
So again we play "enemy of my enemy" and end up aligned with Al Qaeda. Because that has worked out so well in the past.

I wouldn't say we're so much aligned with them. Think of it in terms of software, it's not a bug, it's an "unintended feature".broken iris wrote:
So again we play "enemy of my enemy" and end up aligned with Al Qaeda. Because that has worked out so well in the past.
He could let the other NATO countries do the shooting and just provide the logistics/intel support. Much like Japan did in Afghanistan.shinkdew wrote:Obama is in a no win situation, it's mostly his own doing though. He's the one who drew a line in the sand and Assad called his bluff. Now he has to do something or every foreign government will know they can do whatever they want without repercussions from the US. So he has to align himself with terrorists or look even more weak than he already does to foreign leaders. I think he'll end up doing what Clinton did and just lob a few missiles into Syria and hope that China or Russia don't take too much offense to it. It won't do anything, but it'll at least make it look like he did something.
I don't think that will work. I'm not a military expert, but the Syrian army and anti-air defense are much more substantial than Afghanistan (and Libya). I'm not sure EU forces are stronger/better enough to avoid numerous casualties.broken iris wrote:He could let the other NATO countries do the shooting and just provide the logistics/intel support. Much like Japan did in Afghanistan.shinkdew wrote:Obama is in a no win situation, it's mostly his own doing though. He's the one who drew a line in the sand and Assad called his bluff. Now he has to do something or every foreign government will know they can do whatever they want without repercussions from the US. So he has to align himself with terrorists or look even more weak than he already does to foreign leaders. I think he'll end up doing what Clinton did and just lob a few missiles into Syria and hope that China or Russia don't take too much offense to it. It won't do anything, but it'll at least make it look like he did something.
I think at this point, most people believe NATO = USA.broken iris wrote:He could let the other NATO countries do the shooting and just provide the logistics/intel support. Much like Japan did in Afghanistan.shinkdew wrote:Obama is in a no win situation, it's mostly his own doing though. He's the one who drew a line in the sand and Assad called his bluff. Now he has to do something or every foreign government will know they can do whatever they want without repercussions from the US. So he has to align himself with terrorists or look even more weak than he already does to foreign leaders. I think he'll end up doing what Clinton did and just lob a few missiles into Syria and hope that China or Russia don't take too much offense to it. It won't do anything, but it'll at least make it look like he did something.
shinkdew wrote:Obama is in a no win situation, it's mostly his own doing though. He's the one who drew a line in the sand and Assad called his bluff. Now he has to do something or every foreign government will know they can do whatever they want without repercussions from the US. So he has to align himself with terrorists or look even more weak than he already does to foreign leaders. I think he'll end up doing what Clinton did and just lob a few missiles into Syria and hope that China or Russia don't take too much offense to it. It won't do anything, but it'll at least make it look like he did something.
If you remove the US, what is left that NATO can do?shinkdew wrote:I think at this point, most people believe NATO = USA.broken iris wrote:He could let the other NATO countries do the shooting and just provide the logistics/intel support. Much like Japan did in Afghanistan.shinkdew wrote:Obama is in a no win situation, it's mostly his own doing though. He's the one who drew a line in the sand and Assad called his bluff. Now he has to do something or every foreign government will know they can do whatever they want without repercussions from the US. So he has to align himself with terrorists or look even more weak than he already does to foreign leaders. I think he'll end up doing what Clinton did and just lob a few missiles into Syria and hope that China or Russia don't take too much offense to it. It won't do anything, but it'll at least make it look like he did something.
This is funny because we actually aren't. Korean teenage girls could kick all of our asses according to my sons.Harry Lime wrote: Isn't it great being the most powerful country in the world?
Tell your sons: "Not if they are pregnant".mookie wrote:I can't help but get a little excited when warships start showing up.
This is funny because we actually aren't. Korean teenage girls could kick all of our asses according to my sons.Harry Lime wrote: Isn't it great being the most powerful country in the world?
mookie wrote:I can't help but get a little excited when warships start showing up.
This is funny because we actually aren't. Korean teenage girls could kick all of our asses according to my sons.Harry Lime wrote: Isn't it great being the most powerful country in the world?
Call of Duty: Black OpsFuck You Jobu wrote:mookie wrote:I can't help but get a little excited when warships start showing up.
This is funny because we actually aren't. Korean teenage girls could kick all of our asses according to my sons.Harry Lime wrote: Isn't it great being the most powerful country in the world?![]()
wtf?
Yes, yes, because Obama doesn't have an invisible finger up his ass.BurtReynolds wrote:
the below statement is pretty consistent with the action taken in Libya:simple schoolboy wrote:So, Robot overlords for the sake of consistency?
According to the Guardian's Spencer Ackerman, Secretary of State John Kerry, this morning on CNN, said this when asked whether the Congressional vote would be binding: "[Obama] has the right to do this no matter what Congress does."