• Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

Say no to strike in Syria - The Galveston County Daily News: Editorials

December 8, 2016

Say no to strike in Syria

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • RonShelby posted at 8:22 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1061

    I'd be in favor of a "surgical" strike aimed at reducing Assad's ability to kill his own people using serin gas. Not troops on the ground. That was awful. In my opinion, its akin to watching your next door neighbor beat senseless their wife and child, and stand by saying "its none of my business". I'd defnitely call the cops, but theres no cops here so I'd have to try and stop it myself.

  • gecroix posted at 9:06 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    A few minutes ago, POTUS answered a question from the press in Stockholm by saying that 'he didn't establish a red line, the world did'.
    ???? I guess the news reports and videos showing otherwise since last year are now to be ignored. With Obama, it's always "Are you going to be believe what I just told you, or what you heard me say before".
    Feckless. Incompetent. Narcissistic. bad combination. He's talked himself and the nation's credibility into a big box in a dark corner. Getting anyone to want to follow this guy would be like getting the Cavalry to follow Gen. Custer if they had a do-over.
    That said:
    The entire country fo Syria isn't worth losing one American life. And lobbing a Clinton Tomahawk just to say we did is just channeling the shade of Bill Clinton and the 'Baby Milk Factory'.
    Nice job of doing a bad job, Mr. President.
    Best stick to your real skills - screwing up the best health care in the world, golfing, and luxury vacationing.
    Two questions:
    How does Hillary, the 'great Sec. of State', get a pass for presiding over the lead up to this debacle?
    Does anyone now wonder what was in those Russian transport trucks captured on satellite photo loading up at Iraqi storage warehouses and then traveling to Syria back?

  • kevjlang posted at 9:20 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    It's interesting how many of the people that have been aghast at US forces being commanded by UN generals are now saying that the US shouldn't act here unless the UN leads.

    Anyway, if something immoral is happening, do we stand by and let it happen, or do we at least try to get the atrocious weapons out of the mix?

    If the mission is to exert our will in picking a winner of this civil war, then we're in the wrong. If the mission is to break up the ability to launch chemical weapons--whether the targets are Syrian or elsewhere--I can see some justification.

    For me, I don't think we want to see these kinds of weapons used for any reason.. We also don't want this civil war to excalate beyond Syria's borders.

    If the Arab League has no good answers to this, I guess we shouldn't feel too bad that we don't have any good answers, either.

    I guess the paradox here is that regardless of the extent, if we get involved, we are likely to have an impact on who wins. Likewise, if we sit on the sidelines and just watch the atrocities happen, we're still likely to have an impact on who wins.

  • RonShelby posted at 9:29 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1061

    It was a world "red line". After the use of Serin Gas by the Nazi's in WWII, countries informally agreed that Chemical Weapons were not acceptable. This was formalized through the UN in the 1990's:

    Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction
    Geneva, 3 September 1992

    But Syria did not sign on, comment or even attend. 189 world governments represented at the convention, 165 signatories.

    The agreement signed at this convention is overseen by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons. But they have no power to truly enforce. Its a treaty. The security council is blocking UN enforcement so it boils down to signing members to enforce the provisions.


  • RonShelby posted at 9:31 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1061

    By 2013, 189 countries had signed on and 78% of the world's declared stockpiles of chemical weapons had been destroyed.

  • RonShelby posted at 9:33 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1061

    Even Saudi Arabia is pushing for a Military Strike for the stability of the region;


  • gecroix posted at 10:01 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    The Saudis, awash in cash, are very good at getting other people to spend their blood and treasure to the benefit of the Saudis, while they sit back and watch. The Arab League's answer to everything is the same - nothing. The United Nations is not and never has been united in anything other than getting the U.S. taxpayers to fund a 'disproportionate' share of their expenses glorifying themselves.
    Immoral? What was the response of the Syrians and the Arab League when the WTC was laying in a heap of dust and ash?
    Right now, having already boloxed it up from the get-go, all that's going on is POTUS and a functionally bereft Senate and House are doing the same same thing that happened in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. The ditherers are simply giving the Syrians time to relocate their WMD, just like was done about a decade ago.
    And, unless ALL of the WMD are destroyed, something requiring more than a 'limited strike to make a point', how does one keep AQ operatives from getting their hands on it (assuming they already have not) unless we KNOW where it all is, and put American soldiers on the ground to capture and guard it?
    That would of course spread the slaughter even farther.
    Perhaps even to LA or NYC.
    You don't put out a forest fire by having the smoke jumpers P on the edge of it, then all go home.

  • Jose Boix posted at 12:18 pm on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    Jose Boix Posts: 418

    It is unquestionable that the Syrian massacre was ghastly, horrible and abhorrent! While most if not all the posts, editorials and discussions focus on opinions – should we or shouldn’t we do something, it seems that the forgotten focus to me should be on the total apparent lack of leadership by the White House and our elected leaders.

    The Syrian incident took place nearly over two weeks ago. To me the main concern is that while it seems that our government has not learned from the past events of similar nature. It is unbelievable that our government – including the President – does not have a ready manual that spells out what he can do at a moment notice. I would presume that such manual would define what event requires retaliation and who can essentially make the call. I would think that Washington should have ready and available a group of experts – political and military with whom to consult quickly and set a course of action, then inform the press and public in a unified manner. They are the experts not the press and public.

    To me it grates me that for days, all I hear is stating and changing options by the public and media – and of late by the elected officials - on how to deal with the situation. A situation that by all accounts has forced to basically do some sort of aggressive attack – though somehow defined as limited and minor. What attack is defined as such? Just consider that using today’s model of managing such events, D-Day would have never happened. We would still be debating if to go and when, and how.

