|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 27, 2013 4:05:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 27, 2013 11:11:51 GMT -8
Republicans (including you) obsession with Obama continues to fascinate me. It also continues to get stale, and is less reasonable by the minute, but it is fascinating none the less.
You veil criticism of an outgoing President with concern over today's issues. I simply don't understand why you'd rather say "Obama it's all your own fault now die!", than try to understand the issues and support what is best for country as a whole. It is quite similar to Congressional Republicans, though, so I guess I can see where the majority on Con politicos get their marching orders.
Now, you're going to come back and say, "debate the issue!". I read the article, and I'm not sure what debate you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 27, 2013 15:45:28 GMT -8
Republicans (including you) obsession with Obama continues to fascinate me. It also continues to get stale, and is less reasonable by the minute, but it is fascinating none the less. You veil criticism of an outgoing President with concern over today's issues. I simply don't understand why you'd rather say "Obama it's all your own fault now die!", than try to understand the issues and support what is best for country as a whole. It is quite similar to Congressional Republicans, though, so I guess I can see where the majority on Con politicos get their marching orders. Now, you're going to come back and say, "debate the issue!". I read the article, and I'm not sure what debate you want. This is a very complex problem that has been made even harder than needed by neglecting it and not gathering intelligence along the way. No one in the Obama Administration seems to have the capacity to cope with it least of all Obama himself. Of course we are going to bash Obama for letting this situation get completely out of hand. Now there is no way out. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Aug 27, 2013 16:02:40 GMT -8
Republicans (including you) obsession with Obama continues to fascinate me. It also continues to get stale, and is less reasonable by the minute, but it is fascinating none the less. You veil criticism of an outgoing President with concern over today's issues. I simply don't understand why you'd rather say "Obama it's all your own fault now die!", than try to understand the issues and support what is best for country as a whole. It is quite similar to Congressional Republicans, though, so I guess I can see where the majority on Con politicos get their marching orders. Now, you're going to come back and say, "debate the issue!". I read the article, and I'm not sure what debate you want. I've been clear on what I think in a few threads. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 27, 2013 22:34:20 GMT -8
First of all, I am a registered Libertarian and have voted that way in every election since 1976. (Of course, I have mentioned that fact numerous times, but some folks must not take me at my word. Oh, well.) I think that foreign military intervention (excepting those ticking bomb situations) should be authorized by the Congress. Sadly, Presidents of both parties have acted pretty much as if the Constitution is a dead letter in that regard.
As for Obama, it is and always has been clear to me that he was both poorly informed in the area of foreign relations and, perhaps even worse, not terribly interested in that aspect of the job he so badly wanted. In both Libya and Syria, he failed to act early on when such action could have yielded very positive results for the U.S. In both cases, he has stood on the sidelines long enough so that totally anti-American forces have been able to mobilize and take over either the entire rebel operation or at least a large part of it.
Now he stands painted into a corner (the Red Line syndrome) which is forcing him to do what he did not ever want to do. But since he has never felt good about U.S. military action, he does not have the heart to use force effectively. He must do something in Syria, but his reluctance to go all out when use of force is inevitable will likely mean that the result for America is totally negative. (Going all out in this case means destroying the Syrian air force, which has about 100 planes. Does anyone think that the U.S.A. is incapable of destroying 100 planes in very short order? Please!) We have the power to deprive Assad within hours of the means to kill more women, children, and old men. So long as Congress authorizes such action, I will not criticize the President.
