Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons

Obama___Obey_by_Kev89.jpg


4ff4a40da4bb3.image.gif


obama-victory-1.jpg
 
monty1 said:
I respect the fact that you are thinking more deeply about all this than the typical rabble no-minds on this forum. However, I disagree with most of it. I sure don't disagree that the gas use was by the terrorists and I think that the US intelligence agencies couldn't be unaware of that. The rest of your post, I won't get into details on what I agree with and disagree with for now.

You do raise some plausible possibilities.

edit: Oh, and I find it an interesting idea that Putin and Assad would want to help Obama save face. That could only be possible if they think Obama is their best chance to prevent war.
Click to expand...

Yes, they also see Obama as an "empty suit" with a gigantic ego- not hard to see his "need" of face saving. Assad has every reason to avoid an international conflict. They give the president a way out and they get their needs met as well..

What was it you disagreed with from my previous post and why?
 
blackascoal said:
Republicans are in a state of metamorphosis.

Antiwar/isolationist/libertarians are taking root there ... and I think they would be against this if a republican was proposing it.

They don't like people like John McCain and the warhawk bunch.
Click to expand...

I hope you are correct, that would be a monumental shift in the political balance.
 
Damocles said:
I wouldn't so much call it isolationism as I would call it a more centralized focus. Is there a valid reason for us to be in Syria? What is the compelling interest to the US? Before the questions were asked Obama was ready to flow on in there because he called "Red Line" and that's clearly an International Legal Term for "we get to blow you up" or can also be interpreted to mean "all your base are belong to us".

Anyway, yeah. I think that most of us would still be against this if it were a republican who proposed it, in fact McCain's been begging for it for the past 2 years.
Click to expand...

The Republicans hate McCain and have since he lost his election.
 
blackascoal said:
You make my point .. better than I did. :0)

Unbeknownst to the casual eye, the Republican Party is indeed morphing.

Although the question remains, will they morph away from the social issues that keep them separated from mainstream society?
Click to expand...

I have been saying that there was a civil war in the Republican party for the last 7 or 8 years and that it was brought about by the GWB debacle, what you are pointing out would be the natural result if the civil war is coming to an end and the reformers have won. I hope you are correct, if the Republicans really make this change and throw out the born again Christians and the rest of the Social Conservatives, Ill be excited for the future of the Republican party. They just might become the true Liberal (with a capital "L") party.
 
Annie said:
Thank you for fairness. In 1999-2000 Bush truly was addressing domestic issues, he really wanted to work at 'home' and not on interventions. As I said, 9 months in, after horrible transition, 9/11 happened, so we'll never know. But there are indications when one looks at AIDS, his immigration stands, (whether or not I agreed with him, isn't the point), even the very misguided "No Child Left Behind." I don't think he got the presidency he thought he would, then again, which of them does?
Click to expand...

Prior to 9/11 Bush ended government funding of the most promising medical research that was emerging based on pressure from the Social Conservatives. It was the first thing he did in his administration that I found truly horrifying.
 
Jarod said:
I hope you are correct, that would be a monumental shift in the political balance.
Click to expand...

Believe this or not my friend, I anticipated the question from you, and I saved these article I ran across just for you.

Amid Struggle For 'Soul' Of GOP, Libertarians Take Limelight
excerpt

Cohen, a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio, says libertarianism is becoming appealing to more Republicans because of its popularity with a younger generation of voters.

"That is a demographic that they desperately need to do better with," he says. "That socially liberal, economically conservative, non-interventionist policy stance popular among libertarians is very appealing to younger, college-age people. ... Some of these people are disaffected Obama voters who have been turned off by the Obama administration's national security policies and foreign policies and interventionism."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...e-for-soul-of-gop-libertarians-take-limelight

Poll: Republicans embracing libertarian priorities
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/poll-republicans-libertarian-96576.html?hp=r7

I think its real .. and it will offer different challenges to democrats.
 
evince said:
than thank Obama for it.

instead you want to blame him.

would assad give them up if it was passed as Obamas idea?


No
Click to expand...

Obama did what he does best... dither around and wax poetic about righteous passion that he totally lacks... but a blind clueless lemming like you cannot see this president for what he is... Helpless on foreign policy. It took an incidental comment by our SOS and that ruskie dictator to get action. What are you so proud of your president doing? No country fears this president you dumb ass
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top