Options
Obama the warmonger got scared and back tracked lol!
Rare Groove
Posts: 406 Forum Member
✭
Oh Oshama the coward talked a good fight and after all the talk he got scared of taking the vote to congress. I guess he did not want to be humiliated like this poodle Cameron.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24043751
Also, i have enjoyed watching this double dealing, lying donkey/monkey of a war monger get humiliated and outclassed by Putin.
He back tracked a lot and jumped back and forth over this yellow line.
Oh and this Obominbation still needs to hand back his Nobel peace prize:rolleyes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24043751
Also, i have enjoyed watching this double dealing, lying donkey/monkey of a war monger get humiliated and outclassed by Putin.
He back tracked a lot and jumped back and forth over this yellow line.
Oh and this Obominbation still needs to hand back his Nobel peace prize:rolleyes:
0
Comments
But yes, Putin 1, Obama 0.
:rolleyes:
Putin played him if you ask me. He spent weeks trying to convince everybody that the rebels had used the chemical weapons on their own fighters to stir up anger against Assad. Most of the world, including the US didn't buy it, and as soon as it looks like a US strike could be likely, Putin does a complete u-turn and decides it was in fact Assad forces that used them, and announces this plan, most likely to try and make Obama look like a fool.
Far play to Barrack for having the maturity to back down and adapt his plans as the situation shifts so quickly. He could have stuck to his plans to strike to save face, but he realises how bad that would look in the long run. I have to say, I prefer his tactics to the sneaky Russian underhand aporoach. Perhaps the fear of US strikes was just what Assad needed to hand over the weapons.
The American people overwhelmingly do not want another conflict and 'emotionally' feel we should not intervene in Syria's situation.
I am soooooo fine with a President that takes into consideration what overwhelmingly the American public wants (or doesn't want) and decides to put it at a congressional vote. In all honesty, what some of the British think does not concern me.
If by action and eventually (hypothetically) causing of a mid east conflict, no doubt the British would eventually be involved. Guess y'all have to figure out WHAT direction you would have Obama choose.. Action/Diplomacy?
edited to add: Grow the F' up,. I regret posting to this thread but wanted to own what i wrote.
An armed response was never really the right route, at most a UN peacekeeping force or similar was the way to but bombing would have achieved nothing.
I wonder sometimes if people like OP have any moral compass :rolleyes:
And what will we do to the rebels ( the innocent people we all refer to ) who are killing school children on the government side ? Chemical weapons use was disgusting but no side in this is innocent other than some of its victims.
To be fair, Obama had resisted military action for a long time. It was only after chemical weapons were used that he wanted intervention.
I also think a president who is able to adapt to public iinterests and isn't so stubburn as to stay on a particular course when it isn't right at this time is much more valuable than one who is so full of his own self pride, he refuses to back down, which is what an actual warmonger would do.
Military action was to try and make sure it doesn't happen again. Now it seems diplomacy could do the same without bombings and more deaths. Surely most people with a 'moral compass' would want that?
Why not? The US did nothing when Israel used chemical weapons on Palestinians.
and do you think no longer being able to deploy chemical weapons against civilians is a good thing?
Given that we probably wouldn't be here if the UK parliament had voted to back military action, our MPs may just have averted World War 3....
He's never been a confrontational president.
Every bit of the US take on this simply parallels the British take - two countries that largely police the world (because it can't chuffing well behave itself) whose people have turned round and said 'ENOUGH', we don't want involving THIS time'.
And it was a fair, democratic call. Both leaders have listened.
Obama's hands are tied by whatever he does but if you, brave keyboard warrior, OP, would like to see a World War Three then by all means go sign up for conscription. It's never humiliating or wrong to walk away from something that may have far, far worse repercussions for a lot more people.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130909/06525624451/despite-growing-evidence-nsas-omnipresence-state-dept-hands-off-anti-surveillance-tech-to-syrian-rebels.shtml
The same people will be the first crying for help if things were not so comfy behind the keyboards .
You mean those cuddly, morally upstanding rebels,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24039309
An Italian war correspondent held captive by multiple armed groups in Syria has spoken of how he was treated "like an animal".