Has Syria Crossed the "red line" will the President back his tough words?[YOUTUBE="Crossing the line"]avQKLRGRhPU[/YOUTUBE]
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates â The United States now believes the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its people, according to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and a White House letter to Congress.
The White House informed Congress about the chemical weapons use in letters to Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., on Thursday.
"The intelligence community has been assessing information for some time on this issue," Hagel said "The decision to make this conclusion was reached in the last 24 hours."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world...l/2112377/
Obama, among other obvious traits, is a pansy. The "red line" will continue to move.
First, let me say that Assad's Syrian government deserves to be toppled. However, given that al Qaeda has become an active participant in the effort to overthrow the Syrian government, why would the United States want to waste a penny to help take down the Syrian government?
As for chemical weapons use, I am not condoning Assad's actions, because he would resort to any means to maintain his grip on power, but would not most governments go to any length to remain in power? If al Qaeda were attempting to topple our government, and the end of life as we know it seemed close at hand, I would want Obama to use any means at his disposal to kill as many al Qaeda supporters as possible, as quickly as possible.
Obama should never talk nonsense about "red lines," whether he intends to act or not. Why signal to our enemies the extent to which we will tolerate their bad behavior? That being said, Obama and idiots in Congress like McCain, should stop advocating regime changes in sovereign nations, without having a clue of what life will be like after those changes. Libya, Egypt, ...there is no good reason to add Syria to the list of mistakes that this government has made.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:First, let me say that Assad's Syrian government deserves to be toppled. However, given that al Qaeda has become an active participant in the effort to overthrow the Syrian government, why would the United States want to waste a penny to help take down the Syrian government?
As for chemical weapons use, I am not condoning Assad's actions, because he would resort to any means to maintain his grip on power, but would not most governments go to any length to remain in power? If al Qaeda were attempting to topple our government, and the end of life as we know it seemed close at hand, I would want Obama to use any means at his disposal to kill as many al Qaeda supporters as possible, as quickly as possible.
Obama should never talk nonsense about "red lines," whether he intends to act or not. Why signal to our enemies the extent to which we will tolerate their bad behavior? That being said, Obama and idiots in Congress like McCain, should stop advocating regime changes in sovereign nations, without having a clue of what life will be like after those changes. Libya, Egypt, ...there is no good reason to add Syria to the list of mistakes that this government has made.
You'd think a Viet Nam era POW and former Naval aviator, would have a lick of sense. McCain shows incredible naivety given his record and military experience.
TheRealThing Wrote:You'd think a Viet Nam era POW and former Naval aviator, would have a lick of sense. McCain shows incredible naivety given his record and military experience.
About what I expect from a man who graduated near the bottom of his class at Annapolis who probably would not have been there but for the fact that both his father and grandfather were admirals. He repeatedly cheated on his first wife, divorced her, and then married the daughter of a wealthy beer distributor. Before he finished half a term as U.S. Senator, McCain followed the money to become one of the headliners in the Keating Five. scandal. With all that baggage (and more), the GOP still nominated McCain to run against Obama in 2008. It took a bad candidate to elect Obama, and the Republicans delivered.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:About what I expect from a man who graduated near the bottom of his class at Annapolis who probably would not have been there but for the fact that both his father and grandfather were admirals. He repeatedly cheated on his first wife, divorced her, and then married the daughter of a wealthy beer distributor. Before he finished half a term as U.S. Senator, McCain followed the money to become one of the headliners in the Keating Five. scandal. With all that baggage (and more), the GOP still nominated McCain to run against Obama in 2008. It took a bad candidate to elect Obama, and the Republicans delivered.
must of been 2 bad candidates
or it could be your message and policy failures
or a little of both
vector Wrote:must of been 2 bad candidates
or it could be your message and policy failures
or a little of both
It was two bad candidates - Obama and McCain. We have seen nothing but policy failures since Obama was elected. Still, McCain is doing his part by supporting Obama's amnesty program for illegal aliens. How about you, do you support rewarding criminals with a path to citizenship? Is there any Obama policy with which you disagree, or have you gone full in, like RV?
PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:You lost too Bush twice.
only once the supreme court decided the first if they counted all the votes we might have been in a better situation
Hoot Gibson Wrote:It was two bad candidates - Obama and McCain. We have seen nothing but policy failures since Obama was elected. Still, McCain is doing his part by supporting Obama's amnesty program for illegal aliens. How about you, do you support rewarding criminals with a path to citizenship? Is there any Obama policy with which you disagree, or have you gone full in, like RV?
Somebody told him that democrats were the best and for him, that was enough to seal the deal. Once the vectors of the world hang a name on somebody, the extent of viable criticisms are completely exhausted. Liberals decided years ago that mankind was evolving, ala the rationale of Emile Coue. "Day by day, in every way, I am getting better and better."
It's learning how to lie to one's self in an effective enough manner that he actually starts to believe it, that is so critical for liberalism to thrive. Actually, that process of lying to one's self is one of the most important mechanisms of liberalism. As in all words that end with the suffix
"ism", those three letters infer a belief or adherence to some doctrine. And, as is abundantly obvious to all who would dare to think for themselves, to believe in liberal
ism, one must needs to be adept at the art of self deception.
That's why no matter how often, or how high the mountain of evidence to the contrary, liberals hang on doggedly to the arguments proffered by the democrats, their propaganda wing dubbed the DNC, and the talking points du-jour, as offered up by the liberal media and their oft appearing democratic guests. Though Romney's record fairly shone like a super nova as compared to the Obama debacle, the raspberries, name calling and false assertions abounded at sufficient enough levels so as to overwhelm truth with BS. Romney's spotless and impressive resume as governor of Massachusetts was swept away by a tsunami of distortion. Liberals are quite happy with that arrangement which in turn, suits the democratic leadership just fine because they don't need to spend a lot of time coming up with lies that are actually plausible. Anything, no matter how stupid will do just fine.
vector Wrote:only once the supreme court decided the first if they counted all the votes we might have been in a better situation
Lol. Like the precincts that voted 110% for Obama?
the only way obama would try 2 be tough on syria is if they were a country full of tea party republicans