  • kevjlang posted at 1:48 pm on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Jose, to an extent, I can certainly see some cause for delay. While it was apparent pretty soon after the attack that it was a chemical weapon, it may not have been clear as to who fired. However, I also thought that we had better surveillance capabilities. Anyway, as you indicated, we've been talking about the possibility of chemical weapons being used in Syria for months or more. You would have thought that those in the know of such things would have discussed our response in full, rather than us spending days or even weeks trying to figure out if we follow the popular winds, the political winds, the moral winds, or just do something completely random.

  • RonShelby posted at 5:44 pm on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1061

    Agreed. Something tells me there may be a chance that they have good enough intelligence to know where a substantial portion of the stockpile is moved to. Otherwise, why risk the extra time for the vote? Just a thought...and hope.

  • IHOG posted at 9:53 pm on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    If the United States uses force, what could it reasonably hope to achieve?

    Will the killing stop? No.
    Will Assads replacement be better? No.
    Will the world be safer? No.
    Will America be loved? No.
    Will the Jihadists still hate us? Yes.

    Nancy Pelosi said the red line wasn't Obamas. It was an international law. She's right. Why isn't the international community enforcing it's rules?
    Every nation that signed that treaty should demand the U.N. occupy Syria and end the war.
    Why should Americas blood and wealth be used when the international community seems disinterested.

  • bvresident posted at 7:21 am on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Ron, you're full of the Obama BS. Your president made the red line statement and now he acts as if he's some regular citizen from another country when he goes in front of the world and denies that he said even while saying his credibility wasn't at stake but was America's and Congress.

    His statements, his weakness, his refusal to take responsibility for his actions or his words are exactly why Assad and Iran have acted the way they have. They know Obama doesn't have the backbone to follow through on any of his threats or bloviating.

    The key reason to vote NO came in the Congressional hearing when General Dempsey was asked what it was he and Kerry and your president were seeking by bombing Syria and his answer was, "I don't know what we're seeking". Case closed.

  • miceal o'laochdha posted at 7:28 am on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    miceal o'laochdha Posts: 661

    I hear a lot of verbal hand-wringing by our politicians in the news; Basher is contemptible, the slaughter of innocent children by the hundreds, is despicable, horrific, ghastly, inhuman, etc etc etc...After all, we are surely NOT our brothers' keepers; that is what the Bible lessons told us, right? The same line of rationalization comes from the individuals interviewed in the safe refuge of their lives in America and Europe. Europe was not always so safe from murderous tyrants, and oceans no longer serve as fortress walls for the US, either.

    I am sure everyone who was been slaughtered already, and those dying today, really appreciate how effectively we have condemned this latest "Fuhrer of the Desert". We will be sure to denounce him in the UN and "pursue diplomatic options".

    But, we don't feel quite bad enough to risk a dollar or a life of our own to lift a finger to help them. It is hardly the first time the West stood by and watched the slaughter of innocents while assuring the world we think it is just awful. Let us not waste any of our good money and blood helping these poor devils, they are not like us anyway. I have even heard some of them are not even Christians! No point wasting any wealth on them!

    I have a bad feeling that this self-serving line a reasoning will be a hard sell at the Pearly Gates, however.

  • bvresident posted at 8:16 am on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    The left wasn't quite so generous with their support for using our military might when Saddam was using gas on the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Obama has had ample opportunity and authority over the last two years to intervene in the Syrian conflict and all he's done is make threats and warnings. Now it's too late to make an impact without putting our troops on the ground there.

    His leaking of details has given Assad ample time to move the delivery systems for gas attacks to safer areas and to protect his assets for war. The bigger problem is what happens if Assad is overthrown. The rebels are al Quaeda and are committing just as many atrocities as Assad. We've already seen what sticking our nose into Libya got the country. It's a lawless, violent, broken mess that's spiraling utterly out of control.

    General Dempsey confirmed why the U.S. has no business intervening now in Syria. When asked by the Congressional panel this week what it was he and Obama and Kerry were seeking to accomplish with military action in Syria his reply was, "I don't know what we're seeking". Kind of the story of this administration. Lot's of talk, little action, and no strategy other than trying to maximize the political gain.

  • kevjlang posted at 8:51 am on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Overall, I'd tend to agree with Miceal. However, we need to be very clearly focused on what the mission is, how we're going to carry it out, and to what extent we will push to fulfill the mission.

    Our mission should not be to choose the leadership of Syria. Our mission should take out Syria's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities. It should not be to leave the Syrian government without the ability to defend itself against outside forces.

    I wouldn't expect a general to give an in-depth report on the strategy in an open forum. That would be silly. Kind of like Lombardi telling the Chicago press what the first 10 offensive and defensive play calls were going to be.

  • bvresident posted at 9:08 am on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Re-read what I wrote Kevin. There was no mention of asking what the strategy was but what the goals were. Dempsey didn't even know what it was they had as a goal. Unbelievable. As for taking out Syria's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities it won't be done by lobbing some cruise missiles over there. The estimate to secure just the chemical weapons part of the arsenal is about 40,000 U.S. troops. So a bombing and missile campaign is really just an attempt by your president to recoup some kind of credibility and that shouldn't be the goal for the use of our military.

  • kevjlang posted at 9:52 am on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Overall, if I were him, I'd be mum about strategy, and just as mum about political goals. Your point is well taken, though, that if there hasn't been a whole lot of thought taken to decide what the strategic, tactical, and political goals are, now is kind of late to be getting started.

