John Kerry defuses Syrian powderkeg

[Incorruptible]

Kerry didn't do anything. Putin solved the problem not the USA. Maybe the nobel peace prize should go to Putin!

Agree. Kerry did nothing and he didn't defuse the situation. It was Putin who is the peacemaker here. obama should never have got the Nobel peace prize and should give it back for all his war mongering.

 

[kage69]

Putin has killed less people than Obama so yea i agree.

Got a link for that? Probably more than a few people in Chechnya who would disagree with you there. And journalists.

Who knew a community organizer could rack up more kills than a seasoned ex KGB operative? I have to see this list that you must be referring to.

 

[michal1980]

wow. Some people are really pissed that we have a president with a brain.
Unlike GW that shit kicked us into war(s).
Not to mention the total disregard for American troops safety and deaths.
Watching some of these talking head republicans on the news criticizing Obama's intentions, knowing too well the free pass they handed GW, makes me wonder just how low will they go?
Safety and respect of American military troops means something to Obama.
Unlike GW and Cheney (and toss Condoleezza in there).

Wow, the history re-write on this event sure is starting quick.

Obama was pushing for war up until last night. John Kerry made an off cuff comment that the state department was backing tracking on as soon as he said it.

http://gma.yahoo.com/did-us-offer-syrian-president-125806202--abc-news-topstories.html

America's top diplomat suggested in a passing remark that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could avoid a U.S.-led strike if he handed over all his chemical weapons, but the State Department quickly dismissed the comment as more of a "rhetorical argument" than an offer.

And further down in the article

After the news conference, Kerry left for Washington to lobby Congress to authorize the military strike in Syria.

But now Obama is some sort of peace maker? what bizzaro world do you live in?

 

[TerryMathews]

Wow, the history re-write on this event sure is starting quick.

Obama was pushing for war up until last night. John Kerry made an off cuff comment that the state department was backing tracking on as soon as he said it.

http://gma.yahoo.com/did-us-offer-syrian-president-125806202--abc-news-topstories.html



And further down in the article




But now Obama is some sort of peace maker? what bizzaro world do you live in?

The one where blue is good and red is bad?

 

[thraashman]

Wow, the history re-write on this event sure is starting quick.

Obama was pushing for war up until last night. John Kerry made an off cuff comment that the state department was backing tracking on as soon as he said it.

http://gma.yahoo.com/did-us-offer-syrian-president-125806202--abc-news-topstories.html



And further down in the article




But now Obama is some sort of peace maker? what bizzaro world do you live in?

War and military action aren't necessarily the same thing. We've taken limited military actions before that definitely weren't war. Obama was absolutely pushing for military action, but we've taken military action as a nation before without it being war. If Obama had ever taken the stance of full invasion, nation building, troops on the ground, etc I would absolutely have been against it and railing against the idea.

The one where blue is good and red is bad?

Blue may not always be good. But I've never seen red be anything but bad.

 

[michal1980]

But I've never seen red be anything but bad.

exactly the problem.

 

[TerryMathews]

War and military action aren't necessarily the same thing. We've taken limited military actions before that definitely weren't war. Obama was absolutely pushing for military action, but we've taken military action as a nation before without it being war. If Obama had ever taken the stance of full invasion, nation building, troops on the ground, etc I would absolutely have been against it and railing against the idea.



Blue may not always be good. But I've never seen red be anything but bad.

exactly the problem.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery?

 

[thraashman]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery?

That depends on if you consider Red to be Republican or Red to be conservative. I don't know if the Red/Blue indicator existed back then or not. Lincoln was Republican but he definitely was not conservative. The concept of equality of the races is absolutely a progressive concept.

Edit:
From looking it up the concept of Red for Republican and Blue for Democrat only dates back to 2000. So, in its current context, my statement was completely correct. I should amend it to be that conservative has never been anything but bad.

 

[Lash444]

I agree with you. Unfortunately more was said.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...=Prnh8dM-2KH2Amn0784ehw&bvm=bv.51773540,d.dmg

Calling it "rhetorical and hypothetical" would in fact be walking back his statement.

You might want to expand your horizons when it comes to the news you watch.

Well, thank you...almost. The clip of the State Department was exactly what I was looking for. I just wish whoever posted it wouldn't cut it short (probably purposefully). I'm going to guess she then proceeds to give a descriptive follow up on why it is wise to authorize the use of force to show that the U.S. means business in terms of military action, and that even if we allowed Assad to give up his chem weapons, that we want them to know that not pursuing such an alternative will almost certainly mean we will be knocking on their doorstep.

Assuming that is her followup, and the reason why they want to see military action permitted, then how does this clip contradict what i said in any way?

Get the military action permission first. Then tell Assad, sure you can give up your chemical weapons, but let us remain perfectly clear here... The ONLY reason we are permitting this, is because we want to pursue a possibly better alternative that doesn't include further bloodshed and distrust between the West and the ME. Military action has already been approved concerning this action.

Doesn't that make sense to you? Don't you think it was convenient that the clip you posted cuts off the conversation just as she states that Military action should be approved? Don't you think that maybe an explanation of why military action approval might be advantageous to have prior to agreeing to Assad handing over chemical weapons as being "good enough".

It wouldn't be "good enough" for me. And based on Kerry's statements, it wouldn't be good enough for him. Id like to hear the remainder of that clip.

 

[BoberFett]

Sportage

There's something wrong with the way you speak and structure your posts. Are you handicapped?

