Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Sep 9, 2013.
Personally, I think Putin gave Obama a "Get out of Political Jail" card. And if he is smart, which I know he is in all things regarding Democrat-think, he will take it and claim victory.
Of course it won't change what the rest of the world thinks of us but that is irrelevant.
And Putin's administration sees it as some sort of "Gotcha!"-victory with their pouncing into action post-Kerry speech, inadvertently bailing Obama out of the wreck/hole he was digging. Kind of interesting.
What we are seeing unfold is kind of like the rousing British victory at Dunkirk.
So what? Let him be the laughingstock of the world. It's about time this country started taking care of its own dire problems and let the Arabs take care of theirs, which are timeless and a sucking black hole.
If the Arabs won't do it (they're brothers, can't hurt each other), then let the world take care of it. It's the world's problem, right? We are not the damn world, we just like to act like it.
Don't look now, but 0bama, Biden and Kerry want to pledge LBJ and Cheney's fraternity. And to think all the peaceniks were giddy when Barry was elected.
We'll certainly become the target after we make them a target first. These animals enjoy payback, you know, they have centuries of experience. But of course our government knows that. All this talk about a "limited" action is intended to get another Middle East war going. War is in this country's blood it can't get enough of it. The beast must be fed.
Guess my ploy worked. Sent the following video to Assad with instructions to listen (and if need be get interpreted) while holding visions of Sadaam in his head.
I hate to break it to you, but we get "payback" for being the Great Satan no matter what we do or don't do in any situation there. The fear of retribution that we are constantly a threat to receiving at any time does not seem like it should dictate our actions.
I have a question. Or two.
What is the basis for the US assuming the duty to act unilaterally in these - or in other, tyrannical, despotic, humanitarian crisis situations - instead of requiring the world to act ?
Do we authorize the POTUS to "draw red lines" whenever and wherever he wants to, such that any transgression of said line(s), will result in military action on our part ?
Do these kinds of murky ideas flow from some sort of assumed moral authority ? If they do, what is the basis of the authority and where is it found ?
Or does our putative "responsibility" to act always flow from some sort of undifferentiated, undefined, and unarticulated, universal claim that to intervene in those instances, is always covered under our "national interests" ?
Is it moral, democratic, or self-interested evangelism ?
Perhaps the answer to your question lies in questions themselves.
Should we sit on our hands when there is a systematic slaughter of human beings because of their race, ethnicity, religion or other immutable characteristics by their own government even if the world community decides to turn a blind eye? Should we do nothing if a nation decides to use nuclear weapons or a dirty bomb on its own people in order to stem a rebellion because no one else does something first? Or is the best way to address those situations to shrug our shoulders, claim that we have our own problems and can't be bothered with it because if no one else is willing to do anything, why should we?
All hard questions with difficult answers in an ambiguous situation. And hopefully one that will be resolved as a result of today's developments and we won't have to confront right now.
Obama is in "a pretty bad fix" on Syria. That's exactly what General Curtis LeMay told JFK on Cuba in a meeting with the Joint Chiefs during the Cuban Missile Crisis. From the transcript:
General LeMay: I think that a blockade and political talk would be considered by a lot of our friends and neutrals as being a pretty weak response to this. And I’m sure a lot of our own citizens would feel that way, too. In other words, you’re in a pretty bad fix at the present time.
President Kennedy: What did you say?
General LeMay: You’re in a pretty bad fix.
President Kennedy: You’re in there with me. [Slight laughter, a bit forced.] Personally.
About a year later JFK was dead.
That's the kind of pressure that a president can be under on matters of war and peace. Yet people still want the job.
There was a previous thread that the OP questioned, why are chemical weapons bad to kill 1000 people but using 1000 bullets to kill them okay? My take was, and still is, more about sending the signal to the lower levels of power that if you use WMD in an offensive manner then we, the higher levels, have the resources to "teach you a lesson." The problem is when we, the higher levels, don't get on the same page. Obama messed it up from the beginning and now he is stuck looking stupid.
There really isn't any "moral authority" in all of this, although it is the mantra that he is trying to hide behind. It is pretty much about us being much bigger than them and thus have the ability to do "something." Now, what happens when North Korea does something like this? My guess is the politics will be somewhat different then.
When JFK left the room, LeMay also called JFK a "yellow-bellied bastard" for not engaging in a wholesale invasion of Cuba and exploring options such as diplomacy and, if military intervention was necessary, sorties.
And, unless you know something from a classified file that I don't, JFK's death was unrelated to the Cuban missle crisis.
She's not an ambassador anymore.That's Samantha Powers.Susan Rice is Obama's national security adviser
So ... what approach does Obama take in tonight's Really Big Speech? Continue to maintain that immediate action is needed, and press Congress to bless same, or wait and see what Putin and the UN can accomplish?
I was trying to get at the authority for doing . . . whatever we determine to do.
So . . . we have a greater "moral burden" (or whatever the source), and concomitant "moral authority" for acting in cases like this, than every other country in the world does ?
How in the hell did that happen ?
And what atrocity will herald the next one ? And what will it look like ? Rawanda ? Uganda ? Indonesia ?
Or, is it that, we are the only country in the entire world with the "correct morals" that permit us to act . . . whenever a sympathetic "moral chord" is struck ?
There is much undifferentiated amorphous bullshit involved here (not from you of course) in FAILING to ask tough questions, which no one ever takes the time to postulate, analyze, define, vet, and ratify, before (whoever, usually the POTUS) authorizes military action. We call it our "responsibility," but rarely is the source and essence of that "responsibility" questioned.
We cannot keep this up all over the world, and it's time we determined how, when, where, and under what circumstances we should take military action based on . . . somebody, somewhere else in the world, doing something bad, or something that we don't like, especially if nobody else in the world cares enough to do anything about it, except cheer us on.
I'll just put this here:
Agreed. Going forward, we will see what it cost us. It will not be cheap. At some point, Obama will have to turn a blind eye to something Russia is doing or help Russia with their Georgia policy or pipeline aspirations or something else.
There is an awful lot of talk going on on here by the right that has to be considered nearing an anti-American rhetoric. It's one thing to demonize Obama on his domestic agenda, but it's unacceptable (at least by patriotic Americans) to play politics by trying to make him look weak and incompetent concerning the present situation in Syria.