• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

Obama took credit over the SEAL team but Bush did all the leg work.

BTW...NP, if GWB hadn't taken his eyes off the prize and the Seals had captured Bin Laden at his direction, he would have conducted a "Mission Accomplished" Ticker Tape Parade down Broadway wearing a crouch stuffed flight suit and you would have been marching in front carrying the biggest American flag that you could find....lets just be honest here.
 
Bush and Clinton made decisions on intervention and Obama is afraid to do it..........He throws it on the congress then if things go bad he can blame them, if they go good then he will take the credit........The whole world is laughing is laughing at this gutless wonder.

You must have missed the thread where congress gives the president, no begs the president to take it on himself.
 
BTW....Bush's "intervention" was probably one of the dumbest moves we have made as a country....and he left the mess for this administration to clean up. They couldn't even capture Bin Laden.....


LOL. Bushes plan didn't include supporting our enemy like Obamas does and you talk about dumb? LOL. The hard work was done in Iraq, all Obama had to do was not screw it up and that's right, he screwed that up too. His administration couldn't even negotiate a standard status of forces agreement. But it's the everyday incompetence the world has come to expect for the incompetent Obama administration, another day, another screw up. The same "they" that got Bin Laden worked for both Presidents, minus younger members of course, but Obama won't own up to it.
 
You are so predictable NP....you are the poster child for your "Party of NO". If a Republican were leading this cause you would be the biggest cheerleader on this board waving the American flag and chanting "USA USA USA".
If McCain won the election and wanted to bomb Syria, Obama, the Senator, would be voting against it. Just like he did when Bush was in office. And Biden would be talking impeachment if he followed through on the bombing threat.
 
'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response - CNN.com
Thoughts? Questions? Invitations to dinner?[/FONT][/COLOR]

""I assure you nobody ends up being more war-weary than me," Obama said, adding that he was not considering any option that would entail "boots on the ground" or a long-term campaign. Instead, Obama said, he and his top military and security aides were looking at a "limited, narrow act" to ensure that Syria and others know the United States and its allies won't tolerate future similar future violations."

I wonder, if the Nobel people were thinking along this line?


PS: I think this poem:

"I love the whole world
It's such a brilliant place
Bum de yada, Bum de yada
Bum de yada, Bum de yada"

should end on a

"Bum"
 
PS: I think this poem:

"I love the whole world
It's such a brilliant place
Bum de yada, Bum de yada
Bum de yada, Bum de yada"

should end on a

"Bum"

It's actually lyrics from a song.

 
It is the everyday incompetence the world has come to expect for the incompetent Obama administration, another day, another screw up.
I wonder which of his screw ups will history show to have been the worst of all?
 
I wonder which of his screw ups will history show to have been the worst of all?
That's an easy one - Treating the GOP is if they were an honest partner, or that they even mattered to begin with. He's a nice guy and that's a big mistake in modern America.
 
I think you are right this charade of representative government has run it's course.

35kscu9.jpg
 
That's an easy one - Treating the GOP is if they were an honest partner, or that they even mattered to begin with. He's a nice guy and that's a big mistake in modern America.

You can't be talking about The One, The Messiah, the President of the World, can you? As I recall, in his first two years of office he never even acknowledged that there was a GOP. After that, he barely acknowledged them with a wink and a smirk.:shock:
 
You can't be talking about The One, The Messiah, the President of the World, can you? As I recall, in his first two years of office he never even acknowledged that there was a GOP. After that, he barely acknowledged them with a wink and a smirk.:shock:
Your recall needs work but that's to be expected.
 
The One, The Messiah, the President of the World
You are right some of us never did get that thrill up our legs admiring his pants crease
oh well there's always the 2016 election eh?
 
Given a choice between her and Krazy Uncle Joe she'd certainly have my vote!


t8no86.jpg

Not mine. Whatever else Joe Biden is or is not, at least he is sincere in his beliefs, maybe even a "true believer." Not Hillary, the most ruthlessly, amorally ambitious politician of our times. She will never earn my vote.
 
