carlfense Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Sadly, I think the answer is actually, "Not be Barack Obama" or "Not be from (insert political party here)." There you go. He's weak, tepid, timid, tremulous, and probably fetid. (And forced a dictator to unilaterally give up his WMDs without firing a shot . . . but let's not get bogged down in details.) Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 I don't think anyone can say anyone has done a great job on this. Link to comment
Junior Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Sadly, I think the answer is actually, "Not be Barack Obama" or "Not be from (insert political party here)." There you go. He's weak, tepid, timid, tremulous, and probably fetid. (And forced a dictator to unilaterally give up his WMDs without firing a shot . . . but let's not get bogged down in details.) The Feckless Tyrant. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-obama-the-feckless-tyrant/2014/03/03/73470bdc-a320-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 Sadly, I think the answer is actually, "Not be Barack Obama" or "Not be from (insert political party here)." There you go. He's weak, tepid, timid, tremulous, and probably fetid. (And forced a dictator to unilaterally give up his WMDs without firing a shot . . . but let's not get bogged down in details.) That is a victory to a certain extent. I will give him props for that. However, I think he still has some gas that he has used on civilians. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I don't think anyone can say anyone has done a great job on this. Is anyone saying that? I think that it's a very good thing for the US that Assad surrendered his WMDs. Even more so because it cost us virtually nothing. That's a win in my book. There are at least three posters quoted above who aren't exactly fans of President Obama who agree. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 That is a victory to a certain extent. Why the qualification? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 I don't think anyone can say anyone has done a great job on this. Is anyone saying that? I think that it's a very good thing for the US that Assad surrendered his WMDs. Even more so because it cost us virtually nothing. That's a win in my book. There are at least three posters quoted above who aren't exactly fans of President Obama who agree. As I said in the post above this. It is a victory to a certain extent. However, there is an article posted above that shows he didn't give up everything...correct? I agree that he has done a good job (and I'm not a fan of his) at getting him to give up what he has given up. I'm just saying the situation isn't quite what I would be celebrating as a victory yet. That said, I'm not even sure what I would count as a victory in all of this other than the killing to stop. That isn't going to happen any time soon and that has nothing to do with Obama either way. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 That is a victory to a certain extent. Why the qualification? Is Asshat still using Chorine gas on his people? This is like Nebraska scoring a TD and our defense holding the other team to a 3 and out in the first quarter and the fans acting like we have won the game. Link to comment
Excel Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 And forced a dictator to unilaterally give up his WMDs without firing a shot What dictator gave up WMDs? Because if you mean Assad that didn't really go as planned... Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Is Asshat still using Chorine gas on his people? This is like Nebraska scoring a TD and our defense holding the other team to a 3 and out in the first quarter and the fans acting like we have won the game. Wait a second . . . now you care how Assad is killing his people? FWIW, if terrorists decide to use chlorine gas against the US I doubt that they'll have to go to Assad. They'd probably just buy it or make it . . . just like any citizen of the US could do. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 And forced a dictator to unilaterally give up his WMDs without firing a shot What dictator gave up WMDs? Because if you mean Assad that didn't really go as planned... How so? Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 There's evidence Assad still has, or still manufactures, the kinds of gas he was forced to give up. It may turn out that the "forced to give up WMDs" is more symbolic than anything else. The fact is that we really have no say in that civil war, we have very little leverage (other than the threat of force), and to have Assad give even a semblance of compliance without firing a shot is a win, no matter the political party of the guy who got that done. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 Is Asshat still using Chorine gas on his people? This is like Nebraska scoring a TD and our defense holding the other team to a 3 and out in the first quarter and the fans acting like we have won the game. Wait a second . . . now you care how Assad is killing his people? FWIW, if terrorists decide to use chlorine gas against the US I doubt that they'll have to go to Assad. They'd probably just buy it or make it . . . just like any citizen of the US could do. Wait a second.....You have me very confused now. You do a victory dance and are trying to convince everyone that it is "an enormous" foreign policy victory that Obama got Assad to give up his WMDs so he doesn't kill his people with them. I have said that it's basically good news but I wouldn't call it a victory because he is still killing his people with chemical weapons. Then, you come back with the bolded part? If you aren't concerned about "how" he is killing his people, then why do we care that he gave up his WMDs? Wasn't the whole thing about them that we don't want him to use his WMDs anymore on his people? Thus....we DO car "how" he is killing them? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 There's evidence Assad still has, or still manufactures, the kinds of gas he was forced to give up. It may turn out that the "forced to give up WMDs" is more symbolic than anything else. The fact is that we really have no say in that civil war, we have very little leverage (other than the threat of force), and to have Assad give even a semblance of compliance without firing a shot is a win, no matter the political party of the guy who got that done. I would put the bolded part in the category of "good news" or " a step in the right direction". If you figure the part about the US not firing any shots and no US service men/women involved then that makes me happy. However, the rest of your post is still true. I'm just not willing to take it to the "an enormous foreign policy victory" yet. Link to comment
Excel Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 And forced a dictator to unilaterally give up his WMDs without firing a shot What dictator gave up WMDs? Because if you mean Assad that didn't really go as planned... How so? He's been dragging his feet and has missed every deadline so far. He's turned in about 5% of what he was supposed to IIRC. He clearly just cut a deal to get us to shut up and had no intention of carrying it through. Link to comment
Recommended Posts