    Looking into the past, some of our most "talkative" generals got themselves into trouble talking too much.

  • IHOG posted at 11:24 am on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Why did BHO suddenly decide he wanted the approval of Congress before he bombed Syria?
    One of his staff asked him "who will you blame if this backfires on you?"
    He always has a scapegoat to blame for his failures.
    Says He didn't know about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Solyndra, IRS or NSA but HE will fix it.

  • IHOG posted at 11:36 am on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Who used Chem weapons in Syria?
    Assad? Al Qaeda? A Syrian general? CIA?
    BHO will 'prove' Assad did it because Assad is a bad guy and BHO wants to rebuild his immage as a strong leader by being the good guy that attacked the bad guy.

  • bvresident posted at 1:37 pm on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Russia has provided a 100 page document claiming the gassing of civilians was done by the rebels and being blamed on Assad. At this point I have greater confidence in being told the truth by Putin than I do by obama and Kerry.

    The fact is that Assad is protecting Christians in Syria and if he falls they will be massacred by the rebel Muslim extremists who are being videotaped executing, beheading, and mutilating their enemies, Christian clergymen, and innocent civilians. There is a video circulating, which I've seen, showing a rebel removing the liver and heart from a Syrian soldier and taking a bite from it. And these are the animals that obama and kerry we should support?

    This administration has turned our once loyal allies into confused former allies who are now turning to Putin. The damage already done to this country's credibility by obama and kerry is beyond comprehension.

  • gecroix posted at 3:42 pm on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    Over the last 2 1/2 years or so, some 100,000 or so Syrians are said to have been killed as a result of Assad's leadership style, as this nation's leader 'led from behind the 9th hole green'.
    Now, some 1400 or so get gassed, and here come the calls for action from the formerly lethargic Powers That Be in D.C. on both sides of what passes for an aisle in the chambers of 'leadership'.
    No doubt the first 98,600 or so dead would have liked to have had the same attention paid to them.
    How any of it is suddenly 'an issue of critical national importance to the U.S.' escapes me, since it evidently hasn't been while 70 times more people were being killed than this latest headline grabber.
    I recall when the last POTUS was excoriated by the current one for his 'unilateral action' in Iraq, when there were actually a couple dozen countries offering some kind of support besides just chin music. Now, only the French, the FRENCH for goodness sakes, are willing to risk anything to hit Syria, but even then only of the U.S. does, too.
    Not even England will back this.
    Competent, effective leaders known to make good plans and keep their word can get up to go do a job, and others will get up to help them do it.
    Looks like most of the world isn't buying what our leader is selling.
    He didn't help himself trying to weasil out of his 'red line' bravado of last year. Why would anyone trust a person who won't even walk his own talk?

  • RonShelby posted at 4:24 pm on Sat, Sep 7, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1061

    FYI. Obama was elected by a Democratic majority so He's all our president unless your anit-democracy and pro-Authoritarian dictatorship.

    As for the red line. How do you ignore the Convention on Chemical weapons. I'd be ashamed of someone who expressed "good luck to those women and children...glad I wasn't born there....By the way,....give me my FEMA money to rebuild..."

    There is a definite responsibility here to do something. We are not just members of a nation, were a member of a world community. Time to grow up and act like it. We learned enough from President Monroe's Isolationism doctrine. We either help shape the world as it develops/evolves or let step back and roll the dice.

  • Jbgood posted at 5:15 pm on Sat, Sep 7, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Mr. Shelby posted:

    "There is a definite responsibility here to do something. We are not just members of a nation, were a member of a world community. Time to grow up and act like it. We learned enough from President Monroe's Isolationism doctrine. We either help shape the world as it develops/evolves or let step back and roll the dice."
    What are you saying Mr. Shelby? Are you saying America owes it to the world to send it's young off to be killed or maimed,...changed forever mentally and physically, while the SAME world sits back and watch it all happens, like Great Britain,..Saudia Arabia,...Jordan, and others are intending to do? I mean what are you saying?
    I don't know if you have ever volunteered to leave you family and home, or have been ripped away from them to be sent to a far off land, and fight somebody else's war but I have! It is not pretty my friend.
    Now let me be clear,...I don't mind fighting for this country, or helping somebody else,...but to go off and fight for others' interests while they just watch? No sir! I agree with bvresident,...it is to much dishonesty,...lying,...deceit, and deception going on in Washington DC behind what is happening in Syria! Obama was running his mouth when he should have had it closed! Now, Assad has jacked him up with his Calculus and RED LINE, so either wants to drop 3-4 Tomahawk missiles on Syria to save face,....or he wants to deceive America, with his LIMITED strike knowing full well it could escalate into a wider war,...involving American foot soldiers,..ether there or somewhere else! Then he and his family rides off into the blue somewhere in retirement,...when Americans fight and die for the next 5-10 years!
    Now, it is easy for us old fools to sit back and say we need to do this or that,...knowing full well we won't be called on to go fight,...but it is different for those Americans who have to put skin in the game! I mean those who might have to go die for a bunch of BS!!! Remember the Gulf Of Tonkin Act of 1964? That Proves my point.

  • RonShelby posted at 6:10 pm on Sat, Sep 7, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1061

    Yes. This is awful. To bury your head in the sand is awful. A surgical strike is one using equipment, not troops, to target chemical weapons storage. I'm ABSOLUTELY totally in favor of that. Unequivocal in any way. We can deal with the response afterwards, and what it may be is part of our obligation as humanity to protect the innocent and those not involved. I have not problem posting this under my own name unlike others who feel that they might hide behind other user names.

