[quote=“jotham”]Obama put himself into a rock and hard place[/quote] Another good belly laugh. Thank you.
[quote=“jotham”]Putin knows how to make Obama look the fool.[/quote] I was just thinking “fool”… what a coincidence!
[quote=“jotham”][url= brainless Breitbart article written by fools, read by fools [/url][/quote] Brietbart!? It all makes sense now 
[quote=“gareth186”]
Well I was just being polite when I said gracefully Jotham.Anyway it just goes to show what happens when you keep sticking your nose in other peoples business doesn’t it. I really don’t care too much what goes on behind the scenes . I think America needs to take a good look at themselves and work out where they are going wrong preferably starting with foreign policy. So you could say its Russia 1-0 USA at the moment.[/quote]
Yes, and it makes more sense when you think this would be the first time in American history that a president asked for military authorization and got turned down. That would be Obama’s legacy. He needs Putin to save him. Bwa ha ha.
They aren’t the only ones I’m afraid. It seems like the US Government just didn’t get the memo. The vast majority of the world disagrees with their foreign policy and has for quite a long time. One positive thing that came from this situation is that FINALLY a majority of the American people themselves fall on the correct side of the argument for a change. I’m hoping this is the start of good things to come for the future of diplomatic relations.
[quote=“jotham”][quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“jotham”]
Nonsense, William the Conqueror took England in one day at the Battle of Hastings. That wasn’t a war or part of a war. Yet it changed history dramatically.[/quote]
Hey buddy, it’s all the same to me, but you might want to aim before you shoot. I’m just sayin.
http://www.britishbattles.com/norman-conquest/battle-hastings.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England#11th_century[/quote]
That isn’t anything. It’s just a category for any conflict. They place rebellions as “war” as well; conflict would be a better worded category. They’re just playing loose with the meaning of “war” to make a nifty little category. You’re really desperate if you think this proves anything. To make the “Norman Conquest of England” a war in which the only military part of it was the Battle of Hastings is really grasping for straws. Why don’t you use the standards you expect of me: find it in the literature.[/quote]
But it wasn’t the only battle! It went on for weeks! Obviously it was a war! You are the one grasping for straws here.
It proves that most people think that there is no fundamental difference between a battle and a war, any more than they think that there is a fundamental difference between a sandwich and a meal.
You were the one saying that the US could have a battle in Syria but it wouldn’t be an act of war!
What is your point, for crying out loud?
The Battle of Hastings was the only part of the Norman Conquest that was military? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
I’m sorry if this might be considered trolling, as I haven’t followed this thread at all and am not even that interested in the topic. But here’s an article someone posted lately that I found an interesting hypothesis, in terms of the Obama strategy:
President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize
Jotham will, of course, Bwa Ha Ha his ass off…
bwaa ha ha. That brilliant strategy applause only works if Putin and the big O already had a prior arrangement worked out, which is possible. I still say something needs to be done with Syria, because it stands between Saudi Arabia undercutting Russia’s monopoly on the natural gas supply in Europe; that and because we need to protect the children, of course
I believe Al Qaeda and President Pinocchio’s secret evidence. Let the humanitarian bombing campaign begin!
[quote=“Vay”]I’m sorry if this might be considered trolling, as I haven’t followed this thread at all and am not even that interested in the topic. But here’s an article someone posted lately that I found an interesting hypothesis, in terms of the Obama strategy:
President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize
Jotham will, of course, Bwa Ha Ha his ass off…[/quote]
I don’t think the 11-dimensional chess goes this deep. IMHO, if Cameron had gone along, Obama would have gone ahead without even asking Congress.
Even so, if Congress had turned him down, things wouldn’t have been too bad for him, despite the horror of the folks at CNN of not getting to have their war
As it turned out, at the moment it’s Obama Bwa-ha-haing his ass off. He does get to look “Presidential” i.e. warlike; he can say it’s his threats that forced Syria to back down; if Syria uses CW again he’s still got all the options. He can go back to Congress (and the world) and say “hey, we gave them the chance and they’ went back on their word”.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are totally divided on the issue. Whatever criticism one of them makes, BarryO can point to an equally prominent GOPer saying exactly the opposite.
[quote=“MikeN”]
I don’t think the 11-dimensional chess goes this deep. IMHO, if Cameron had gone along, Obama would have gone ahead without even asking Congress.
Even so, if Congress had turned him down, things wouldn’t have been too bad for him, despite the horror of the folks at CNN of not getting to have their war
As it turned out, at the moment it’s Obama Bwa-ha-haing his ass off. He does get to look “Presidential” i.e. warlike; he can say it’s his threats that forced Syria to back down; if Syria uses CW again he’s still got all the options. He can go back to Congress (and the world) and say “hey, we gave them the chance and they’ went back on their word”.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are totally divided on the issue. Whatever criticism one of them makes, BarryO can point to an equally prominent GOPer saying exactly the opposite.[/quote]
I think Obama knew congress wouldn’t have given approval, and he indeed did not need to ask for approval, so the only reason he asked was he wanted congress to turn him down. There seems to be a lot of that going on in the congress…
Yeah these politicians have entire teams of people who’s job it is to analyze the landscape and to know what would and wouldn’t get passed in Congress. At the very least, they know ahead of time what types of deals and bribes are needed to get the threshold votes. So it’s not a real stretch of the imagination to think that Obama asked for Congressional approval already knowing he would be denied. Maybe I’m just too anti government, but I don’t trust a word they say and I pretty much think most things in politics are scripted from the start.
