birdog1960

this particular cesspool is looking to be much more shallow than iraq. i certainly hope it stays that way.

profound, as always.

it's the outcome that matters. if i do a great job, take a calculated risk, push for and convince the patient of the need for surgery and the patient dies, did i do better for the patient than keeping him alive with meds til he can recover on his own slowly? is it better than i can show that i'm aggressive or effective? or is it about me at all?

so what was the best possible outcome before? you said "do nothing". ya think putin would've done this had we done that?

go back to the chemical attack on assad's own people. what would you envision the best possible outcome from america's perspective? a few hundred tomahawks rained down with who knows what to follow? doing nothing? saying nothing? or russia handling the problem that no one else was in a position to handle without force? i'm liking the latter better than any other options.. did obama play it that way? nope. but that's how it's looking to work out. is the uk suddenly irrelevant because cameron was voted down. i think not.

so would you trade the perception of a strong leader (in a prez in his last possible term )for a domestically quiet (for now) outcome? the markets look like they would. i would too.

so russia's trying to play world policeman by promising removal of chemical weapons. not ideal from a US prestige perspective but i'll bet they don't cross their new best friends by using them again soon. iran may be a different story but per drudge there's no link between syria and them so why worry? i jest... all in all, i think maybe a decent short term solution without dropping bombs or dropping us into the middle of another war. won't last but may reveal the true issues here.

this...or from a coaching staff trying to develop a rookie qb for the long haul. the near interception on the bomb to woods early on surely made them uneasy trying that again when the game got close. risk/reward ratio too high in his first real pro game. team gets a few wins under him and that ratio changes quickly.

the problem i was referring to was obama's statement. there will be plenty of consequences to what happens in syria no matter what the us does. wanna weigh in on how you'd handle the situation?

chemical weapon use has been near uniformally agreed internationally as a line in the sand or red line that can't be crossed without consequence for decades. he verbalized this likely to prevent further use after earlier reports. it didn't work. i'm sure he'd now prefer that he didn't say it but it changes nothing. the resulting action would almost certainly be the same. i don't see much but a symbolic problem that will be of little or no consequence long term.

he can't take responsibilty for the red line statement until congress ok's a strike. it risks an even worse impression of impotence. other than that, he will do exactly as you suggest, i believe. based on the number of ships and possibly subs in the gulf, i've heard an estimate of about 300 tomahawks aimed at top gov't and military officials. won't change much except kill some real bad f%^ckers while saving face with our mid east allies. seems the best of a bad list of choices. doing nothing is likely the best choice but it doesn't seem possible.

no kidding, these unwise things have been done repeatedly for the last 50 years...so what would you have obama do now? hear lots of criticism but not many solutions.

it's an apt comparison. facing a similar situation he shot and then(possibly) thought about the problem after. obama is cost/benefit analyzing before any actions are undertaken. it's a fundamental difference in philosophy. i'd choose the latter almost every time. but i suppose cowboys are more appealing to a certain section of the populace.

interesting that the national review article considers iraq a success. i'm thinking that's not a consensus view. kinda puts me off looking at the other pieces. what would your ideal action be right now? last week? just interested in what actions hcould have made that you'd be pleased and satisfied with.

roundly mocked. is that the test of a bad president? then bush was the worst...um, well, yes that's true. i don't see how history is likely to condemn his reticence to use military force. now, if he were to rush to war, it quite likely would.

yeah, that's what kept me awake at night about the iraq war: that we offended putin and alienated russia.

a caricature and oversimplification, to be sure. but on point in essence none the less and apologies in advance for linking several times : . bush, clinton and obama likely absorbed this . their tacks at the problem were very different. history will decide which approached was best . paul, not so much. but who is being most honest? i agree, the countries most at stake should do the dirty work but in this context they aren't likely to.

and he's standing by those words. he's not making a unilateral decision. i don't get the argument. enlighten me.

so that makes obama's deliberation and failure to immediately pull the trigger more suspect how exactly? and were to take putin's word as gospel? he should dictate our foreign policy?

yep. it's a sheit storm yet you have morons here questioning whether assad was set up.

you're a scientist, right. where's the evidence? they looked far and wide at enormous cost and you're asking for a leap of faith? in bush? rumsfeld? and since when is paul politically correct? this was like the boardroom scene in "network" i'm so fond of. oh, and by the way the israelis, saudi's, kuwaiti's and emirati's(?) care. a lot..

"if the United States doesn't do this, senator, is it more or less likely that assad does this again? you want to answer that question?" and with that paul was officially relegated to the kids table. http://www.npr.org/2013/09/04/218811159/in-senate-rand-paul-and-john-mccain-differ-on-strikes-in-syria now he's vowing no filibuster really? were russia and china propping up saddam? hezbollah and iran? - wasn't saddam a sworn enemy? never heard bush make that case. thought it was all about wmd's that had not yet been used, and the terrorist attack on NYC which over half the us population linked to the war at the time

just stop. this is grown up stuff with the gravity of the situation and decision made clear to all observers. this is how it should be deliberated at the adult table.

nope. if we go to war it's due to the powderkeg that is mid east with iran, syria, hamas and hezbollah threatening the entire region (with china and russia pulling strings) and worldwide oil production therefore placing the global economy at serious risk. and i hope this time the true reasons are made clear to the public.

i don't think it will but if it does i'd say obama's doing everything he can to avoid it and is willing to take a beating for it. bush did precisely the opposite.