Seriously? Libertards? Anyone who disagrees with you MUST be a part of some fantasy extreme opposite that you think exists... You are a total hack.
You libertards please think about it.
If Obama isn't willing to pull the trigger after his red line is crossed. What changes in a year?
Putin has made Obama look like a toothless hillbilly.
Seriously? Libertards? Anyone who disagrees with you MUST be a part of some fantasy extreme opposite that you think exists... You are a total hack.
Putin just does not want the sh1t to hit the fan.
Funny part the sarin gas is being used by the rebels....
MB?Some of which are Obama's MB buddies.
The difference is that so far his screwup has led to a bunch of bellyaching by underinformed armchair quarterbacks, whereas his predecessor's screwup led to this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...03b068-1cb3-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html
Obama removes the threat of force from Syria if it doesn't destroy its chemical weapons.
not only that but it seems like Russia will be taking the weapons and destroying them? LOL. Yes those super trust worthy Russian will destroy there buddies weapons.
What a fucking worthless leader. Even a 3rd world ruler Assad is able to outplay him.
LOL classic. You have no will argument so you resort to "but bush" bullshit.
you are such a fucking joke.
There was an argument there, very clearly made -- more than once. You ignored all of it because, well, it's a lot easier to just swear at people than to respond intelligently. But that didn't make it disappear.
As I said, Bush is still relevant because it seems that most of the warmongers and Obama-bashers haven't learned a thing from his disastrous tenure. Naturally it makes these folks uncomfortable to be reminded of the thousands of brave Americans -- and far more Iraqis -- who died due to his misadventures, which seems to bother them a lot less than Obama misspeaking about something.
ETA: It's also relevant because Bush's gross incompetence and/or dishonesty has led to Americans being understandably fed up and wary about similar situations in the future, which has directly impacted this situation. But of course, feel free to ignore that and swear at me some more.
Having failed in getting Obama to attack Assad, there is word that the rebels will direct their next chemical weapons towards Israel. If true, these motherfuckers are extremely shrewd. I wonder how Israel will respond.
It is unfortunate that some are such obstinate fans of Obama that even now they cannot admit he has handled this situation with a deep if unusual ineptness.
Let's put it another way.
I'm glad Putin could stop Obama from starting WW3 over an egotistical matter of personal pride. Took the people, our Congress, the UN, and Russia to derail Obama's march to war.
If any Neocon complains that Obama didn't do enough to start a war, then ship those crusty old !@#$%%s over to Syria. I nominate McCain to go first.
Let's put it another way.
I'm glad Putin could stop Obama from starting WW3 over an egotistical matter of personal pride. Took the people, our Congress, the UN, and Russia to derail Obama's march to war.
If any Neocon complains that Obama didn't do enough to start a war, then ship those crusty old !@#$%%s over to Syria. I nominate McCain to go first.
more exaggeration from the left. WW3?
When Obama had the authority to order a limited strike, he made the decision to present his case for Congressional debate instead. After using the threat of force, he then accepted a peaceful negotiation with Putin to remove Assad's chemical weapons. In spite of these facts you still claim Obama was on a "march to war."
Cause no one ever retaliates when struck by acts of war. If you think all wars are nice, neat, and contained like that nice little bubble in your head, think again.
You read those facts in spite of what he was trying to do. You only look at what he was backed down, forced, into doing. He did not have popular support, he did not have Congressional support, he did not have UN support. Obama stood alone.
After the fact, yes, he couldn't go with the "shot across the bow" and why do you think that is? The world forced his hand at peace in spite of his best efforts to drum up support for something no one but the Neocons wanted.
Obama will get credit for not preventing peace, but he gets no credit for striving towards it. That credit will go to those who opposed his war effort.
You read those facts in spite of what he was trying to do. You only look at what he was backed down, forced, into doing. He did not have popular support, he did not have Congressional support, he did not have UN support. Obama stood alone.
After the fact, yes, he couldn't go with the "shot across the bow" and why do you think that is? The world forced his hand at peace in spite of his best efforts to drum up support for something no one but the Neocons wanted.
Obama will get credit for not preventing peace, but he gets no credit for striving towards it. That credit will go to those who opposed his war effort.
Wait, I thought Obama was a dictator and didn't have to listen to anyone and he can do whatever he wants?
Not sure if it has been posted here before but there was a very good (imho) article in Time recently about all this.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/11/obama-and-syria-stumbling-toward-damascus/
Wait, I thought Obama was a dictator and didn't have to listen to anyone and he can do whatever he wants?