@atl134 "We might end up not having to fire a shot AND getting Syria's
chemical weapons."Also, pigs might fly. Assad will make a
pretense of giving up his chemical weapons, but he will not give them up.Remember Hans Blix and his team of Keystone Cops stumbling around Iraq
while Saddam played shell games for months and months, with Russia running
interference? We're about to sign up for that again.
@LDS Oh my you travel abroad. How stylish of you. I doubt you had any problems
traveling when Bush was in office. Nice try though.
Finally Parker writes a piece that actually has some substance to it! If there
is one thing this president can do, it's talk talk talk talk. Listening to
himself raddle on and on is like sweet music to his ginormous ears. The other
thing he has going for him is the massive support of the liberal press. If he
can just yammer, and carry on, with a stalling tactic long enough, he will
always get the press behind him, even if he recently split with, or offended
them....they always come back sniffing.
@ atl134. Do you really think Syria will give up their chemical weapons to
Russia, who probably sold them to Syria in the first place?
President Obama is not the first President to engage in
"sabre-rattling", and he certainly won't be the last. Threatening
punitive action can sometimes be an effective means of curtailing undesirable
behavior, but as nearly every parent knows, it can sometimes backfire.
Sometimes your bluff gets called, and sometimes the punishee resolves to "go
down swinging" and to make the punisher pay for daring to punish them. Most
parents learn to carefully think through a situation before issuing ultimatums,
to pick their battles (some situations just aren't worth the trouble), to
be willing to follow through with their threat if push comes to shove, and to
minimize the risk of retaliation.I think the President's
initial statements regarding Syria were probably ill-advised; but I also think
his subsequent handling of an increasingly complicated and worsening situation
has been as good as can be expected. As I've said before, this is really a
no-win situation.It's easy to be an "armchair critic",
Mountanman, but what would you propose to do at this point that would actually
accomplish something? Or would you be as impotent as you accuse the President
@MountanmanSo do you want us to go in there with ground troops or do you
just reflexively take any position against where you think Obama's going
with this? We might end up not having to fire a shot AND getting Syria's
I like Teddy Roosevelt's Big Stick ideology or Big Stick diplomacy, foreign
policy: "speak softly, and carry a big stick."========= BTW Mountanman, you worry about Obama and
America's "credibility" image?It least I don't
need to pretend to be from Canada when traveling abroad like I did under GW
This was never about war! It was all about Obama's "red line" macho
statement and trying to keep him "credible". Putin and Assad played
Obama like a Stradivarious and America lost even more credibility in the world.
Do you hear laughter coming from Iran, N. Korea, China and especially Russia?
How horrible to not jump into war on a whim.So now with a more peaceful
solution looming you want to go to war, but yesterday, you along with the others
of your flock of radio devotees said the exact opposite, again. Of course with
conviction and passion (typing in caps) like "In the meantime, innocent
civilians are STILL being killed in Syria" you must be running to a
Tough guy keeping on the pressure. Plus not spending a trillion with boots,
equipment and contractors on the ground.
In the meantime, innocent civilians are STILL being killed in Syria, except only
by conventional weapons. What has Obama actually accomplished? NOTHING!