 

[BoberFett]

War and military action aren't necessarily the same thing. We've taken limited military actions before that definitely weren't war. Obama was absolutely pushing for military action, but we've taken military action as a nation before without it being war. If Obama had ever taken the stance of full invasion, nation building, troops on the ground, etc I would absolutely have been against it and railing against the idea.

It's amazing how quickly any sense of compassion is abandoned when it comes to protecting the team. Only when a Democrat is in the White House does bombing the shit out of foreign countries not count as war.

Blue may not always be good. But I've never seen red be anything but bad.

Further proof of how ridiculous you Democrats truly are.

 

[nageov3t]

It's amazing how quickly any sense of compassion is abandoned when it comes to protecting the team. Only when a Democrat is in the White House does bombing the shit out of foreign countries not count as war.



Further proof of how ridiculous you Democrats truly are.

I feel like we bombed the shit out of Pakistan during the Bush years and never called it war.

 

[bshole]

Sportage

There's something wrong with the way you speak and structure your posts. Are you handicapped?

I think the handicapped quip was mean spirited. On the other hand, I found his posting style really odd. Perhaps its related to his browser?

 

[BoberFett]

I feel like we bombed the shit out of Pakistan during the Bush years and never called it war.

We have bombed the shit out of many countries without declaring or even calling it war. That's very easy to do when you're not the one with bombs being dropped on your head. Given their anti-war rhetoric, I'd expect more out of the Democrats, but not truly surprised that they're anti-war only when it suits them politically. Scumbags, all of them.

 

[tweaker2]

We have bombed the shit out of many countries without declaring or even calling it war. That's very easy to do when you're not the one with bombs being dropped on your head. Given their anti-war rhetoric, I'd expect more out of the Democrats, but not truly surprised that they're anti-war only when it suits them politically. Scumbags, all of them.

Maybe, just maybe, there are issues of national security that surpass the partisan politics that you wield like a bat to bash the Dems with, where actions that have to be taken would be the same regardless of party affiliation/dogma?

 

[kage69]

Maybe, just maybe, there are issues of national security that surpass the partisan politics that you wield like a bat to bash the Dems with, where actions that have to be taken would be the same regardless of party affiliation/dogma?

Next you'll be asking people to understand the difference between being anti-war and being anti-dumb war.

Dream much, tweaker?

 

[tweaker2]

Next you'll be asking people to understand the difference between being anti-war and being anti-dumb war.

Dream much, tweaker?

LOL, reality checks can be a bummer sometimes, yeh? :thumbsup:

 

[BoberFett]

And when you can show me that it's anything other than "Democrat wars are good wars, while Republican wars are dumb wars" I'll hop right on board. Until then, the two of you along with many other Democrats are partisan hacks.

 

[tweaker2]

And when you can show me that it's anything other than "Democrat wars are good wars, while Republican wars are dumb wars" I'll hop right on board. Until then, the two of you along with many other Democrats are partisan hacks.

Well, when I compare what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld created war-wise and what Obama had to do to try to untangle it all, and what Obama's record on war waging looks like, then yeah, It sure does look like Repub wars are bad and Dem wars are "better".

 

[zanejohnson]

i'm usually not into prophecies and all that, but man i read one one time that fit this situation to the T, i wish i could remember where and what exactly it was, i know it was about antichrist rising, something about the great satan (america) trying to push the people past the breaking point, but they bend instead, and then major upheaval of government world wide to turn into the later one world government led by ??? i think it was supposed to be a eastern european or something.. something about from a small island in the east, rise to power, great charisma

 

[kage69]

And when you can show me that it's anything other than "Democrat wars are good wars, while Republican wars are dumb wars" I'll hop right on board. Until then, the two of you along with many other Democrats are partisan hacks.

lol Translation: Damn the details! You won't play along with my black and white worldview, so you're both poop heads!

Still banging the "disagree with me and you're a Dem!" drum huh? Yeeesh.



Anyway, the burden of proof isn't on others to educate you on how different Syria is from Iraq in order to justify their support, it's on you to show that these situations are the same (exposing accused partisanship) since you're so bent on supporting that incredibly stupid partisan one-liner.

 

[2timer]

BoberFett is a typical Repubtard who styles himself as a Libertarian. The fact is that the last 3 wars the USA was involved in were all started by Republican presidents. The last war started by a Democrat was back in the 60s under LBJ. And no, no one considers a limited, punitive missile strike a war unless you're a moron. Which BoberFett is, so....

 

[BoberFett]

And no, no one considers a limited, punitive missile strike a war unless you're a moron.

As I've said several times, that's certainly easy to do when you're the one launching missiles rather than the ones receiving them.

Typical warmonger. You just happen to like the warmonger in office right now, hack.

 

[BoberFett]

Well, when I compare what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld created war-wise and what Obama had to do to try to untangle it all, and what Obama's record on war waging looks like, then yeah, It sure does look like Repub wars are bad and Dem wars are "better".

What exactly has Obama done to untangle anything? Follow Bush's timeline on Iraq despite his desire to keep troops there, and... I'm having trouble coming up with anything else.

 

[BoberFett]

lol Translation: Damn the details! You won't play along with my black and white worldview, so you're both poop heads!

Still banging the "disagree with me and you're a Dem!" drum huh? Yeeesh.



Anyway, the burden of proof isn't on others to educate you on how different Syria is from Iraq in order to justify their support, it's on you to show that these situations are the same (exposing accused partisanship) since you're so bent on supporting that incredibly stupid partisan one-liner.

If you're so blind that you can't see how Democrats have bent over backwards to try to frame an attack on Syria as not being a war by yet another presidential tool of the defense industry, then there's nothing I can do to help you. Carry on, hacks.