I’m guessing you won’t be voting for George Bush for President based on your constant references to him. However, The thread is about Obama and his current screw up.
Kerry and Obama have been on the same page pressing for UNSC use of force if Assad reneges on the Geneva agreement between Russia and the USA.
Also, military intervention being an option is not necessarily a UNSC matter. Obama and Kerry have been together on that too. Obama has not taken the use of unilateral military action off the table.
Putin is suffering some humiliation because if the US and France and others get the nine votes promised by UNSC members then Putin will have to veto it and then the world will wonder why he would veto it, if he has confidence that Assad is going to comply. If Syria complies then use of force is not likely.
Your complaint is duly noted and filed however you are calling Obama’s success a screw up, therefore it is proper to discuss similar situations encountered by previous presidents and how they handled it. Bush disarmed Iraq the violent way after having a chance to do it peacefully. I trust that Obama would abandon violence for peacefully verified disarmament. It is a fair comparison and not too difficult to determine which President actually ‘screwed up’.
The First reference to Iraq came up in this context:
It is a relevant point.
The next reference to Iraq came from Shodan in a response to jtgain:
Not sure what that exchange meant to convey but it mentions Iraq.
Here’s the next reference to Iraq by FoieGrasIsEvil:
So FoieGrasIsEvil is commenting on the OP that Obama and Kerry’s legacy sucks ass just like Bush’s toppling of SH sucks ass making the point that ‘he thinks’ Iran will increase hegemony in the region.
I disagree with that but I would never complain about the comparison or reference to the history of the region.
I suspect your complaints about such things are increasing at this time because your arguments are failing you because they are quite weak.
The next reference to Iraq came from me:
This is not like Iraq where UNMOVIC was forced to prove a negative with 100% accuracy possession of CW capacity by the dishonest and despicable Bush regime.
This is about gathering up what Assad most likely kept an inventory of all weapons made. He’d be nuts to not be strict about CW record keeping. …
And shutting down production facilities is easier than that. Now unless you wish to believe a defector as we saw in Iraq - goes by the CIA nickname Curveball - who will claim that Syria has the production facilities on truck trailers and move them all about so no UN inspector or world intelligence agency can find a trace of them. -NotfooledbyW 09-15-2013 08:41 AM 258a0841
So I see why references to Bush’s method of disarming Iraq of CW tend to upset you. You do believe the defector who convinced Bush that Iraq had this mobile WMD production facilities.
The US Armed Forces took out ObL…what did Obama do that Bush wasnt doing?
Obama didnt take out Khaddafi…that was an EU operation that Obama was late to…and Libya is a mess…Obama didnt learn anything from our Iraq experience.
What evidence do you have that the Taliban has been rolled back? And if so it what evdence do you have that it was because any specific Obama policy?
Obama got Bin Laden on his watch. Of course he didnt go on the actual mission. Obama obviously made it a priority - Bush went after Saddam Hussein and drained off too many military and intelligence assets.
The US was involved and needed to assist the lesser EU capability to enforce the UNSC Resolution in Libya. It was a NATO operation and the US military provided air traffic control and the satelite based communications platform for targeting and surveillance.
The original intent was to protect the rebels from Gadhafi’s Air Forse and armored units. The mission was a success for its intended purpose. How things work out in a Democratic and Secular Libya has not been determined as of yet. There are issues but Libya is doing better than Iraq which took 4472 American soldiers lives and many more years than the Libyans have used. Give them some time.
When Obama took command of Afghanistan the Taliban controlled 80% of the Districts with territorial gains being made steadily from 2004 on.
That had been reversed.
The Taliban have list effective control of most parts of Afghanistan with the Afghan Police and Army units now patrolling and securing those districts on their own except with continued air and intelligence support from the ISAF.
Obama took out Bin Laden, not giving him credit would be like not blaming Bin Laden for 9/11 because he didn’t fly the planes.
I quoted a state department representative, not someone from the UN. You’re not making any sense.
The only humiliation is with Obama. He doesn’t have internal support or international support. Our closest ally was shut down in a political vote. Putin got what he was after and that’s a toothless UN resolution. He has the world behind him. You’re barking.
There was a recent UN resolution on Syria? When? Did anyone tell the UN? Somebody should have.
Obama has massive support for his policy on Syria to disarm Syria peacefully of its CW arsenal. What are you talking about?
And why did you say it was only one world leader spporting him but the truth was it was 10 of 20 who had decided by that time.
You mean Putin has massive support. Obama never withdrew his red line. Putin never drew a red line.
Obama’s red line indeed was crossed. Obama has not withdrawn his threat of a punitive strike against the Assad regime and that is because Putin and Assad have changed their position by admitting that Assad possesses chemical weapons and is now committed to dismantling them under international supervision.
Obama has triple massive domestic and international support for bringing Syria and Russia to a path of compliance with international norms of chemical weapons use and stockpiling.
If you think Putin has massive support for supplying artillery shells to Assad’s regime for CW use on innocent civilians and now suddenly found a conscience I’d like to see polling or reporting on that.
Seriously, what is your primary language.
Obama has nothing but foot in mouth disease and was gifted with a bs promise from Putin that allows this to fall off the media radar.
Answer: Reality.
I see your case against Obama is so weak and unsupportable that you’ve taken to personal attack and slurs against our president as well as claiming that you are a victim of the so-called liberal news media.
You have Fox News. Why aren’t they covering Obama’s success on Syria to your miserable satisfaction. Surely they would if your version of reality made any sense or was supported by reason and facts.
You might want to look at what you are writing instead of blaming the News Media.
Terr-ibble predictions:
Terr is predicting that Putin and Assad will punk Obama and have no intention giving up all its CW by November 2014.
Terr made a prediction a year ago. How did Terr do?
Terr overestimated Obama. Instead, Obama did absolutely nothing. The ambassador’s killers are walking around unharmed, and Obama didn’t even do a token gesture of reprisal.
Benghazi? That’s Libya! Don’t be funny, this is Syria’s business!
Try to keep up. This is not doing “nothing” . Bush couldn’t get Bin Ladin for seven years so according to your way of thinking he did nothing. I wouldn’t say that. But Obama got him and Obama may find a way to get these murderers too:
LOL. “May”.
US Ambassador got raped, murdered, and dragged through the streets. No visible reaction from US. “Sealed indictments” indeed. That certainly is a deterrent.
Yeah, we’re gonna need some sort of cite for that.
He did imprison the person he said was responsible for it. So there’s that.