye to the plight of Syria's children and to a Civil War which could cause the world to blow up. You should lame false equivalences to justify the Republicans' indifference to the gassing of Syrian children.

    The international community which in 1925's Chemical Weapons Treaty singled out chemical weapons use as beyond the pale of standard war protocol, so right-wingers are in the minority in America and in the world if you don't think WMDs demand special attention. But nobody except Republicans to understand the complexities of the Geneva Conventions treaties.

    Congress approved this week in a bipartisan that the CIA should continue to arm US-friend non-Islamit Syrian rebels. So your riduculous Fox News talking points about being al-Qaeda's air force and arming Islamits is a lie so egregrious that reasonable Republicans slammed Ted Cruz for this kind of dishonest Limbaugh language. Voters have come to expect lies from the Tea Party.

    If Assad is not going anywhere, it's because of fringe leftists and fringe conservative fascists who colluded with Putin to undermine America and keep the tyrant in power. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    Assking what makes the Ghouta massacre a bigger deal than the previous attacks demonstrates your unawareness of the scale and horror of this incident and are therefore blowing smoke out of your but. Western diplomats reacted with universal outrage to Ghouta, one describing it as a "game-changer." You just weren't paying attention, which is your own fault.

    Even so, it's a moot question, tantamount to suggesting that police department does not catch a serial killer on the first try, they should no donthing. "What makes the 13th victim different from the killer's first murder?" It's a pointless question. So why increase pressure on Assad now? Why not now?


    "You can lead a horse to water, but you just can't make him drink".
    You think by continually shouting about this being about "children" being gassed that you are somehow marginalizing what I've been saying. I've tried to get you to actual think for yourself, ask some questions and do some homework and maybe actually learn something in the process. BTW, I hope you're not a grad student in anything consequential, because your critical thinking skills just suck!

    You suck at analogies and metaphors. Every time you use them it highlights exactly what I'm saying and makes you look stupid. BTW why is it you always have to try to paint anyone who doesn't agree with you as not being able to think for themselves and getting all of their "Talking points from Fox News?, it just makes you look small because it shows that you really can't think at all, let alone on your own.

    Your serial killer one is a prime example. If you have a serial killer and you know that after the fifth murder and you know who it is, why wouldn't you try to stop him before he killed a sixth one instead of averting your eyes and pretending nothing is going on until he killed the 13th one? Why would you allow someone you know is a serial killer to kill 13 people and do nothing to him, but decide that after you watched him kill 13 that you need to do something now that he has killed the 14th victim? If you don't have enough brain cells to question this, then you shouldn't be running around pretending you have anything relevant to say.

    You just keep doubling down when confronted with reality and running your mouth and saying a whole lot of nothing, when just saying nothing would be better.

    Instead of showing how much you don't know , try checking into what's been going on in Syria in the last few years, aside from the civil war. A good place to start would be the "Islamic pipeline", you do know how to use Google, don't you? For a grad student, you're pretty slow on the uptake!

    I just have to go back to, you can't fix crazy!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2013 12:48 PM GMT
    mybud saidObama goes to the republicans they say no to war..If Obama would have attacked the republicans would have said he didn't get the authority. Personally, I'm against any action that will prolong our involvement in the region but if Syria hedges and uses the gas again...MAKE THEM PAY.

    Republicans will do anything to appear to support this president. That said, let Syria deal with its own problems and spend the money we would have wasted on bombing Assad and spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy, that seems to be the American priority.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Sep 15, 2013 2:33 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    I just have to go back to, you can't fix crazy!


    In a nutshell that pretty much sums up the increasingly angry and pathetically futile efforts of TroyA to make an ounce of sense. It's like a broken record of condescending drivel from someone who has deluded themselves into thinking anyone here takes him seriously. He's become a caricature who gets more eye-roll inducing with every post. It is amusing to see how out of his league he is up against ShyBuffGuy. Props to SBG for your consistent schooling of the epic ignorance of TroyA
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Sep 15, 2013 7:28 PM GMT
    As for TroyA, his logic reflects the fact that he is a party ideologue rather than principled.

    His defense is what is the Republican plan? really

    Its almost impossible in the situation of Syria to suggest a right or wrong answer based on what has transpired and the spot the US is in. Its not just bad luck. Its a string of decisions and indecision and dithering that has led this to this point. Since the US's bargaining power is degrading now that we have a weaker position, many of the ideas that would have worked will not.

    In short:

    1) Obama laid down the "red line"
    2) Obama delayed arming rebels, so the conflict drew Al-Qaeda in.
    3) Obama did not act by using missiles as he said, and blinked - weakening US strength in the region
    4) Obama deferred to congress while simultaneously asserting he had the right to act unilaterally. Largely for political cover. Showed to the international community Obama doesnt have the resolve to do the right thing

    And finally the peace agreement will be enforced with a Russian and UN eye. So good luck with that. And this agreement only addresses chemical weapons, and will include that the US will be barred from giving military aide to the Rebels. So the net effect is Assad will remain in power, and likely will suppress and slaughter all of the Rebels.

    For a bonus the Iranians are singing the Nuclear Song again. Nice work!

    All of these events have the Obama administrations hand in it. He cannot blame any of these things on Bush or other Presidents.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2013 5:46 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    shybuffguy said
    I just have to go back to, you can't fix crazy!


    In a nutshell that pretty much sums up the increasingly angry and pathetically futile efforts of TroyA to make an ounce of sense. It's like a broken record of condescending drivel from someone who has deluded themselves into thinking anyone here takes him seriously. He's become a caricature who gets more eye-roll inducing with every post. It is amusing to see how out of his league he is up against ShyBuffGuy. Props to SBG for your consistent schooling of the epic ignorance of TroyA



    Here here! icon_lol.gif