birdog1960 Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Yeah but over 50 million iraqi's died. 100,000 isn't enough for you? how bout 4500 us soldiers or a trillion dollars. but it was decisive. and so many americans were swelled with pride watching "shock and awe" unfold on their big screen tv's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) 100,000 isn't enough for you? how bout 4500 us soldiers or a trillion dollars. but it was decisive. and so many americans were swelled with pride watching "shock and awe" unfold on their big screen tv's. I was simply mocking the thousands of different inaccurate reports of how many people actually died you !@#$wit. You are so often way off target it's quite sad. Edited September 10, 2013 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 I was simply mocking the thousands of different inaccurate reports of how many people actually died you !@#$wit. You are so often way off target it's quite sad. and i was correcting you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 and i was correcting you. What planet are you from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted September 10, 2013 Author Share Posted September 10, 2013 so, i ask again, what would a wise, brave leader have done in the same situation and what outcome would he have hoped for? A wise, brave leader would have anticipated the range of scenarios he would be facing in Syria some twelve to eighteen months ago, if not earlier. Given the scenarios, he (she) would have developed a series of responses ranging from unilateral to multination actions. These actions would consist of diplomatic, stand-off alternatives (e.g., blockade--financial or more aggressive) and actual military alternatives. While developing these responses and scenarios, the wise, brave leader would keep his mouth shut about red lines and other such gauntlet-tossing comments, but WOULD develop ties with like-minded allies. That way, when the balloon went up in Syria to the extent that a response was "needed," There would be something other than dithering about on-off again steps, e.g., The decision is mine; let Congress decide, but I'll do it anyway, etc. The planned for outcome would be Syria and her allies understanding that the possible responses, and the range of allies against her actions, would deter use of chemical weapons. Um...maybe next time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 A wise, brave leader would have anticipated the range of scenarios he would be facing in Syria some twelve to eighteen months ago, if not earlier. Given the scenarios, he (she) would have developed a series of responses ranging from unilateral to multination actions. These actions would consist of diplomatic, stand-off alternatives (e.g., blockade--financial or more aggressive) and actual military alternatives. While developing these responses and scenarios, the wise, brave leader would keep his mouth shut about red lines and other such gauntlet-tossing comments, but WOULD develop ties with like-minded allies. That way, when the balloon went up in Syria to the extent that a response was "needed," There would be something other than dithering about on-off again steps, e.g., The decision is mine; let Congress decide, but I'll do it anyway, etc. The planned for outcome would be Syria and her allies understanding that the possible responses, and the range of allies against her actions, would deter use of chemical weapons. Um...maybe next time.... so you're saying that obama didn't consider diplomatic alternatives? he obviously considered military. should he have gone to congress before it became obvious that assad was using chem weapons? or should he have planned against going to congress all along despite the fact that he feels obligated constitutionally? do you think we haven't been discussing syria for the last 3 years with allies? does anything that you've seen recently support that contention. so, stripping all that away, we're left with "he should have kept his mouth shut". agreed. is his presidency destroyed by his utterance of red line? not to me. to folks who disliked him intensely from the start, nothing he did or does will save his presidency. no sense worrying about their opinions. What planet are you from? the one where hyperbole can actually influence dullards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 the one where hyperbole can actually influence dullards you mad bro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 you mad bro? maybe. just tore a decent looking drug rep a new one for standing over me while i ate lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 A wise, brave leader would have anticipated the range of scenarios he would be facing in Syria some twelve to eighteen months ago, if not earlier. Given the scenarios, he (she) would have developed a series of responses ranging from unilateral to multination actions. These actions would consist of diplomatic, stand-off alternatives (e.g., blockade--financial or more aggressive) and actual military alternatives. While developing these responses and scenarios, the wise, brave leader would keep his mouth shut about red lines and other such gauntlet-tossing comments, but WOULD develop ties with like-minded allies. That way, when the balloon went up in Syria to the extent that a response was "needed," There would be something other than dithering about on-off again steps, e.g., The decision is mine; let Congress decide, but I'll do it anyway, etc. The planned for outcome would be Syria and her allies understanding that the possible responses, and the range of allies against her actions, would deter use of chemical weapons. Um...maybe next time.... So you are mad because Obama can't predict an unpredictable future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Aack. Aack. MOSCOW – Russia has rejected France’s proposal for a United Nations Security Council resolution that would invoke Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter to force Syria to put its arsenal of chemical weapons under international control for later destruction, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement late Tuesday. The statement said the proposal’s use of Chapter 7, which would potentially authorize the use of force, as well as language that laid blame for using chemical weapons on the Syria government was “unacceptable.” Instead, Russia plans to propose a draft declaration of the chairman of the Security Council that would welcome the initiative to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control and call on the U.N. and other agencies to support that work. The Russian draft highlights diplomacy as the only way to solve the conflict, the statement said. The statement said Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed the proposals in a phone call Tuesday with his French colleague, Laurent Fabius. Russia made the proposal late Monday that Syria put its chemical arms under international control as a step toward destroying them in an effort to head of potential Western strikes against the Syrian regime. Syrian officials welcomed the proposal, but haven’t spelled out how they would comply. Tuesday’s statement suggests Moscow will oppose Western efforts to demand such compliance from Damascus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) Yeah but over 50 million iraqi's died. Nearly 50 million would be more accurate. Edited September 10, 2013 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 So you are mad because Obama can't predict an unpredictable future? properly repare for all the possible outcomes? Corrected for accuracy. And no not mad and actually not surprised either. And notice I didn't correct the your word can't with didn't because I think your word can't fits better. maybe. just tore a decent looking drug rep a new one for standing over me while i ate lunch. So !@#$ing around here while you eat lunch is quite acceptable but giving someone **** for trying to do his job while you eat lunch is not. How progressively tolerant of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Nearly 50 million would be more accurate. I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Aack! Aaack aack aack!!! A Russian proposal for Syria to place its chemical weapons arsenal under international control will not succeed unless the United States and its allies reject the use of force against Damascus, President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday. The proposal "can work only if we hear that the American side and all those who support the United States in this sense reject the use of force," Putin said in televised remarks. He said he hoped the plan "will be a good step toward a peaceful resolution of the crisis". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 the one where hyperbole can actually influence dullards... ....to elect a clueless President? btw, why do we need an 'exit' from a room we haven't entered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 So you are mad because Obama can't predict an unpredictable future? No, we're very concerned because he didn't anticipate the eventualities of his own actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Aack! Aaack aack aack!!! Where's Bobby Fischer when we need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 So !@#$ing around here while you eat lunch is quite acceptable but giving someone **** for trying to do his job while you eat lunch is not. How progressively tolerant of you. A "someone" who likely just bought him the lunch he was eating, no less. The guy is a complete piece of ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) Corrected for accuracy. And no not mad and actually not surprised either. And notice I didn't correct the your word can't with didn't because I think your word can't fits better. So !@#$ing around here while you eat lunch is quite acceptable but giving someone **** for trying to do his job while you eat lunch is not. How progressively tolerant of you. it was a her...makes a difference. i'm kinda coinservative that way. some slicking talking ex jock alpha male ; wouldn't have given it a second thought. Edited September 10, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 it was a her...makes a difference. i'm kinda coinservative that way. You like to slap your bitches around? You're a good pimp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts