Hillary has brains. Maybe, just maybe, she would strike at the root cause, rather
than simply treat the symptoms.
"Syria is a national security risk to the USA" -- President Obama
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
Hillary has brains. Maybe, just maybe, she would strike at the root cause, rather
than simply treat the symptoms.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
So...she would have bombed...Mexico?
She would have gone full steam ahead with the FEMA camps.
lets just say, not Syria
Maybe she would let the Syrian refugees immigrate to the USA.
Spoiler :
I can come up with quite a few ways to interpret the meaning of this image, but I cannot figure out which one you originally meant.
My thoughts exactly.
American supporting Al-Qaeda is definitely a new one. Though they did it with the Taliban.
I'm just puzzled why Washington think that Assad winning the war won't end in returned stability in Syria. That's what Israel is banking on.
In all fairness, the US did support the direct predecessors to Al-Qaeda back in the 80s.
I agree with you there. It's really hard for a lot of people to trust the institution after the flagrant lies and abuse of prior intelligence reports. Even if Kerry is sincere, there is still that aftertaste.
It's an endearing posting tic. Basketcase had his boldface, kochman had his ellipses, G-Dubs had RON PAUL!!! and so on.
"Preferred" is such a strong word.
EDIT: Although it is the perfect illustration of the incumbent-challenger dynamic I posted about before in American foreign policy.
If it is speculation in regards to what McCain would be doing, then prior to the election, it was speculation as to what Obama would be doing, so one really can't credibly go hard on Obama voters while hobbling around on the McCain speculation crutch.
@Antilogic: you spoke of an olympic gold for the mental athletics needed to argue that Syria is a national security threat to the USA, as Obama announced.
The image i posted is from Obama meeting the silver-medal winner in the last Olympics, who was famously smirking in the ceremony as well due to not getting the gold.
At least one of them may still get it
The image i posted is from Obama meeting the silver-medal winner in the last Olympics, who was famously smirking in the ceremony as well due to not getting the gold.
At least one of them may still get it
druidravi
King
Looks like Obama did not get his security council resolution or a statement by G20 calling for military action . How did they even give this guy a noble peace prize. I'm too am not Bush..any prize for me nobel committee?
None of that is surprising. Plenty to criticize Obama about in this whole Syria mess but it always seemed obvious that (1) the G20 was never going to come out in unified support; and (2) there was never going to be a security council resolution. None of that was ever really going to be changed by Obama.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
The way how President Obama is reacting to this, he is becoming a threat to the security of the country he is supposed to be running.
How so? He is being anything but rash. In fact some (me?) would fault him for being too slow and plodding and seeking too much consensus. He hasn't even done anything yet.
That is a disingenuous argument. People are not opposing intervention because they are heartless and selfish. People oppose it because our nation can't even afford to keep the government running for the next fiscal year, but people like you want us to embark on yet another idiotic foreign campaign to prove our selves as the "great liberators". We have one bankrupt city and a whole slew of cities that are threatened with bankruptcy. We have increasing poverty through rising costs of goods and lowering of wages. My mother works for the Federal Government and she has been furloughed several times this year.
But hey, don't let the plight of your own nation stand in the way of wasting billions of dollars to satisfy your conscience. You take care of you and yours first, then you help others. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Except, that nobody asks "what should be done in Syria?". I know it's a no simple manner, but instead of saying "but obama messed up things! he did it all wrong!", the Americans could have perhaps stood behind him. Not as in "we all love Roosevelt and we'll support him in the war", but still, they shouldn't so openly oppose him.
In my honest opinion, USA shouldn't have gotten into this twirling mess that is Syria now and just leave it to others, primarily Russia, to solve the problem. I think their stance is one of the better ones - "we support this side with weapons but do not directly intervene". Of course, currently Obama is supporting the rebels only on paper, so...
Then again, this is one of those times when there's no "right decision", just ones that are less wrong.
In my honest opinion, USA shouldn't have gotten into this twirling mess that is Syria now and just leave it to others, primarily Russia, to solve the problem. I think their stance is one of the better ones - "we support this side with weapons but do not directly intervene". Of course, currently Obama is supporting the rebels only on paper, so...