The usual response from the Left at this point is to bring up George W. Bush's foreign policy. Do ahead and do so it if makes you feel any better. I don't see what G.W. Bush has to do with the issue of whether Barack Obama's foreign policy is effective or a failure. I think it takes quite a stretch of the imagination to believe the former.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 27, 2013 23:20:34 GMT -8
First of all, I am a registered Libertarian and have voted that way in every election since 1976. (Of course, I have mentioned that fact numerous times, but some folks must not take me at my word. Oh, well.) I think that foreign military intervention (excepting those ticking bomb situations) should be authorized by the Congress. Sadly, Presidents of both parties have acted pretty much as if the Constitution is a dead letter in that regard. As for Obama, it is and always has been clear to me that he was both poorly informed in the area of foreign relations and, perhaps even worse, not terribly interested in that aspect of the job he so badly wanted. In both Libya and Syria, he failed to act early on when such action could have yielded very positive results for the U.S. In both cases, he has stood on the sidelines long enough so that totally anti-American forces have been able to mobilize and take over either the entire rebel operation or at least a large part of it. Now he stands painted into a corner (the Red Line syndrome) which is forcing him to do what he did not ever want to do. But since he has never felt good about U.S. military action, he does not have the heart to use force effectively. He must do something in Syria, but his reluctance to go all out when use of force is inevitable will likely mean that the result for America is totally negative. (Going all out in this case means destroying the Syrian air force, which has about 100 planes. Does anyone think that the U.S.A. is incapable of destroying 100 planes in very short order? Please!) We have the power to deprive Assad within hours of the means to kill more women, children, and old men. So long as Congress authorizes such action, I will not criticize the President. The usual response from the Left at this point is to bring up George W. Bush's foreign policy. Do ahead and do so it if makes you feel any better. I don't see what G.W. Bush has to do with the issue of whether Barack Obama's foreign policy is effective or a failure. I think it takes quite a stretch of the imagination to believe the former. AzWm G-Dubs foreign policy - actually, his cabinet and advisor's policy - has nothing to do with Barack Obama's, except to make the later look much better by comparison. Call me "the Left" if it makes you feel better, but as I have said many times, I did not vote for Obama in 2012 and am no sympathizer by any means. Especially on this matter, he is about to partake in military operations in the Middle East without Congressional approval and a 9% approval rate from Americans. So on second thought, maybe his foreign policies do align with Bush after all, just like so many of his other "socialist" policies. What you, and so many on the right (I lump you in here, because being non-isolationist militarily is decidedly UN-Libertarian), either do not understand or intentionally misrepresent is the fact that the United States, militarily, is never "backed into a corner". If you can see through the 'mainstream media' (i'll borrow that term) reporting, there is no solid evidence that a) chemical weapons were used by Assad, or b) that our national interests will be furthered by military action. Carney came out today and said regime change is not the goal. It appears a short window of heavy military action will start relatively soon, but not with a goal of hitting chemical weapons stockpiles. So, what is the point? Using shaky intelligence to reprimand a sovereign country's leader? Or, is it more likely that we actually are interested in regime change, and that Assad's warm relationship with Russia and Iran are just coincidence? Whether you like the man or not - obviously, you share the vitriol of many right-wingers - it is Stupid, bolded and with a capital "s" - to assume that the actions of our military, at the order of the President, are not well thought out with much larger issues at play than what trickles down through CNN. We are not attacking Syria because Assad used chemical weapons. We are attacking Syria because, as 78 believes should direct our policies, such action has been determined to be in our best interests. I take issue with any action, because I don't believe these interests are worth risking American lives, spending American treasure, and killing innocent Syrians (hell, even Syrian soldiers). But to take issue with any action, or lack of action, because you hate the President so much that you think he is incompetent, goes back to your thread about changing political dialogue. By attacking the Syria outcome before it happens, simply because you have an issue with the President, is a lack of - for lack of a better phrase - "not having an adult conversation". You have blinders on to the fact that foreign policy doesn't happen in a vacuum. I personally believe the upcoming mission in Syria was planned well in advance, years probably, and the chemical attacks, whether intentional by Assad or as a pretense for