Well, said Chiefster.
Originally Posted by Chiefster
Obama is clearly out of his element here. The problem is that he put the US in a "no win" situation.
First, he drew a line in the sand. He said that if Assad used chemical weapons, there would be harsh consequences. He never defined what those consequences would be and I don't think he had a plan-of-action to begin with. He thought that just making a threat of action would stop Assad from using chemical weapons. It didn't.
Then, after Assad used chemical weapons, he said. "Wait. We don't know if it was him or the rebels. But if it was him, we're gonna ... um ... do something and he'll be sorry!"
Then he goes on tv and tells America that Assad is another Hitler and we can't let him get away with using chemical weapons on innocent women and children. "We tried diplomacy, sanctions and threats and he still used chemical weapons. So, now we must use force."
"But not yet. Let's try some more diplomacy first!"
He says as Commander-in-Chief he has the authority to act without Congressional approval. But let's get it anyway. It just looks better if we have the full support of America behind our actions. The truth is if military action blows up in our faces (and it will), he can then say "don't blame me. I had the full support of Congress. This is what Americans wanted me to do."
So he calls on Congress to vote in favor of military action, then says "but wait. Don't vote on it, yet. Let's give diplomacy a chance first to see if our good friend Putin can talk Syria into voluntarily destroying their chemical weapons, under the supervision and watchful eye of the UN." The truth is, he knows that right now even democrats won't support him.
Then he says "this won't be another Iraq or Afghanistan. It would be just a tiny little focused limited strike to weaken the Assad regime. (But don't call it a 'pin-prick!'). He says we don't want to force Assad out of power. We just want to weaken him enough for the rebels to force him out of power!
Now if we don't act, we look weak and we embolden other dictators to do what Assad did (or worse). If we do act, Assad may attack Israel and we could draw Iran and Russia into the fray, possibly starting WWIII! If we go in with a limited, targeted strike, we accomplish nothing except to make the Middle East even MORE unstable and we still look weak. If we go in with overwhelming force we look like a bully that wants to force our will on foreign powers.
If the rebels oust Assad, then Muslim extremists could take power and make things even worse than when Assad was in control.
If Putin does succeed in getting Syria to destroy their chemical weapons, he looks like the hero and, while Obama will try to share the credit, he will look like the clueless, impotent, ineffectual leader he is.
Do you think we would have gotten into this predicament if Reagan was President? ... or even George W. Bush? I don't.
Obama screwed up. He drew a red line and then said he didn't draw it; the civilized world drew it. We can't change what happened, but here we are. What do we do now?
Nothing, it's "checkmate". We wait for 2016 and hope against hope Billary doesn't run, and the Republican's nominate someone with a spine.
Originally Posted by TopekaRoy
Great reply, rep!
That's funny stuff! :lol:
Originally Posted by kcvet