    I'm not a hawk. But in the same breath, I can clearly say that I would want to do what I can to save/protect the innocent. Unlike you.

  • RonShelby posted at 6:12 pm on Sat, Sep 7, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1061

    Direct enough??? If not, I can make it more clear. There is no way that I would not want to protect innocent children, women and men in this fight. They just want to live their lives.

  • gecroix posted at 6:31 pm on Sat, Sep 7, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    With a President nobody is afraid of, except himself, and his usual policy of equivocating and waiting until blame can be spread as widely as possible, the Syrians have had ample time to relocate their WMD, and the Russians have openly threatened our own POTUS that they'd consider putting missiles in Syria to shield them from attack.
    Thje Administration has admitted, openly, to having had our military planners change a strike scenario some 50 times. Does that sound like a shifting area of engagement, or a CinC who doesn't know what the hell he's doing, or both?
    If we have good enough ground intel in Syria to know where the WMD is being relocated to, so that mutliple 'surgical strikes' could get it all, that's ALL of it, one wonders why we waited for 2 1/2 years until AFTER it was used. But, I'm just speculating.
    I ask again, if 98,000 plus Syrians being killed wasn't enough reason to cancel a round of golf or two, why, now, is it a matter of 'critical national importance' that 1400 have been killed?
    Just the use of gas? Does anyone think the other dead folks give a rat's about that?
    What about the other dozen or so times Assad has gassed his own people? Not enough killed then?
    Is that what we've become - killing and murder is not our business, until our jaw jacking President opens his mouth and inserts the nation's foot.

  • Jbgood posted at 7:14 pm on Sat, Sep 7, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Mr. Shelby posted:
    "Direct enough??? If not, I can make it more clear. There is no way that I would not want to protect innocent children, women and men in this fight. They just want to live their lives."
    Yes sir you were direct enough in what YOU want,...now let's see if the rest of America think the same way you think,...toward backing a bunch of liars in Washington DC.
    One poster already said, much of the WORLD has already refused to back that BS,....now all is left is for those in America to shoot it down. Time will tell.

  • bvresident posted at 7:37 am on Sun, Sep 8, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Ron Shelby is trying to use the same lame tactics his president is using to garner support for military intervention in Syria and neither one is being successful. First, their is no such thing as a "surgical strike" to eliminate chemical stockpiles. It has already been stated by military experts that bombing those stockpiles would only release those chemicals. They've also stated that chemical weapon delivery systems can't be struck reliably by bombs and cruise missiles because our presidential trash-talker has already forecast virtually everything that we would do and where. Those systems have been scattered all over hell and back now.

    No Ron, your president is getting served up a big piece of Humble Pie. While his teleprompter threats and it'll be "my way or the highway" might play well with his democrat extremists it is laughed at by the other leaders in this world, especially those we are at odds with. Putin and Assad and al Quaeda and Iran and China are no more threatened by this community organizer than they were by Carter. They don't respect him, they don't fear him, and they are going to have their way with him. The really key part here is that not even our allies trust our president enough to join his Syrian Folly.

    Fortunately, it appears our elected officials are not going to play along either and let him embroil us in a conflict that has no clear objective, no secrecy, and no real chance of success. So on top of that pie you add that our president has proven himself to be acutely unable to tell the truth when it's time to come clean with the people of this country and you have the almost total backlash from all sides that he's experiencing now.

  • gecroix posted at 9:17 am on Sun, Sep 8, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    "...liberal activist group MoveOn.org prepares to release a TV commercial opposing Obama's plan of attack."
    Mr. President, when that bunch of falling of the left side of the planet screwballs starts bracing you, the same folks who've bruised your backside constantly with kisses, you need to reconsider.[beam]

  • RonShelby posted at 5:27 pm on Sun, Sep 8, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1061

    That's what open, democratic discussion is all about. In the end, once decided, that's when we need to come together.

  • RonShelby posted at 5:28 pm on Sun, Sep 8, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1061

    Of course you'd have to change it. GOP senator John McCain clearly said, the first move by the Syrians would be to relocate the weapons.

  • RonShelby posted at 5:29 pm on Sun, Sep 8, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1061

    No Troops. Looks at my first post. Just targeted strikes.

  • RonShelby posted at 5:30 pm on Sun, Sep 8, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1061

    Guess I hit a nerve.

  • bvresident posted at 7:52 pm on Sun, Sep 8, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    No Ron, you didn't hit a nerve-you got exposed for the unabashed liberal, do-whatever-he-says-no-matter-what disorder that is the mindset of the left. Your president has lost whatever credibility he had and is now paying the price for talking big and doing little. The rest of the world doesn't trust him to do what he says he'll do and the lack of ally support is the result.

  • bvresident posted at 7:53 pm on Sun, Sep 8, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    You mean like all you dems did for Bush and the Iraq war? Hypocrite.

  • bvresident posted at 8:00 pm on Sun, Sep 8, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    You know Ron, this country has generally been willing to follow a leader into a military conflict even if they don't necessarily agree with him or her but they've been more than reluctant to follow a fool. No one seems to be wiling to follow your president. Wonder why.

  • Jbgood posted at 9:34 am on Mon, Sep 9, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Now I'm hear John McCain is saying that Obama needs to be impeached if he goes after Syria! Wait! hold on,...did not John McCain and Linsey Graham side with Obama from the "gitgo" in bombing Syria?
    The answer is YES they did! So what happened? Well I'll tell you! The Against bombing Syria in the American public opinion is running about 59%! The for bombing Syria in the American opinion is running about 39%.
    Now as for McCain,.....if you watched him get his behind BLISTERED, AND ROASTED, by his Arizona constituents on TV,..over this issue, then you will know why he is now turning tail on Obama and heading for political cover! He faced stiff competition in his last election,...and I don't know if he wants to run again, but with this kind of animosity among his supporters in Arizona,....I doubt if he could win another term!
    Hillary Clinton might want to think about that too,...before she runs over behind Obama on this issue without knowing nothing but what he tells her. If she helps get this country in yet another war,....in my opinion,...that is the one torpedo that will surely,......SURLY....sink her bid for the 2016 Presidential race!

