How do you have a world without war with sociopaths running countries?
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
- Status
Desh likes to ignore reality.
Here's a link I will allow you to click: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?55256-This-is-what-drones-do
Bask in the glory that is smart weapons.
Here's a link I will allow you to click: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?55256-This-is-what-drones-do
Bask in the glory that is smart weapons.
I'll fight for my freedoms, thanks. You can keep your cages.
You got it under the bed somewhere, have you? Freedom my American elbow!
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Yes or no. Is it plausible that the rebels/al queda terrorists got ahold of chemical weapons and used them in an effort to bring the US into the fray to take out Assad for them? Do you even think that is remotely possible?
And if it is remotely possible, would it change your calculus? There is ZERO proof that Assad ordered it. Do you have phone conversations? A paper trail? I know you have super secret access to OBOMBA that the rest of us plebes don't have, so maybe you can enlighten and inform
Yet you want to keep bombing the part of the world where language and numerals, culture, art and society were all invented.
None of the glory you acclaim to would be possible without these previous developments.
That is the peak of insanity. By the way Desh, No one is advocating the elimination of capitalism except BAC and Rose and I don't think BAC is actually against capitalism either, so as Tom would say, what are you on about now.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Seems I made the correct decision ignoring iolo all along.
So anarchy is the way to peace? Seems a bit counter-intuitive.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
SF, I've been meaning to ask someone who is somewhat reasoanble and intelligent (you qualify, if barely) what exactly they have a problem with regarding Obama and Syria. I mean, I understood the initial opposition when it looked like Obama was going to strike Syria with dubious (at best) goals and lots of potential negative consequences without going to Congress. I got that. I agreed.
But since he took it to Congress and then engaged with the Russian idea to achieve disarmament without attacking, what's the issue there? Those are good things, aren't they? Obama should have taken it to Congress. Congress even asked him to. Obama should have engaged diplomatically when presented the opportunity, shouldn't he? So, while it's fun to post humorous cartoons that poke fun at Obama in general, non-specific fashion, what's really the beef here?
But since he took it to Congress and then engaged with the Russian idea to achieve disarmament without attacking, what's the issue there? Those are good things, aren't they? Obama should have taken it to Congress. Congress even asked him to. Obama should have engaged diplomatically when presented the opportunity, shouldn't he? So, while it's fun to post humorous cartoons that poke fun at Obama in general, non-specific fashion, what's really the beef here?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
DH have you suffered a recent blow to the head?
Another incredibly dense buffoonish blame AmeriKa argument that ignores the efforts of despots, dictators, tyrants and terrorists.
No wonder idiots like Obama can get elected. Earth to idiots; despots, dictators, tyrants and terrorists don't give a damn about your naive buffoonish world view and laugh at your incredible gullibility.
tekkychick
New member
It's how our system is supposed to work, right?
People may disagree with the policy; but he is now following the right steps.
Ha! "Somewhat" and "barely" are doing a lot of work there.
The issue here is a foreign policy designed by verbal gaffs. There's no coherent strategy and this putz of a President with his putz of a Sec State wander from verbal gaff to verbal gaff in an effort to deflect and avoid the fact that they have no coherent ME policy whatsoever.
This putz in the White House even plagiarizes Bush speeches in his effort to dupe the gullible kool aid swilling masses that his strategy will force despots, dictators and tyrants to give up their weapon systems. Meanwhile, this peace prize winning buffoon makes us look dumb, innefectual and a laughing stock of the world.
When you defer your leadership role to the likes of Putin, you know you have reached a new low. This putz in the white house tells us there is no war on terror, ignores the ME then is shocked and awed when US diplomats are murdered in nations he bombed to help terrorists take over.
This is what happens when low information sheeple elect an inexperienced, inept community organizer as Commander and Cheif; incoherent foreign policy, economic malaise and a President engaged in permanent campaign mode subject to verbal gaffs and foot-in-mouth syndrome.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I do not have a problem with the outcome that occurred. I think Obama bumbled along and was ready to lob missiles (with or without Congressional approval IMO) to prove he was not 'weak' when Putin bailed him out.
Obama absolutely should have taken it to Congress. I do not disagree with that. I do have doubts that he would have listened to Congress had they not approved. He tends to enjoy skirting Congress when he doesn't get his way. As for the cartoon, yeah, that was just poking fun at the Nobel peace prize winner.
Wasn't the stated goal all along (1) to punish Assad for using chemical weapons and (2) to degrade his ablity to do it again? The initial stategy to achieve that goal was a military strike that lots of people thought probably achieved goal number 1 (with "collateral damage" - ugh, I hate that term) but wouldn't really do much to achieve goal number 2. So, like, what's the big deal with changing strategy when presented with an opportunity to achieve those goals without "collateral damage?" How is that "ineffectual?" How is that "deferring leadership" to Putin?
This is what I don't get. How is adapting to changing circumstances to achieve the desired outcome is somehow a bad thing. Why is that? Is your position that Obama should have told Putin and Congress to go screw and launched military strikes because that was the initial strategy to achieve the desired outcome?
All I'm seeing is a lot of people starting at the conclusion that Obama is bad and working badward from there to find a justification for it.
I'm curious why Obama needed to bring the Syria bombing to Congress over WMDs but was free to bomb Lybia without approval where WMDs were not involved.
Can you explain this? One thing certain about liberal sheeple and kool aid swilling voters;logic and consistency are not their forte'.
- Status