President Barack Obama: Come on, Assad...how am I supposed to find my red line in all this fog?!!
Funny stuff Rob.
McCain would have bombed Syria, Egypt, Iran, and a fourth country to be named later.
I agree completely with your assessment. I could quibble with some minor points, but overall I think you are right: at this time, the best action is to take no action. Neither side is our friend, and the only thing intervention would do would be to exaggerate that fact.
Blowing up random brown people when something goes wrong: Ima’s foreign policy.
“One would have hoped in his 1st term he would have learned to listen to his advisors. The people he would have around him would know better than….”
That’s what many of us said at the beginning of Dubya’s first term. Look how well that worked out.
I agree: Obama should have gone on a middle finger tour like Warshrub did and bomb the Syrians so that the middle east hates us more than they already do. What was Obama thinking?
So many points. So little time.
Regarding the “apology tour”: I know you will disagree, and you are welcome to do so, but he spoke the truth. We had a heinous crime committed against us, and instead of pursuing the perpetrator, we invaded two countries and pretty much destroyed the future of one of them (Afghanistan’s future will evidently always be just like its past). It was wrong then; it is still wrong.
I’ll go you one better for rule #1: Know how to create an enemy (or inflame one) and then DON’T DO IT.
Obama’s Peace Prize was given for one reason and one reason only: he didn’t exhibit the tendency of his predecessor of shooting first and asking questions later. Cowboy diplomacy made the rest of the world wondering when the next blunder would occur. Don’t believe me? Let’s take North Korea. At the end of the Clinton administration, when they had started to reduce their emphasis on nukes and hatred, we determined (through that arcane method called “diplomacy”) that North Korea was unhappy because we never created a peace treaty at the end of the “conflict” in the fifties. Mr. Carter was negotiating a peace treaty with them, but then came the 2000 elections. GWB scuttled that effort and accused them of being part of the Axis of Evil, and they redoubled their efforts in creating nukes and missiles.
And the other effect: remember the other countries of the so-called Axis: Iran and Iraq? And then we invaded the only country in the three that didn’t have an active nuclear program. What did that say? “If America doesn’t like you and you have a nuke program, they won’t invade; if you don’t they will.”
And let’s not forget some other winners of the Peace Prize: international war criminals Henry Kissinger and Yassir Arafat.
You may maintain that Mr. Obama started with no respect. I will question how that came about. My opinion is we had so little respect thanks to GWB’s policies. Remember when the G20 had a group picture, and no one would let Dubya get next to them? He took all the good feelings and sympathy from around the world after 9/11 and ran it into the ground with unnecessary and costly wars and torture/renditions.
As far as your contention that Mitt Romney would not have gotten us into a lose/lose… Speaking of knowing your allies: When Mr. Romney was the Republican candidate, he managed to piss off England (Olympic security), Israel (defense issues), and Spain (their economy) in one week. His foreign policy would have been disastrous, and we’d now be arguing about why our fighting forces would be dying in Syria and Iran right this minute.
“that was a media hit piece and no he did not.”
You are welcome to believe what you want. I will admit to not seeing an official response from Israel, (not saying it didn’t happen), but I did read quotes from government representatives of both England and Spain stating in pretty strong language: mind your own business (England) and you don’t know what you’re talking about (Spain), And don’t forget the full-page headline “Mitt the Twit” on one of the British tabloids, in response to Mr. Romney’s words regarding security.
Respect on the world stage ?
You mean the mocking in Europe over the war in Iraq
The upset in the middle east once again over the war, with resurrected campaigns against what was viewed as american imperialism
You mean the view of south american’s that the USA was a belligerent and idiotic country.
or the views in sub-Saharan Africa that the USA was negligent
The world is whatever you want it to be until you open the window and look outside.
So long as you don’t read any international newspapers.
hint hint, reading a beligerent and sensationalized online newspaper tends to give no more outside perspective than reading a more tame main stream newspaper. If you want to know how the world thinks of things read newspapers from other countries, Google the country you want, ask for it in their language and Google can do the rest.
Christians In Action are already there, in an advisory role only (LOL). Looks like the red line has been responded to in the harshest manner possible. Sending in the spooks without regard to any conventions.
Nerve agents are odorless and colorless, not at all like the stink the far right has been making since the day Obama was first nominated, let alone elected.
So, who do you want to back: Al Qaeda (the rebels) or Hezbollah (the govt)? Go ahead — make the choice that’s holding things up.
April 12, 2017
July 06, 2017
July 23, 2017