  • Jbgood posted at 9:35 am on Mon, Sep 9, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Now I'm hearing .....John McCain.....

  • Jbgood posted at 11:09 am on Mon, Sep 9, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    News Flash! CNN is reporting that the Russians are stepping in to broker a deal that will save Syria from being bombed and Obama from being disgraced!
    Crying shame! No! A low down crying shame when the Russians are busy being a better leader in international affairs, than the United States' Leaders in Washington!
    "The last shall be first; and the first shall be last!"
    I am ecstatic that the American people by majority,...and I mean,...just like the majority elected the last President,...the majority is now saying they DON'T WANT ANOTHER WAR!

  • bvresident posted at 12:39 pm on Mon, Sep 9, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Putin is proving to the world who the real leader and how a leader acts. He's only able to walk through this door because our president opened it for him, he replaced the Presidential Seal of the United States with a door mat that says "Kick Me", and he's ensured that even the democrat party doesn't trust him to do what he says he'll do. He is now officially the lamest of a lame duck president and it only took five years and an administration line-up that resembles the Three Stooges in order to make that happen. obama wanted the U.S. to be seen as less strong, less militaristic, as a "kinder, gentler" world leader and he's got it. Unfortunately, the despots of this world weren't going to change their ways in response and all it's done is to destroy the fear-and yes, fear is the only thing those types understand-that the U.S. brought to the table when making statements about who was going to do what to whom.

  • gecroix posted at 8:45 pm on Mon, Sep 9, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    How much do you suppose it cost the U.S. taxpayers, or perhaps the Chinese money lenders, for the sudden 'flexibility' that Syria and Russia have magically exhibited toward our tuff'-tawkin' POTUS?

  • IHOG posted at 2:13 pm on Tue, Sep 10, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Putin has offered a plan that would rescue BHO from his RED LINE bluster.
    Gold, Silver and oil prices dropped today after the Putin/Assad plan was announced.
    The stock market soared on the news.
    BHO and our liberal media will attempt to give BHO credit for the Putin/Assad plan.

  • Jbgood posted at 2:53 pm on Tue, Sep 10, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    The credit should go to HIM who is above!
    I Timothy 2:1-2
    I know I have asked for God's interventions over there,..and I have faith that many others have done so as well. God delivers, today just as HE delivered in the past, by intervening in the affairs of the world when asked.
    Think about it now,...all was bleak until Biden goes abroad spewing off subject, not even knowing why? Then one of the Russians calls him up inquiring about his gaffe. He goes back to Obama, and they start kicking around the possibilities when hours before,...THERE WERE NO POSSIBILITIES TO KICK AROUND!
    Go figure! God is great, and God is good. Amen? Yes He is. I remember when that Berlin wall came down,...without a shot being fired,....and everybody was inclined to think it was Regan who caused it to come down! Yea ....RIGHT!
    Thinking like that is equivalent to thinking it was MOSES who cause the Children of Israel to be freed from slavery.

  • gecroix posted at 4:41 pm on Tue, Sep 10, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    I thought it was Kerry blowing hard, then taking credit later? This time...!!
    Anyway, it now looks like the whole 'Russian Proposal' mess is one big Bait and Switch game of Gotcha being played out to satisfy Putin's desire to make our President look even more feckless.
    The notion that the UN at any time, but especially in the middle of a civil war, could locate and secure chem weapons is harder to stomach than a 10 cent burrito sold out of the back of a pickup with 4 different kinds of tires on it.
    And the idea that the U.S. would agree to a no military response accord during and after the so-called surrendering of them, is laughable. At least it would be under any normal times. Conditions change, as they always do, and what is a correct response right now, stay out of their civil war, may not be tomorrow.
    So, what has been gained by the 'Russian Proposed, Kerry Claiming Credit For, Syrian backed, Some Strings Attached After All' offer to surrender WMD if anyone can find it all?
    Another 24 hours to hide more of it, and another middle-digit 'Your Number One' salute to D.C.

  • Jbgood posted at 5:21 pm on Tue, Sep 10, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    I stand corrected, Mr. Gecroix,...it was Kerry! I don't know why Biden came out of my fingers! Well,...he will probably say something next week he has no business saying, it's all good. lolololol.

  • gecroix posted at 5:51 pm on Tue, Sep 10, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    No problem.
    It's just a matter of time until when, not if, Double Barrel Joe goes out somewhere and fires off another couple of blasts with his 4 gauge pie hole... [sad]

  • saraishelafs posted at 11:21 am on Wed, Sep 11, 2013.

    saraishelafs Posts: 59

    All I can say is it's a good thing that Obama, Putin and Assad know a whole lot more about this situation than you guys. I hope it works out without attacks by the US.

  • gecroix posted at 12:00 pm on Wed, Sep 11, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    Knowledges used unwisely or nefariously is knowledge wasted.
    It also helps to be familiar with the difference between pulling strings, and yanking a chain.
    I, too, hope for no shots fired.

