"Let me be perfectly clear...make no mistake about it": Syria Edition

[Sava]

That making threats and running away from them after someone calls you on it is stupid? How are they wrong?

I can't be arsed to respond to the things that are happening in your idiotic imagination. When you feel like being a part of reality, I'll give you the courtesy of thoughtful response.

[DinoDoc]

Why should I hope for things you are physically incapable of doing?

[Sava]

Come to think of it... "conservative lawmakers" have been wrong about everything, ever, in the history of this country.

Let's review.

Conservatives in 1776: loyal to the English crown

Conservatives in 1861: secede from the union to own slaves

Conservatives in 1941: against fighting in WW2

Conservatives in 1950's: Communism is everywhere... be afraid

Conservatives in the 1960's: against civil rights... also, we need to bomb and murder millions in southeast asia or else the soviets win

Conservatives in the 1980's: massive nuclear buildup and crushing debt is the way to win the cold war... against an ideology that is inherently a failure... but lets do it anyways... and blame it on obama

what else?

abortion, gun control, women's rights, gay rights, gays in the military, tax cuts, effectiveness on austerity, invading iraq, being trusted to manage efforts in afghanistan


I mean, I can't think of a single issue where they are right.... about anything

Well, some in the Ron Paul crowd want to legalize weed and end the war on drugs. But the same people also believe the FBI was behind the boston bombings... crazy doesn't count... even when they are accidentally right


being conservative is pretty much the reason they are wrong

"planning things is bad"

it's no wonder conservatism is linked to low IQ

[Sava]

Why should I hope for things you are physically incapable of doing?

BECAUSE YOU ARE ****ING RETARDED HARRRRRRRRRR

[DinoDoc]

BECAUSE YOU ARE ****ING RETARDED HARRRRRRRRRR

I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I!!!!!!!! HARRRRRRRRRRR

[Sava]

I AM A MIRROR AND YOU ARE GLUE
WHAT YOU SAY BOUNCES OFF ME AND STICKS TO YOU

[Aeson]

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/wo...tory?track=rss

LA Times agrees that Obama's position is "softening" Are you listening Ahmadinejad? Are you listening Kim?

It's a vague and meaningless response to a question asking for clarification on previous vague and meaningless statements. If anything it just "hardens" his stance as remaining vague and meaningless on the issue.

[PLATO]

It's a vague and meaningless response to a question asking for clarification on previous vague and meaningless statements. If anything it just "hardens" his stance as remaining vague and meaningless on the issue.

I agree. His policy towards Syria is vague and meaningless. Frankly, other than the humanitarian concerns, I could not care less if we get involved in Syria or not. As long as our allies in the region are not threatened that is. My concern is that we have a President making statements that most interpret one way (and you know he knows how his statement was interpreted) and then he seems to be backing off of it.

The words of the U.S. President should carry weight. In Obama's case, I believe that many doubt that they do. When this doubt is cast, it creates problems. A good example of the impact of the word's of U.S. officials was April Gillespie when she led Saddam to believe that we didn't give a crap about Iraq/Kuwait rift. That, arguably, led to the invasion of Kuwait.

My point is, that Obama needs to carefully consider "red line" comments, and be prepared to act if his bluff is called. In this case, it is looking more like he is mincing words and lowering the power of the presidency.

[Aeson]

I agree. His policy towards Syria is vague and meaningless. Frankly, other than the humanitarian concerns, I could not care less if we get involved in Syria or not. As long as our allies in the region are not threatened that is. My concern is that we have a President making statements that most interpret one way (and you know he knows how his statement was interpreted) and then he seems to be backing off of it.

He seems to be sticking to his tact, which is to morally condemn the use of chemical weapons, hint at possible responses in a very vague manner, and leave his options open for when/if/what response to make.

I'm sure he knows that by not flat out stating what conditions and what responses will be made that every knee-jerk conservative is going to read something absurd into his statements. That's probably part of the draw, since it makes the opposition look rather stupid to anyone not already following a shepherd.

The other part of the draw to such a tact is that it keeps the initiative to act in the President's hands ... not in the hands of terrorists or foreign powers. This is important.

The words of the U.S. President should carry weight. In Obama's case, I believe that many doubt that they do. When this doubt is cast, it creates problems. A good example of the impact of the word's of U.S. officials was April Gillespie when she led Saddam to believe that we didn't give a crap about Iraq/Kuwait rift. That, arguably, led to the invasion of Kuwait.

That example actually supports that Obama should have said chemical weapons weren't acceptable even if we weren't going to do anything about them being used. (Which I am not saying is the case, there almost certainly is a point at which Obama would intervene. Exactly what that point is is still unclear.) If he had not spoken out about it, it would have been rather similar to "no opinion on that matter" ... and if questioned hard enough could even require an analogous statement.

My point is, that Obama needs to carefully consider "red line" comments, and be prepared to act if his bluff is called. In this case, it is looking more like he is mincing words and lowering the power of the presidency.

Your point seems to be that Obama should adopt your response (which you haven't yet clarified) at your level of certainty (which you were never specific about beforehand). You seem to want him to either ignore important issues altogether or be ready to start bombing at a moments notice. It's an absurd proposition you are making that denies the room for interpretation obviously extant in the statements and would hand over initiative (for our own actions) to our enemies.

[PLATO]

Man...Libs will bend reality in anyway they can. That post defies any accepted reality on what everyone (including the Prez) thinks a "red line" comment means. It's one thing to support your guy, but don't be blatantly stupid with me about it.

[Aeson]

Man...Libs will bend reality in anyway they can. That post defies any accepted reality on what everyone (including the Prez) thinks a "red line" comment means. It's one thing to support your guy, but don't be blatantly stupid with me about it.

Given that I argue against Obama's actions far more than for them it's a rather stupid thing for you to claim.

In any case, the simple truth which you already agreed with, is that his statements were vague and meaningless. Now you're back to trying to make mountains out of molehills. Make up your mind.

Now if you want to address any of the salient points I made in my previous response, feel free. For instance, I'd love to hear you try to worm your way around how your analogy to Gulf War I backfired because you didn't think it through all the way first. Or why you want to interpret nebulous statements in a way that is contrary to what little clarification we have so that you can call for POTUS to hand over initiative to terrorists and other enemies of the US.

[rah]

I AM A MIRROR AND YOU ARE GLUE
WHAT YOU SAY BOUNCES OFF ME AND STICKS TO YOU

Hmm, never heard mirror used before. When we were kids it was "I'm rubber and you're glue"
Which seems to make a bit more sense. Kids today.

[giblets]

It was rubber when I was a kid. Sava is just special.

[kentonio]

Man...Libs will bend reality in anyway they can. That post defies any accepted reality on what everyone (including the Prez) thinks a "red line" comment means. It's one thing to support your guy, but don't be blatantly stupid with me about it.

Since when the **** was Aeson a liberal?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Since when the **** was Aeson a liberal?

Same time as you were a conservative? i.e. Never.