[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“jotham”][quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“jotham”]
Nonsense, William the Conqueror took England in one day at the Battle of Hastings. That wasn’t a war or part of a war. Yet it changed history dramatically.[/quote]
Hey buddy, it’s all the same to me, but you might want to aim before you shoot. I’m just sayin.
http://www.britishbattles.com/norman-conquest/battle-hastings.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England#11th_century[/quote]
That isn’t anything. It’s just a category for any conflict. They place rebellions as “war” as well; conflict would be a better worded category. They’re just playing loose with the meaning of “war” to make a nifty little category. You’re really desperate if you think this proves anything. To make the “Norman Conquest of England” a war in which the only military part of it was the Battle of Hastings is really grasping for straws. Why don’t you use the standards you expect of me: find it in the literature.[/quote]
But it wasn’t the only battle! It went on for weeks! Obviously it was a war! You are the one grasping for straws here.
It proves that most people think that there is no fundamental difference between a battle and a war, any more than they think that there is a fundamental difference between a sandwich and a meal.
You were the one saying that the US could have a battle in Syria but it wouldn’t be an act of war!
What is your point, for crying out loud?
The Battle of Hastings was the only part of the Norman Conquest that was military? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:[/quote]
The battle and military engagements lasted a day and the consequences were already known that day. It might have taken a week for him to finally wear the crown because they didn’t have jets back then, but to call that a war – every village was surrendering to him because of the Battle of Hastings. It was finished, no more battles, no war.
[quote=“Vay”]I’m sorry if this might be considered trolling, as I haven’t followed this thread at all and am not even that interested in the topic. But here’s an article someone posted lately that I found an interesting hypothesis, in terms of the Obama strategy:
President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize
Jotham will, of course, Bwa Ha Ha his ass off…[/quote]
No, he is not looking like a hawk. He is looking like he’s going into this because he unwisely stated some red line and now has to defend it. And then when Kerry made a gaffe and the Russians take advantage of it to bail Obama out, he readily takes it because he doesn’t like the feeling of being cornered. Obama looks like he’s just flying by the seat of his pants, exercising opportunism at its worst, totally not decisive.
A war hawk isn’t someone who is always for war. It isn’t so black-and-white as that. As I said before, these humanitarian wars are not the type of wars that “war hawks” are for. Many war hawks are against Syrian strikes as they were against Serbia bombings, because it isn’t what military is for, it isn’t what soldiers sign up for.
Agree with you there Jotham he dropped a right bollock with all that red line posturing and then when the still to be proved who did it chemical attack happened the shit hit the fan. I honestly believe if the Brits hadn’t voted no they would have sent the bombers in that first weekend. I think that British vote changed everything and basically its been a face saving exercise ever since. Its possible he struck a deal with Putin at the G20, hence the Russian plan and if it all works out diplomatically then i think most people would be happy with that. I do believe though if the Allies had bombed Syria Obama would be in a lot weaker position than he is now and the repercussions would have been reverberating for a long time to come.
Yah, as for that red-line posturing, he was just saying that during campaign mode to look tough as Romney. But when the rubber hits the road, when reality strikes and he needs to perform what he promised, this guy doesn’t know how to actually be tough. It was just all a show – he’s not really tough. A successful president who has a veritable vision for this (and not just using it for campaign reasons to get votes) would be able to persuade people, talk with conviction, be able to convince world leaders – this guy can’t even persuade Americans, let alone his own party!
Why do you equate willingness to bomb countries with being tough? Seriously, what’s wrong with you? Do you understand that those are people you’re talking about bombing? They aren’t chess pieces, they aren’t a bargaining chip, they aren’t something to be used as political leverage and saving face, they are people ! Who gives a shit what your precious President looks like image wise and how “tough” he looks. All that matters is he gets it right. F’ing Americans, you’ll be the destruction of us all…
Why do you equate willingness to bomb countries with being tough? Seriously, what’s wrong with you? Do you understand that those are people you’re talking about bombing? They aren’t chess pieces, they aren’t a bargaining chip, they aren’t something to be used as political leverage and saving face, they are people ! Who gives a shit what your precious President looks like image wise and how “tough” he looks. All that matters is he gets it right. F’ing Americans, you’ll be the destruction of us all…[/quote]
I’m criticizing that he shouldn’t have been stupid enough to draw a red line in the first place if he doesn’t really believe in it, if he can’t figure out the consequences – just saying stuff for politics’ sake.
I think he was just triangulating and not speaking on well-reasoned principle, which is what Democrats so often do. He figured the world would be for this at the time, so he thought no big deal, put his foot in his mouth, make him look tough like Romney on some issue. Now as circumstances have gone contrary to his predictions, he can’t sell his vision, because it wasn’t his own, he was just playing world opinion. And when world opinion changes, so does he. He has no principle to stand on. His red lines mean nothing.
As for bombing people, I’m sure the President and military have precision bombs that would target government buildings, I doubt they would bomb neighborhoods, like we did Germany. Remember, Kerry said it would be “unbelievably small.” As Rush Limbaugh puts it:
John Kerry Gives Assad One Week to Give Up or Face an “Unbelievably Small” Attack
Of course they are. Welcome to the world of international politics.
You are not that naive are you?
Of course they are. Welcome to the world of international politics.
You are not that naive are you?[/quote]
Welcome to the new evil empire. Same as the old evil empire.
Yeah… Just like when the US started the first and second world wars… 
Yeah… Just like when the US started the first and second world wars… [/quote]
The USA and the USSA are only superficially the same country. If America’s founders were to come back and see what this generation has done to the nation they founded they’d probably demand their names be stripped off all connection with what it’s become.