  • Jbgood posted at 12:23 pm on Wed, Sep 11, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    I know enough to sustain me physically and spiritually! To me that is enough! That means I know God, His Son, His Spirit, and might! What others say, or think about me on this forum,...is miniscule, and so unimportant to me. [beam]

  • mytoby3113 posted at 3:58 pm on Wed, Sep 11, 2013.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    about the same as when Bush said Mission accomplished, then my 18 year old grandson ended up in Bag Dag. I heard no cries . It was OK for Bush to lie about weapons of massed destructions, leave people on top, in Louisanna.[sad]

  • mytoby3113 posted at 4:03 pm on Wed, Sep 11, 2013.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    I say think of the dying kids, and remember lying Bush. Think of Bagdag and remember Louisanna. I just can"t say it enough

  • gecroix posted at 6:55 pm on Wed, Sep 11, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    You do realize, do you not, that G.W. Bush is the FORMER President.
    We're playing the hand we've been dealt now.
    If you care to read facts instead of cling to DNC revisionist history talking points, check out the Congressional debating and voting back then and see who all ELSE thought that the threat of WMD was imminent, and voted to authorize military action.
    You can start with Hillary Clinton, and go through a host of top Democrats from there, most of whom have been struck by amnesia, but can't escape the Congressional record, and more Republicans.
    So, I guess they ALL 'lied'?
    The past is OK to visit, but it's a terrible place to live.
    BTW, my nephew is just back from his 5th tour, one in Iraq and 4 in Afghanistan, and my Son in Law made one tour in Iraq, and 2 in Afgh.
    Of those combined 8 tours, 5 have come under President Obama.
    Proving...nothing, except the current CinC could, if he wanted, have long ago pulled troops out. Reckon why he didn't???

  • bvresident posted at 8:10 pm on Wed, Sep 11, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    If your son was deployed to Baghdad it was because he voluntarily enlisted. We no longer have a draft military. As for Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction, he had the same intelligence provided to him that the rest of Congress did and they voted to go to war. You liberals can't get over the fact that your weakness in the Clinton and Carter administrations led to 9/11 and now we're dealing with the utter weakness of BOH. Only the Bushes and Reagans have made other countries respect the U.S. because strength is the only thing the Middle East understands.

  • Jose Boix posted at 5:57 pm on Thu, Sep 12, 2013.

    Jose Boix Posts: 418

    Just a total absence of leadership coming from the White House. To vacillate, change courses, let other government folks spout their opinions, just to delay - for over 2-3 weeks - to select a course of action is totally ghastly. Decisions for such incidents can't be made using the public media a forum. The expertise resides with the White House not us who think and opine. I am not qualified or know what would be the best course of action for the common good; neither the public or the media.

  • Jbgood posted at 8:42 pm on Thu, Sep 12, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Well I agree that there could be more leadership and quicker interactions with incoming events, but to regulate what other governments spout off about,.. or think is a bit over the top for anybody to control.
    I will also point out that both Bush,.. and Obama have made mistakes, and I have had the opportunity to support both during one election or another,...but as a former poster on this forum use to say,...POBODY IS NERFIC!" (Mr.George Crater).
    If Putin,...who is nothing but a former Soviet KGB,...bloody killer himself, can out of fret for his own interests, help cultivate, and create a peaceful solution to the procurement, control, or eradication of those chemical weapons inside Syria without any American blood being shed,....I say let the fool do his thing! Why does American has to have the answer to every *&^ problem which arrives on the scene? Why does America has to send it's young military people to a far off land to fight and die for every foreign social problem which appears?
    If Putin wants to raise his "ugly head up" and shoot off his mouth,....then good,...he'd better deliver,..or he will be looked at as just another LITTLE fish trying to stick his chest out in a BIG POND! I personally think this current opportunity, and talks for taking the chemical weapons away from Syria will bring better results than bombing them or shooting 15-16 Tomahawk missiles over there,... surgically killing a few babies, kids, and grownups along with anything good coming out of it all.
    Lastly, I'm not hoping,...but now my faith in out there,..acting on what my hope has seen,...that GOD has interjecting Himself in this situation, and we will get positive results! The problem is there are many in DC who might not want positive results,..but we will get them anyway. We'll just have to wait a bit to see them.
    I Timothy 2:1-2

  • raifm posted at 8:56 pm on Thu, Sep 12, 2013.

    raifm Posts: 87

    Gee guys
    I don't have the background info or intell on this problem. I'm glad our Pres. is not rushing in and is giving talks with Russia a chance

    If talks don't get the job done, then distroy every runway and put up a country wide no fly zone. And shoot the birdie at Iran

    I like that Congress members will have go on record with a vote.

  • kevjlang posted at 10:09 pm on Thu, Sep 12, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    His enlistment would have been voluntary. His deployment likely not.

  • gecroix posted at 9:23 am on Fri, Sep 13, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    This issue is a lot more about Presidential hot air than Syrian chemical weapons.
    There's more worry about saving face than saving the lives of Syrians.
    The 98,000 + killed before the 1400 were gassed is evidence enough for that.
    I'm more worried about American lives. Right now, at this point, Syria civil war poses the same 'clear and present danger' to the U.S. that athlete's foot does.
    Putin and Assad, both killer thugs, have no credibility at all. This is a delaying tactic to both stick it in the eye of Obama and the U.S., and to disperse or hide as much WMD as possible.
    The President, for whom all things are, in the end, about him, is just along for the ride at this point. As long as someone else can get the blame for any failure or rash speaking, that's a win in his playbook.
    Speaking of no credibility...

  • Jose Boix posted at 10:56 am on Fri, Sep 13, 2013.

