How do you have a world without war with sociopaths running countries?
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
- Status
Simple; you are mistaking verbal gaff with strategy. This wasn't the result of a change in strategy. Kerry, in typical fashion, made a verbal miscue while trying to have a coherent thought; Putin and Assad jumped on board knowing that the inept leadership grasping at straws would see it as a life preserver for their moronic rhetoric on red lines.
Now people with even half a brain would ask themselves how we can trust a nation that defends and befriends Syria's Assad and armed him to actually work to disarm the Syrian dictator.
I find it amusing when leftist sheeple who sound like Bush on Iraq now wet themselves to declare Putin Obamas savior and a peacenik extraordinaire.
If you think that anything will come of this policy based on verbal gaffs, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
That wasn't the question though. Why did Obama not bother to ask for Lybia liberation but now suddenly thinks he needs Congressional authority on Syria; a much worse situation involving chemical weapons?
So the problem is that Kerry said something that led to the possibility to achieve the stated goals without military action? Why is that a problem? What should Kerry have done? Said that there was nothing Assad could do to prevent the United States from striking militarily?
I don't get it.
No, the question was why Obama need to bring this to Congress. The answer is that he didn't. Why he decided to bring it to Congress is a whole 'nother issue that no one here can actually address since we're not inside his mind.
It is the capitalist way with all truth. Some call it ideology, though we call it arse-licking cowardice.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
A couple of reasons:
1) He wanted political cover so that he could get the Reps on record with him should he bomb Syria. Add to that the fact that no one else was going along with us except the French. Hence, we were on our own.
2) Libya was approved by the UN security council. While he still should have asked for approval of Congress, he did not need to
Wrong again; Kerry's verbal gaff has led to nothing other than embarrasment and the false belief and claim that Putin gives a rats ass about Assad's chemical stockpiles or that Russia and Syria will address this, comply with this or even care about this issue.
But if you desperately want to wallow in denial and believe that Putin and Assad can be trusted, I cannot help you.
100% correct. But why did he need the Reps on record to bomb Syria?
Why would he not need to for Libya but need to for Syria? The UN has nothing to do with our own Constitution; when did the UN supercede the Constitution? Answer; NEVER.
How can a series of questions (that were unanswered, by the way) be wrong? Maybe you don't understand the concept. In any event, I don't see how it is embarassing (to whom? for what?) that there is a potential diplomatic solution on the table when what was on the table previous to that was a military strike that would not likely achieve the desired outcome (and could lead to lots of very bad negative consequences) or nothing at all. ANd I'm not aware of anyone who genuinely believes that Putin or Assad have anything but their own best interests
I don't think much will be determined by the trustworthiness of either.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
For political cover.
Never said the UN superseded the US Constitution. I never stated it had anything to do with it.
I said the UN security council approved it. That provided him with the political cover that he does not have with Syria.
BINGO!
BINGO!
Obama is a political animal that hasn't got the first clue what real leadership is, exhibits an incredible ignorance on economics and what creates jobs and is nothing more than a community organizer on permanent campaign mode because it is the only real experience Obama has ever had.
The only thing more amazing is how gullible sheeple still desperately support this moron in the face of his incredible failures, lies and verbal gaffs. This is what happens when low information voters elect incompetent buffoons based on nothing more than trite campaign slogans like "hope and change."
Says someone who voted for Bush.
Another compelling post from a forum dullard; what a shocker.
tekkychick
New member
you aren't an Obama-hater; that's why you don't get it.
Obama can't do anything right in the eyes of those who hate him
cawacko
Well-known member
Must one hate him to not approve of how he's handle this situation? Or is it either you say he's done an excellent job or you hate him no other options?
Damn right I did; you have to be a retarded dullard to have voted for Al Gore or Kerry.
At they very least, one should explain what Obama has done that he should not have done or what he should have done differently. I haven't really seen any assessment that does that.
- Status