obama trying to save face

by Propagandhi711 Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:24 pm

he doesnt have a game plan, just want to burn a couple of cruise missiles and save face for saying that red-line bullshit. the country or it's allies dont have an appetite for another mideast incursion, deserved or not so he'll have pressure from his own party not to get dragged into a war. there is no scenario that'll turn out good for syrian ppl, the world will not save them. now the lefties can rage against the US and western imperialists for not acting.

by truthbetold Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:05 pm

It is puzzling how poorly obama admin handled this Syrian strike. They hurried the usually reliable Brits and pushed them into a corner from which they cannot recover. If a good case is laid out and explained to people, Brits and Americans would have given more than enough support.
Now obama could even be hobbled by us house or look stupid with Luke warm support.
Really poor message management.

by Propagandhi711 Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:27 pm

truthbetold wrote:It is puzzling how poorly obama admin handled this Syrian strike. They hurried the usually reliable Brits and pushed them into a corner from which they cannot recover. If a good case is laid out and explained to people, Brits and Americans would have given more than enough support.
Now obama could even be hobbled by us house or look stupid with Luke warm support.
Really poor message management.

I dont know how much of a good case they could have made. bottomline: there is no overarching US interest in that war, except for the tangential one of not letting iran and it's allies get stronger in the region which is already a reality. it's civil war in an place filled with ppl that hate american guts so I dont think the common man actually cares about what happens to syrians. that's what happens when they call a compassionate country the devil, satan and whatnot and harsh as this sounds, they should just let those arab countries deal with their own problems. rest of the world let africans kill themselves, no reason why they wont do the same for arabs in all honesty. at the end of the day it's self interest that drives human beings.

by truthbetold Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:41 pm

Prop,
Agree with you on Syrian situation. Opposition is as unpalatable as Assad.
My point is on the issue of chemical weapons, a case can be made if available evidence is presented in a systematic way. Admin could have argued that even if low level officer used it, Syrian army is responsible. There is still some doubt that this could be a set up to invite us strike by rebels. It would be foolish for us to be used by rouge elements.
In terms of blood letting, every region must have its own blood letting before the parties can sit down and workout long term peace. Europe learned its lessons from two destructive world wars.

by Rishi Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:46 pm

Poor Obama!

I think the media must have set him up by asking what he would do if Syria used Chemical weapons.

He should have said that he will not answer hypothetical questions.

by truthbetold Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:34 pm

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/uneasy-lies-head-that-wears-crown

Rishi
For your reading pleasure.

by confuzzled dude Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:20 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:he doesnt have a game plan, just want to burn a couple of cruise missiles and save face for saying that red-line bullshit. the country or it's allies dont have an appetite for another mideast incursion, deserved or not so he'll have pressure from his own party not to get dragged into a war. there is no scenario that'll turn out good for syrian ppl, the world will not save them. now the lefties can rage against the US and western imperialists for not acting.

You mean a plan comparable to, and as great as WMDs?! You are right Obama sucks on that front.

by Hellsangel Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:13 am

Poor chap. Now he just learnt that he can't rely on the Brits either. "About Face" was the headline in one of the Newspapers.

by Hellsangel Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:14 pm

How to fail in foreign policy.

Notwithstanding what the WaPo brigade fanboys have to say.

by confuzzled dude Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:32 pm

Hellsangel wrote:How to fail in foreign policy.

Notwithstanding what the WaPo brigade fanboys have to say.

Yes, yes this would be a blot on otherwise unblemished foreign policy record of the USA, which is precisely why America is loved and adored all over the world, especially by the Muslim world.

by Hellsangel Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:55 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:How to fail in foreign policy.

Notwithstanding what the WaPo brigade fanboys have to say.
Yes, yes this would be a blot on otherwise unblemished foreign policy record of the USA, which is precisely why America is loved and adored all over the world, especially by the Muslim world.

Yeah. And everyone knows how important it is to be loved and adored by the Muslim world.

by truthbetold Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:38 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:How to fail in foreign policy.

Notwithstanding what the WaPo brigade fanboys have to say.
Yes, yes this would be a blot on otherwise unblemished foreign policy record of the USA, which is precisely why America is loved and adored all over the world, especially by the Muslim world.

Emotionally charged misdirected Muslim world opinion is not a sensible indicator of foreign policy success.
Republican charge that us lost its clout in the world after obama came is laughable since us power does not wane in four years one way or other.
But obama has not been particularly successful in any conflict around the world. Infact his admin was a complete disaster in mobilizing us and international opinion on Syrian chemical weapon usage. When chemicals were first used they were reluctant to use force due to electoral needs and gave every excuse possible to look the other way. Now they seem to be in a wmd type hurry without laying the case before us and world.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:37 am

why blame obama for not winning conflicts? no US president has successfully negotiated any conflict after FDR's involvement in WW II. everyone else has had losses or at best stalemates.

by confuzzled dude Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:41 pm

truthbetold wrote:
But obama has not been particularly successful in any conflict around the world.