Then again, this is one of those times when there's no "right decision", just ones that are less wrong.
Aleksey_aka_al
Smiley
How many more wars will this dreaded democracy cost?
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
We shouldnt spend millions to billions of dollars with a high risk of eventual deeper involvement because Obama is a big mouthed buffoon who just had to draw some stupid red line.
Shaihulud
Deity
Invading Syria is a bad thing that I know, but isn't there other options? I am disappointed with Obama, but still he is not Bush.
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,945
I can't decide which of the many Syria threads to post my important thoughts, but this one's closest to the top, & seems silly enough that my poorly thought-out wishy-washiness might fit, so...
- Ok, so "chemical weapons" have been off-limits for like 100 years
- But I don't know why. It's OK to shoot up 100,000 people with bullets, bombs, tanks, explosives, but not 1,000 people with chemical weapons?
- Doesn't make sense.
- But, on the other hand, if there's, like, a world-wide rule against it, shouldn't we want to enforce it?
- Then again, on the third hand, why is it up to us to enforce it?
- I mean, ok, on the fourth hand, if it is up to us to enforce it, then yes, the President needs to check with Congress. That should always be the case.
- But on the sixth hand I don't want us intervening in Syria at all. Like, literally, AT ALL. No matter what they do.
- On the seventh hand, if we don't do it, who will?
- Which brings me full circle, to, why is this a rule in the first place? If they'd just shot those people, then who cares? Is that what we're saying? But gas them, oh, you better watch out, the world has said that's against the rules.
- But, on the eighth hand, the rest of the world doesn't seem to care, so why should we?
I've run out of hands. Also, it turns out I don't have a fifth hand. I don't know what to think 'bout this. Which is why the silliest of the Syria threads seemed a good place for me to express my confusion on the whole issue.
- Ok, so "chemical weapons" have been off-limits for like 100 years
- But I don't know why. It's OK to shoot up 100,000 people with bullets, bombs, tanks, explosives, but not 1,000 people with chemical weapons?
- Doesn't make sense.
- But, on the other hand, if there's, like, a world-wide rule against it, shouldn't we want to enforce it?
- Then again, on the third hand, why is it up to us to enforce it?
- I mean, ok, on the fourth hand, if it is up to us to enforce it, then yes, the President needs to check with Congress. That should always be the case.
- But on the sixth hand I don't want us intervening in Syria at all. Like, literally, AT ALL. No matter what they do.
- On the seventh hand, if we don't do it, who will?
- Which brings me full circle, to, why is this a rule in the first place? If they'd just shot those people, then who cares? Is that what we're saying? But gas them, oh, you better watch out, the world has said that's against the rules.
- But, on the eighth hand, the rest of the world doesn't seem to care, so why should we?
I've run out of hands. Also, it turns out I don't have a fifth hand. I don't know what to think 'bout this. Which is why the silliest of the Syria threads seemed a good place for me to express my confusion on the whole issue.
Why shouldn't we so openly oppose him? This is a war the people do not want and they are voicing their displeasure with government plans to go forward with this operation. If Obama and Congress want the people to stop complaining, maybe they should start actually listening to what we want.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Let's not forget napalm and phosphorus which are clearly chemical weapons. Not to mention any gunpowder or explosives are also made of chemicals.
The US did not sign the original ban on chemical weapons over 100 years ago because our representative didn't see any real difference with killing someone with chemical weapons and any other means. Many other countries took the same position. It wasn't until after WWI that wide scale condemnation started occurring. But even so, the US and many other countries continued to produce and stockpile them.
Only there actually isn't. The Chemical Weapons Convention doesn't make any stipulations on the production or use of chemical weapons by non-signatories. The US government still doesn't adhere to it and they claim they won't until 2023, despite the convention requiring full compliance by 2012.
So the US is now in defiance of the convention along with Russia, Libya, and Japan. If anything, those countries should face military strikes for not being in compliance after the deadline.
Similar threads
- Locked