    Jose Boix Posts: 418

    Debating and proposing alternatives to the Syrian situation or any other such situation via the public media as we are currently doing is beyond comprehension - and reprehensible - and in my book shows a total absence of much needed leadership from the top!
    No one seems to have the required intestinal fortitude to set the best course for the common good. This set again another example that the mighty - and best country in the world - is lacking the smarts to effectively manage external political-based situations. Not a great world-class image!

  • Jbgood posted at 4:00 pm on Fri, Sep 13, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Well,..if we had sent a squadron of Stealth Bombers over there and bombed the (*& out of them, then sent in Tomahawk missiles surgically devastated the rest of Syria,....and readied ourselves to have my old Airborne Brigade, along with the First Marine Division on standby to invade Syria,..thereby, starting another fifteen year war in the Middle East,...would that have been the right intestinal fortitude needed?
    Then some other soldier besides myself, and many others who had to actually go fight such a war,....could stand and watch gigantic forklifts, load up metal caskets containing our buddies, &other young American military people on C130 cargo planes going back to the states for their folks to bury them! Watch them be stacked like boxes of antifreeze, are stacked in eighteen wheelers for transport to markets! ( from front to back.)
    It is easier to start a war with words,...egos and pride,...than it is to put on a green uniform,..lace up a pair of jungle boots, grab an M60 machine gun, and go fight one! When these young people put on that uniform,....of the military, or even of the police, and fire departments,...they leave home and they do not know if they are going to make it back to kiss the heads of their young babies or children just one more time! I know personally how that feels in two of the three examples I just mentioned,...so I feel secure in saying, diplomacy should always be given the opportunity to work before bullets start flying! It is the right thing to do.
    I have no malice nor arrogance in my heart while saying what I just said. I said it because there are fifty-eight thousand young men, whose names are on a pretty, black, shiny, marble wall in Washington DC, who never came home, who never got a chance to do what many of us are doing, or go where many of us have gone,...because of some BS ego,...pride, and politics! I never want to see people die like that again, before diplomacy has been exhausted! Guts or no guts.

  • bvresident posted at 8:33 pm on Sun, Sep 15, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    What's your point Kevin? That once enlisted members of the military should have a say in where they go? It's a strange comment.

  • bvresident posted at 8:36 pm on Sun, Sep 15, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    I think it's beyond hypocrisy to despise our military as much as Obama does and yet want to use them to save face for comments he should never have made regarding his "red line" which of course he tried to retract or shift to the "world community" later.

  • kevjlang posted at 10:50 am on Mon, Sep 16, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    What would Romney, Santorum, or Bachmann have really done in this situation.... How about Cruz or Rubio?

    Just out of curiosity, was Iraq a proven national security threat back in 2003? Or was our concern then about what our concern is now with regards to Syria? How much are our positions with regards to Syria colored by what we've seen with Afghanistan, and Iraq primarily, with a bit of Libya and Egypt thrown in on the side?

    I think that most of the public opinion, and probably a lot of the political opinion, is more due to us being burned out on all that we've attempted to do in the Middle East over the past 12 years, and what we have to show for it. Essentially, is it enough that we find the use of chemical weapons during a civil war to be a deplorable act, or do we also need to see an opportunity and a capacity to rectify the situation?

  • bvresident posted at 11:17 am on Mon, Sep 16, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    I think a lot of public and political opinion is coming from the lack of confidence that voters and politicians (obviously both dems and Republicans) have in obama. He's supposed to be a leader and when a leader can't muster support from anyone then it's pretty much his or her failure. Has nothing to do with burnout. Has everything to do with being unable or unwilling to be honest with the people. Even the best of liars get figured out sooner or later.

  • kevjlang posted at 12:02 pm on Mon, Sep 16, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I tend to think the mistrust is more general than just Obama. Perhaps among some of the political "leaders", but I'd like to think that a lot of the public opinion is mostly fed by burnout. The Egyptian and Lybian rebels would supposedly be our friends, but that hasn't turned out that way, and the pundits had a lot of people convinced that once the "shock and awe" hit in Afghanistan and Iraq, the enemy forces would just roll over, declare a truce, and work with us to build a new and better nation. I'm not sure how popular it would be for a president from the list above, or even McCain, to convince us to go into a country like Afghanistan again under similar circumstances. I think there's a growing sentiment that it doesn't matter who our leader is, we'd just like to pack up our marbles through the Middle East and bring everyone home and let them just try to beg us to come back and help them with anything.

    Yes, Obama hasn't put us into a position of strength in the region, but I'm not sure that any president in recent times has done much, either. Overall, it appears that our Middle East strategy hasn't changed much in more than a generation. Our success rate certainly hasn't changed much. Other than kicking Iraq out of Kuwait during the first Gulf War, I can't think of much else signifcant that we've accomplished in the Middle East since the Israeli/Egyptian treaty.

  • gecroix posted at 12:09 pm on Mon, Sep 16, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    When the nation's only choice at the moment is whether to trust in the leadership skills of the shade of Douglas Corrigan or not, 'not' looks pretty good.

  • bvresident posted at 1:53 pm on Mon, Sep 16, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    You could probably get a job working with obama's press spokesperson Jay Carney.

  • kevjlang posted at 2:19 pm on Mon, Sep 16, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Nah, I guess your claims that I spin well might be flattering if true, but I wouldn't be very good at choosing spin over reality. I wouldn't last a day in the world of political spin.

  • sverige1 posted at 2:23 pm on Mon, Sep 16, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    I am of the camp that realizes that the US President in office makes no difference in whether these far East countries do what's in the best interest of humanity.