?!

truthbetold wrote:
Infact his admin was a complete disaster in mobilizing us and international opinion on Syrian chemical weapon usage. When chemicals were first used they were reluctant to use force due to electoral needs and gave every excuse possible to look the other way. Now they seem to be in a wmd type hurry without laying the case before us and world.

If lying through teeth to the UN is considered a successful strategy to gain international acceptance then the previous administration did a splendid job of it (it's just that they failed to backup their claims). In Obama's defense, he first used the term "red line" a year ago to warn Assad; however, up till recently there was no tangible evidence of Assad's regime using chemical weapons. So, I don't think this can be viewed as looking the other way, especially given the severe damage done to the US credibility by the WMD fiasco. Personally, I wouldn't want US to have any part in this, when 100,000 civilians deaths occurred over the past couple of years didn't garner much of world's attention, why this hue and cry over a few hundred more? I get that chemical weapons were outlawed under international law but a death is a death regardless of its nature or cause, it won't make a iota of difference to the suffering families.

by truthbetold Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:25 pm

Cd,
Check out how a solid coalition was built in 1991 by James baker.
Even younger Bush did better than obama. As you pointed out many times in the indefensible case of jagan reddy's looting of the andhra pradesh, who does not do it? Bush's team atleast worked hard. Obama 's team was inept and put the carriage before horse and messed up Uk participation.
Ideology cannot mask inefficiency.

by confuzzled dude Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:51 pm

truthbetold wrote:Cd,
Check out how a solid coalition was built in 1991 by James baker.
Even younger Bush did better than obama. As you pointed out many times in the indefensible case of jagan reddy's looting of the andhra pradesh, who does not do it? Bush's team atleast worked hard. Obama 's team was inept and put the carriage before horse and messed up Uk participation.
Ideology cannot mask inefficiency.

You can't be serious, it must have been one of the easiest sells for James Baker. Russia readily condemned the invasion, so did Thatcher. BTW, per Baker's wiki page, he said pretty much the same thing that Obama has been berated for lately. The main difference is the state of mind; World wasn't war-weary back then, Thanks to Dubya & co for making the whole world war-weary.

James Baker:
"On January 9, 1991, during the Geneva Peace Conference with Tariq Aziz in Geneva, Baker declared that "If there is any user of (chemical or biological weapons), our objectives won't just be the liberation of Kuwait, but the elimination of the current Iraqi regime...."[13] Baker later acknowledged that the intent of this statement was to threaten a retaliatory nuclear strike on Iraq,[14] and the Iraqis received his message"

Obama last year:
“We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” Mr. Obama said in response to questions at an impromptu news conference at the White House. “We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized.”

by Propagandhi711 Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:27 am

yeah whatever dude. that appeasement of "muslim sentiment" must be genetically encoded into congress supporters, regardless of how fucked up, regressive and upside down they are. also concurrently there must be the gene for moral equivalence and liking corruption by certain friends.

by confuzzled dude Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:46 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:yeah whatever dude. that appeasement of "muslim sentiment" must be genetically encoded into congress supporters, regardless of how fucked up, regressive and upside down they are. also concurrently there must be the gene for moral equivalence and liking corruption by certain friends.

Supporting Obama is appeasing Muslims! I hope you're not one of those that routinely refer him as Hussein.

by confuzzled dude Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:12 pm

Man... did the president botch it with the world set a red line talk or is he being the same old smooth talker.

by Petrichor Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:34 pm

Re-posting:

•selective engagement—choosing to prevent or to become involved only in those conflicts that pose a threat to the country's long-term interests.

"Art makes a strong case for selective engagement as the most desirable strategy for contemporary America. It is the one that seeks to forestall dangers, not simply react to them; that is politically viable, at home and abroad; and that protects all U.S. interests, both essential and desirable. Art concludes that "selective engagement is not a strategy for all times, but it is the best grand strategy for these times."

A Grand Strategy for America - Robert J Art

by Hellsangel Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:41 pm

Looks like Congress might not overwhelmingly vote for this.

by truthbetold Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:34 pm

There is a possibility that senate 60 and house republicans may derail Syrian policy.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:53 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:he doesnt have a game plan, just want to burn a couple of cruise missiles and save face for saying that red-line bullshit. the country or it's allies dont have an appetite for another mideast incursion, deserved or not so he'll have pressure from his own party not to get dragged into a war. there is no scenario that'll turn out good for syrian ppl, the world will not save them. now the lefties can rage against the US and western imperialists for not acting.

He should just simply "Let Allah solve the Syrian problem"

by Hellsangel Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:17 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:he doesnt have a game plan, just want to burn a couple of cruise missiles and save face for saying that red-line bullshit. the country or it's allies dont have an appetite for another mideast incursion, deserved or not so he'll have pressure from his own party not to get dragged into a war. there is no scenario that'll turn out good for syrian ppl, the world will not save them. now the lefties can rage against the US and western imperialists for not acting.
He should just simply "Let Allah solve the Syrian problem"

The WaPo brigade will now ask you when you converted, your Holiness.

by Sponsored content

obama trying to save face

obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face

Re: obama trying to save face