I didn't vote for him
 
hah yeah I'd not vote for him a 3rd time if given the chance :tongue4:
Minority? I'm part of the 77.9% that is white?
 
Oh no kiddies it is far far FAR worse than we could have ever imagined
 
Obama will never do that.

You are the perfect Republican poster child Navy. "Obama has done too little.......Obama s doing too much".....LOL.....would we expect more from the Wacko party of NO?
 
In his Washington Post op-ed (Stephen Hadley: To stop Iran, stop Assad - The Washington Post), Stephen J. Hadley, former national security adviser to President Bush wrote:

Bashar al-Assad has repeatedly and flagrantly crossed a U.S. “red line” by using chemical weapons against his own people. If the United States does not take military action, how credible will be the U.S. threat to use military force if the Iranian regime continues to pursue nuclear weapons? If that threat is not credible, then only months from now our nation could face the prospect of accepting a *nuclear-armed Iran or having to resort to military force to prevent it.

That's only partially right. When it comes to deterrence, deterrence depends on a nation's possessing sufficient capacity to use force (by itself or with allies), willing to use force in the situation it is trying to deter, and its enemy's knowing that it is both willing and able to use force. If any of those elements is not present, then deterrence fails.

The first component is beyond dispute. The U.S. is the world's foremost military power among a handful of great powers. Iran lacks the individual capacity and allies to counter the U.S. The second component is also fairly certain. The U.S. has long maintained a strategic doctrine that it would act militarily, if necessary, if another nation or group of countries attempted to impede the passage of oil through the Persian Gulf or attacked Israel. That leaves the third element, Iran's perceptions, for debate.

Hadley's argument is that if the U.S. fails to respond militarily against Syria despite the President's personally having made the use of chemical weapons a "red line" would shatter U.S. credibility. Actions speak louder than words, so it might seem that Hadley is correct.

However, there's more to the story. Credibility is defined not only by a consistency between words and actions. When it comes to grave matters such as military force, more is involved. The preeminent reason nations use force, aside from self-defense, is to safeguard critical interests that, if undermined, would pose a significant threat to their own security. The same holds true with respect to strategic allies. Indeed, the disconnect between the President's red line and actual U.S. interests in Syria (small) undermined deterrence in that sectarian conflict.

That would not be the case with respect to Iran. There is no doubt that free passage through the Persian Gulf, security of friendly Gulf States, and security of strategic allies (Israel, Jordan, and Egypt) are critical U.S. interests. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten to overturn the region's balance of power in a fashion that would pose a significant threat to all of those vital interests (directly or indirectly e.g., through Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah).

That would leave the U.S. with two major courses of action if diplomacy and sanctions fail:

1. The development of a deterrence regime in which, for example, any nuclear device used or attempted to be used against a strategic U.S. ally or in a bid to curtail use of the Persian Gulf would be met with an assured nuclear response by the U.S. that would all but eliminate Iran (M.A.D. remade). Iran is a rational actor despite its revolutionary rhetoric. Knowing that it would be held responsible even if a terrorist group used a nuclear device against let's say Israel would preclude Iran from proliferating such technology or devices. In other words, deterrence could work. Whether the U.S. would have the stomach to construct a Cold War-style deterrence regime is questionable.

2. Military strikes should Iranian possession or development of nuclear weapons become imminent.

In short, there is little reason for Iran to believe that nuclear weapons would give it the capacity to exercise regional preeminence. It would know that the U.S. would not permit it free rein, even if it possessed such weapons. It would also know that there is more than a reasonable prospect that the U.S. could act militarily to prevent it from achieving a nuclear breakout. In short, Hadley's view is but one scenario. His attempt to link Iran's calculations to whether the U.S. carries out military strikes against Syria is probably weak given the qualitative difference in U.S. interests at stake.
 
Back
Top Bottom