military intervention by another party, are the "reason" needed by Western governments. Now, you take issue with this because the right usually takes a hard-nosed stance on foreign policy, especially when claims are made by our government - but now you don't want this intervention so you're stuck blaming the guy you so often do these days. Question - what is the difference between Iraq a decade ago and Syria today? Both have WMDs. Both are being infiltrated at high levels by terrorists. Both are headed by an anti-American figure. Ten years ago, though, you all had hard-ons for a war, so what gives? Any realistic US action in Syria will result in regime change. Carney and Obama can claim that isn't the goal all they want, but whether goal or not, it will be the result. So, please also answer this... When Assad goes down, should the US stand idly by while al Nusra - who is stronger than the Free Syrian Army - begins to win the country's subsequent civil war? Of course not, especially since we still feel the need to be lead around by Israel in the region. BUT, if you are al Nusra and cannot win a war against the Assad regime, what is the easiest way to get him out? Maybe, American intervention? I can't take seriously a conversation based on whining about a press conference and a comment about a 'red-line'. I just can't. William, you are more astute than that and more effort put into understanding the dynamics of the situation instead of political persecution would be welcome. 'The left' brings up a decade long war, started under the pretense of cooked intelligence, costing trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, and you claim it is stale, old, and irrelevant. If that is the case, and even if I would agree to some extent, shouldn't you focus on the issues at hand instead of cherry-picking press conference quotes from a year ago for your own political masturbation? What effect would taking out Assad's planes have on chemical weapons use? Why would the Assad government use chemical weapons in civilian neighborhoods and not FSA camps or strongholds? Why would Assad use chemical weapons at all? His govt. has been winning the civil war. On the other hand, we have been supplying arms to the FSA for over a year. Why? What about reports of al Nusra being caught with chemical weapons months ago? www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/27/216172145/is-it-possible-the-syrian-rebels-not-assad-used-chemical-weaponswww.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/chemical-weapons-and-the-syrian-question.html |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 28, 2013 10:24:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Aug 28, 2013 13:21:09 GMT -8
Simple choices. Do we choose Hitler(ASSAD and Iran), or do we choose Stalin (Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood). We have to stay the hell away from this. Let them kill each other off. We have too many financial problems here to fix than to shove another few billion into this mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 28, 2013 20:19:39 GMT -8
If Obama and his advisers (including especially the military) had carefully planned a response to a red line violation, we would already have seen the results of that planning. Syria's air force and ground facilities would be smoking ruins by now. Anything short of that would be a useless gesture that would have had relatively little effect on Assad. Anything more (e.g, special forces on the ground for a couple of days, or perhaps even an expeditionary force of a couple of thousand tasked to stay some days or weeks) would have been too much. Instead, we see a President who vacillates and essentially knocks on the Syrian door and announces ahead of time that he is about to attack. The man who insinuated that Mitt Romney had never heard of aircraft carriers seems not to have heard of the element of surprise. Let's see, that would rank where on the list of the world's oldest military concepts? Oh, yes, how about at the top of the list? If I were Assad, I would already have all my planes dispersed and as well hidden as possible. Furthermore, I would have as much material and equipment needed to keep those planes in the air removed from their current bases and moved off site. If he does that, thanks to Obama's telegraphing of his intention to attack, he might find that his air assets survive the assault in relatively good shape. Their use to further destroy the rebels and kill women and children would remain open to him. Furthermore, Barack Obama should have spoken to the American people and used his best efforts to rally support for the use armed force against Syria's Assad. A really competent President has his bases covered ahead of time, certainly to the extent that such is possible. Smarter minds than mine (well, at least minds in closer touch with our decision-makers than am I  ) concur that Obama really does not have a coherent foreign policy, least of all in the Middle East. He seems to react to events rather than anticipate them. And, again, can we please put to rest these feeble responses about George W. Bush? Obama is a big boy who volunteered to take on a big boy's responsibility. One does not have to hate Obama (I certainly do not) to find him wanting as President. In any event, he must answer for any mistakes he makes. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 28, 2013 20:43:24 GMT -8
Whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 28, 2013 22:14:35 GMT -8
Which, in legal parlance, amounts to nolo contendere. I accept your concession with my usual grace and charity. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 29, 2013 7:41:37 GMT -8
I should make one clarification on the War Powers Act issue. George W. Bush did get authoritarian from Congress for both the Afghanistan and Iraq operations. BHO seems reluctant to do the same in the case of Syria. There is a basic constitutional issue involved. Democrats should not give Obama a pass on this; they cer4tainly would not have had G.W. Bush not asked for congressional authorization. Saying that he doesn't have to because the Republicans are recalcitrant (which a Dem. talking head opined a day or two ago on TV) is no excuse for not following the law. In case you are unclear about what the War Powers Act says, here is a good explanation. www.unitedliberty.org/articles/14746-no-the-war-powers-act-does-not-authorize-unilateral-executive-preemptive-military-actAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 29, 2013 8:03:35 GMT -8
I should make one clarification on the War Powers Act issue. George W. Bush did get authoritarian from Congress for both the Afghanistan and Iraq operations. BHO seems reluctant to do the same in the case of Syria. There is a basic constitutional issue involved. Democrats should not give Obama a pass on this; they cer4tainly would not have had G.W. Bush not asked for congressional authorization. Saying that he doesn't have to because the Republicans are recalcitrant (which a Dem. talking head opined a day or two ago on TV) is no excuse for not following the law. In case you are unclear about what the War Powers Act says, here is a good explanation. www.unitedliberty.org/articles/14746-no-the-war-powers-act-does-not-authorize-unilateral-executive-preemptive-military-actAzWm When he actually HAS done something then maybe you can bitch. Right now, all you are doing is speculating and continuing to Obama bash. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 29, 2013 11:17:16 GMT -8
Which, in legal parlance, amounts to nolo contendere. I accept your concession with my usual grace and charity. AzWm LOL What it means is, William is shoveling his usual $hit. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Aug 29, 2013 13:01:31 GMT -8
I should make one clarification on the War Powers Act issue. George W. Bush did get authoritarian from Congress for both the Afghanistan and Iraq operations. BHO seems reluctant to do the same in the case of Syria. There is a basic constitutional issue involved. Democrats should not give Obama a pass on this; they cer4tainly would not have had G.W. Bush not asked for congressional authorization. Saying that he doesn't have to because the Republicans are recalcitrant (which a Dem. talking head opined a day or two ago on TV) is no excuse for not following the law. In case you are unclear about what the War Powers Act says, here is a good explanation. www.unitedliberty.org/articles/14746-no-the-war-powers-act-does-not-authorize-unilateral-executive-preemptive-military-actAzWm If Barry does authorize the assault, I wonder what Biden would say since he stated any president who acts without congressional approval should be impeached. And it is clear that Bush got congressional approval. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 29, 2013 15:49:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 30, 2013 13:21:17 GMT -8
In this case I agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Aug 30, 2013 15:08:29 GMT -8
When the US President makes a very specific threat, he should be ready to execute that or his and the US credibility are seriously diminished.
Words have meaning and definitely should be held in reserve if he is not willing to follow through.
I don't want to go into Syria. Hell, we helped cause this mess with our support to some of the rebel factions. Now, no one wants to join us, we are backpedaling and every day they don't respond to this chemical attack (kinetically or diplomatically) weakens our credibility and the effect on the Syrian government.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 30, 2013 22:02:53 GMT -8
Someone show me proof that Assad ordered a chemical attack on civilians. It makes sense to no rational person.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 31, 2013 7:27:51 GMT -8
Someone show me proof that Assad ordered a chemical attack on civilians. It makes sense to no rational person. That makes little difference. It is much tgoo late to gather intelligence. We are so far behind the power curve in this issue that no matter what we do or don't do will result in no good for United States interests. We just have a dim wit in the White House who has surrounded himself with dilberts. |
|
) concur that Obama really does not have a coherent foreign policy, least of all in the Middle East. He seems to react to events rather than anticipate them. And, again, can we please put to rest these feeble responses about George W. Bush? Obama is a big boy who volunteered to take on a big boy's responsibility. One does not have to hate Obama (I certainly do not) to find him wanting as President. In any event, he must answer for any mistakes he makes. 