    I'm with JBG in regard to his Reagan-Berlin Wall example. When diplomacy or military success on our part occurs, it's our leader who enjoys the fallout of the success. EXAMPLES - Began/Sadat peace talks and the demise of Saddam.

    What counts most is the general feeling left after one of our Presidents leaves office. George "Shrub" Bush is still very disrespected throughout the world, as his public image sharply declined through the duration of the Iraqi war. The verdict shall be still out for Obama, but we will see in history books shortly after 2016 (when Hillary succeeds in obtaining the WH).

    HILLARY 2016 " Continue the Course "

  • kevjlang posted at 4:15 pm on Mon, Sep 16, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I don't think we have a course we necessarily want to continue. I hope we'll choose a new path. Let's see who's running in 2016 to see what are choices wind up being.

  • gecroix posted at 6:31 pm on Mon, Sep 16, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    The fire is an even less appealing place to be than in the frying pan.

  • bvresident posted at 7:06 pm on Mon, Sep 16, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    George Bush is respected around the world by those who mean something to the U.S. He had to deal with aftermath of a Clinton presidency that was afraid to address the threat of terrorism against the U.S. Probably because he was spending his time cheating on his wife and daughter.

    Obama has already sealed his legacy with respect to those in the rest of the world. He's been exposed for being completely and utterly clueless as to how to deal with the complexities of foreign relationships. With being a community organizer as the only experience he brought to the White House, that will only take you so far. And he didn't get far. He's a laughingstock.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:08 am on Tue, Sep 17, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 7:06 pm on Mon, Sep 16, 2013:

    How does one "cheat on his daughter"?

    On the contrary in regard to Shrub Bush. He made a definitive error, relying on Chaney to mislead the public. History books written in the past 5 years already illustrate that. I was one of those "say it isn't so" type of people - since I voted for the guy twice.

    On the other hand, Obama will receive recognition in the history books for being executive in chief during the demise of Saddam. His legislative victory in regard to health care will make it into the books. And. I'll speak your language for a spell: political correctedness, coupled with the give-and-receive pandering among publishers, editors, writers - there's no doubt that future books will point out this "legacy" of Obama. If they didn't, heads would roll. And, for kev....here's another catchphrase:

    HILLARY 2016 "Continue the Progress"

  • bvresident posted at 9:13 am on Tue, Sep 17, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Uh genius, Saddam Hussein was captured during Bush's term. As for cheating on his daughter, I think most decent people with just a smidgeon of integrity and ethics understand that parents have relationships with their children that parallel the relationship they have with their spouses, ie; Biblical Commandments, respect for the family unit, the idea of honor and integrity-you know, those things that Clinton had no use for.

    You say your president will receive credit for his legislative victory on obamacare. Probably so because that's the liberal media's spin. Most of us would not look at a vote but at the ultimate success of the outcome of that vote and obamacare is already proving to be a hideous debacle.

    Rand Paul/Ted Cruz in 2016 would be just the team this country needs to get back on track and gain our respect back from those who actually work and pay taxes in this country and from the leaders in the rest of the world.

  • sverige1 posted at 9:39 am on Tue, Sep 17, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 9:13 am on Tue, Sep 17, 2013:

    Well, a good family therapist will make sure to address, listen, and process with children/teens' issues regarding their parents' husband/wife problems. But, aside from what husband does to wife or vice versa, the therapist will make it clear to the child that whatever marital issues mom and dad are facing have NOTHING to do with the children. That's the way it should be. If mommy and daddy can't give sweet nothings to each other, daddy prefers to "do it" with his secretary, and mom wants to "cougar" with the poolboy - then the children don't need to manifest all of that angst.

    Ipso facto, Bill Clinton could very well have been a terrible husband, but a good father. As of now, Chelsea is an attractive and well-adjusted journalist. Bill and Hillary did a great job, it appears.

    Now, to the matter at hand. Anyone of Cruz' and Rand Paul's ilk have no business trying to run for high office. Cruz is a Canadan - simply doesn't qualify (even if he tries to play the "dual citizenship" card. His Hispanic surname (while being a Republican) also does him no favors. Rand Paul is non-Presidential. He does too much carrying on at airports, while the rest of us have to suck it up. Elitist - to say the least.

    Now, if you start talking about Chris Christie wanting to run for Pres....I'll be all ears. That guy appears to remove partisianship and get the job done.

    H I L L A R Y / M I C H E L LE 2016 - "Progressive, Not Regressive"

  • gecroix posted at 10:07 am on Tue, Sep 17, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6440

    The execution of Saddam Hussein took place on Saturday 30 December 2006.
    After the capture of Saddam in ad-Dawr, near his hometown Tikrit, he was incarcerated at Camp Cropper. On Sunday 5 November 2006, he was sentenced to death by hanging.

  • sverige1 posted at 11:50 am on Tue, Sep 17, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to gecroix posted at 10:07 am on Tue, Sep 17, 2013:

    And, there's further illustration of the point being that whoever is President at the time of these milestones is coincidental. Bush (the son) is "credited" for that under his watch. Obama - "credited" for it being under his watch to the downfall of Bin Laden.

    Here's a major point to ponder: regardless of whether we have Obama as President (who obviously and chronically meets the disapproval of geocrocx and bovresident)....for the best interest of world stability, it should make no difference if the successes are under one President over the other. There comes a time to throw away partisanship.

    George Bush's legislative accomplishments: No Call Act and Healthy Forest Restoration Act. From many thorns, yield one or two roses. (OMG - I'm starting to sound like geocrox).

  • bvresident posted at 9:18 pm on Tue, Sep 17, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Hillary/michelle2016-"Oppressive and Dismissive"