When are we going to see some leadership??

NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec13/obama_08-28.html

The president has not decided whether we are going to strike Syria or not.

This is despite his secretary of state coming out yesterday and saying that the Assad administration has definitely used chemical weapons against his own people. This is after Obama said that using chemical weapons is a red line that should not be crossed.

I am reminded of the vaudville routine of "Whos on first".."Whats on second" and "I dont know" is on third..

The American people deserve more leadership than we are getting from the Obama administration...

Obama is saying the line never got to him. I think he snorted it and forgot personally....
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
if you don't think we are going to strike after what kerry and biden have stated, you are a happy meal short of a happy meal, child.

chances are that unlike the previous administration, we are going to wait for definitive confirmation from the inspectors instead of kicking them out first.

go cry.
 
racerboy71

racerboy71

bud bootlegger
UncleBuck said:
if you don't think we are going to strike after what kerry and biden have stated, you are a happy meal short of a happy meal, child.

chances are that unlike the previous administration, we are going to wait for definitive confirmation from the inspectors instead of kicking them out first.

go cry.
Click to expand...
i agree with buck, what's the rush to get into a war??
 
I

ilikecheetoes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
needs citation.
Click to expand...

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”

“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 chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said a year ago last week. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

sounds to me like a few years ago it wasnt ok for the pres to just go bombing somebody. Now hes pondering bombing somebody. i dont think congress will give him the go ahead and hes going to do it anyway. Over qatar oil pipelines and to stick it in putins eye for slouching at their meeting.

if congress says ok then hes all clear in my book. kind of like when congress all cleared bush based on dodgy information which turned out to be wrong or at least unproven to this point. its a big fucking desert.

But as of now Im confused on whats going on. it was my understanding he needed permission unless the US was in danger. Those kooks having been killing each other and salting the earth since before time began. whats new about this round that the us is in danger?
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
I am against us doing anything regarding Syria for a number of reasons.

We should start showing respect for the sovereignty of countries and stop acting like terrorist by funding opposition movements and assisting in the overthrow of whomever is unpopular in the USA.

We have allowed the deaths of 100,000 people under the use of conventional weapons in Syria but the deaths of a couple hundred by chemical weapons somehow deserves immediate retaliation.

We do not have a clear policy about regime change in Syria and the people who might take over power have recently been beheading Christian priests.

We are more than likely not certain who released what chemical weapon despite what the sudden war hawk John Kerry stated.

The president does not have the go ahead from Congress which is constitutionally required for this type of action. Obama is not a dictator, he is the head of the executive branch of a representative republic.

We do not have a stated objective or follow through policy for the region.

There is no indication how this action is in our best interest.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
...the deaths of a couple hundred by chemical weapons...
Click to expand...
is that the delusion you're clinging to now? a couple hundred?

NLXSK1 said:
The president does not have the go ahead from Congress which is constitutionally required for this type of action. Obama is not a dictator, he is the head of the executive branch of a representative republic.
Click to expand...
article 1 section 8, child.

it says to declare war. we haven't declared a war since pearl harbor.

get your delusions straight, kiddo.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
is that the delusion you're clinging to now? a couple hundred?



article 1 section 8, child.

it says to declare war. we haven't declared a war since pearl harbor.

get your delusions straight, kiddo.
Click to expand...
So in your belief the president has the sole power to attack anyone he chooses at any time? Oh wait, until there is a Republican in office...

43K posts show you to be a total hypocrite... Nobody is surprised...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
So in your belief the president has the sole power to attack anyone he chooses at any time? Oh wait, until there is a Republican in office...

43K posts show you to be a total hypocrite... Nobody is surprised...
Click to expand...
article 1, section 8. it says "declare war". deal with it.
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
UncleBuck said:
yet another pointless article that proves nothing.

just give up.
Click to expand...
it's obvious Obamas administration doesn't want definitive confirmation from the inspectors and instead are pressuring the UN to ignore Syrias request that inspectors be given more time. It's obvious NATO wants military intervention and that WILL require boots on the ground...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
echelon1k1 said:
it's obvious Obamas administration doesn't want definitive confirmation from the inspectors and instead are pressuring the UN to ignore Syrias request that inspectors be given more time.
Click to expand...
the inspectors only need a certain amount of time to do what they need to do. they'll be done in a day or two.

they'll get all the definitive information they need from that.

echelon1k1 said:
It's obvious NATO wants military intervention and that WILL require boots on the ground...
Click to expand...
it's obvious that you just like saying "it's obvious" with no regard as to whether it is actually obvious or not.
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
UncleBuck said:
the inspectors only need a certain amount of time to do what they need to do. they'll be done in a day or two.

they'll get all the definitive information they need from that.

it's obvious that you just like saying "it's obvious" with no regard as to whether it is actually obvious or not.
Click to expand...
Another fail, you should really try basing just one of your "arguments" in fact... The US does not think a "credible investigation" can occur at this point.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2013/08/213502.htm

Point B I would make is that we don’t at this point have confidence that the UN can conduct a credible inquiry into what happened, and we are concerned that the Syrian regime will use this as a delay tactic to continue shelling and destroying evidence in the area. And quite frankly we – its – we don’t want the Syrian regime to be able to use it as a delaying tactic. As we saw this morning, it’s not even entirely safe for them to be there operating on the ground. So we believe that it is too late for a credible investigation at this point.
Click to expand...
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member

  • article 1 section 8, child.

    it says to declare war. we haven't declared a war since pearl harbor.
    ​
Click to expand...
It is kinda embarassing to the big O and his sidekick biden that they were saying GWB was committing an impeachable offence when he did the exact same thing...

Explain that one lucy....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top