- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 22,676
- Reaction score
- 4,282
- Location
- DC Metro
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Ha, he just wasn't the belligerent that time.
No, he was the puss. And the world took notice. Specifically, Putin.
Ha, he just wasn't the belligerent that time.
Ha, he just wasn't the belligerent that time.
It looks to me like Putin's response to Obama's threat of isolation is to unzip his fly and wave his dick at Obama. That should do a lot of good.
No, he was the puss. And the world took notice. Specifically, Putin.
Ok, so once again. Obama dispatched Hillary Clinton to the UN several times to secure a resolution for use of force, she failed. The UK backed out, he failed to secure congressional authorization, and 70% of Americans were against military action. How was he a puss on that one. Or do you mean he should have said, **** all that and started bombing Syria anyway.
Ok, so once again. Obama dispatched Hillary Clinton to the UN several times to secure a resolution for use of force, she failed. The UK backed out, he failed to secure congressional authorization, and 70% of Americans were against military action. How was he a puss on that one. Or do you mean he should have said, **** all that and started bombing Syria anyway.
The same UN that has failed to act in the Ukraine....there is no reason to support the UN if they are not going to enforce international law, so yes, considering that Obama committed the US to a red line, and the UNs failure to enforce international law...we should have said f=that and went in.
Obama just talks and talks and never seems to know what to say until the teleprompter tells him. Never make threats unless you intend to carry with them through.
The same UN that has failed to act in the Ukraine....there is no reason to support the UN if they are not going to enforce international law, so yes, considering that Obama committed the US to a red line, and the UNs failure to enforce international law...we should have said f=that and went in.
How the hell can the UN "enforce international law"?
Wow! Your probably serious, and a menace. The UK pulled their support, he couldn't get congressional authorization and 70% of his constituency said NO. "Going In" under those circumstances is insanity.
Going in means a lot of things, not just boots on the ground. Meanwhile, innocent men, women and children are getting killed...left and right, while everyone sits back with some popcorn. Menace, huh? That's funny...sitting back, wringing hands, is how genocides occur.
Just because you didn't get to see the military in full swing again, doesn't mean the Obama administration is setting back with popcorn. Covertly the opposition, known to be infested with AQ, MB, and al Nusra, have been supported by this administration and others. This "opposition" has been responsible for the majority of the deaths there, they have targeted UN convoys, and civilian driven supply convoys, they have killed Christians and burned their churches, they have parked car/truck bombs in front of government buildings and indiscriminately killed civilians, they have bound and execution style, killed pro president Assad civilians, and the reporter for AP provided evidence that they were responsible for the chemical attacks.
President Assad is fighting a war on terror and the US is impeding his efforts, because of a long term US foreign policy goal of "regime change" in Syria.
Gee, I dunno...how can they? And if they can't, what the hell are they there for?
I would be rather surprised, if the developments had not been predicted with a relatively high probability.
Gee, I dunno...how can they? And if they can't, what the hell are they there for?
Well maybe you should find out more about the UN before coming with such stupid comments about the UN. It is like asking why NATO cant stop the gang violence in LA....
Why don't you explain to me what the UN is for, then?
That is an amateurish assessment at best. Support to the Free Syrian Army is what should be happening. Overtly, combined with blockades of Syrian ports, and air support.
Oh really now Mr. Professional, why don't you refute the claims I made of those opposing president Assad and seeking to impose their own form of tyranny in Syria.
Europeans tend believe that committees can solve all their problems so they create bloated bureaucracies full of big headed brainy people with swell accents, assume that something will be done and their problems will be solved and that's all that need be done. The original intent of these bureaucracies will lie long forgotten even while they grow into an an expensive sludge where some speak their opinions (as on these boards), more regulations are passed, but nothing of real consequence is ever done. They do more harm than good.
Europeans tend believe that committees can solve all their problems so they create bloated bureaucracies full of big headed brainy people with swell accents, assume that something will be done and their problems will be solved and that's all that need be done. The original intent of these bureaucracies will lie long forgotten even while they grow into an an expensive sludge where some speak their opinions (as on these boards), more regulations are passed, but nothing of real consequence is ever done. They do more harm than good.
The same UN that has failed to act in the Ukraine....there is no reason to support the UN if they are not going to enforce international law, so yes, considering that Obama committed the US to a red line, and the UNs failure to enforce international law...we should have said f=that and went in.