Gingrich: Putin is a dictator and a thug

[NYcarbineer]

Interesting. Where is the president on this issue? Red lines drawn then erased. Congressional approval for military action sought then forgotten.

Extremely difficult to stay on the opposite side of any position when there is none.

When did going to Congress for the authorization of the use of military force become a bad thing?

Its the right thing to do. Bush did it on Iraq. But Obama said he did not need congress, he could bomb any country he wants on his own.

Who was right, Bush or Obama?

The president can take military action without Congress, if the circumstances warrant such action.

 

[Redfish]

When did going to Congress for the authorization of the use of military force become a bad thing?

Its the right thing to do. Bush did it on Iraq. But Obama said he did not need congress, he could bomb any country he wants on his own.

Who was right, Bush or Obama?

The president can take military action without Congress, if the circumstances warrant such action.

Yes, when there is an immediate danger to the USA or its people. please explain how the civil war in Syria presents an immediate danger to the USA or its people.

 

[Redfish]

When did going to Congress for the authorization of the use of military force become a bad thing?

When the Black Guy Did It.

Which is pretty much anything Obama does. The minute Obama does it, it's bad.

George Bush Sr. drew a 'line in the sand' against Iraq over Kuwait in 1990, but never acted on it until he got congressional authorization in Jan. of 1991.

I defy anyone to find a conservative complaint about that timeline.

He waited for a world concensus and violations of UN resolutions, i.e. he did it right.

I am not saying that I think attacking Iraq was right or that we should have done it, I am just saying the Bush had the approval of congress and the world community BEFORE doing it.

 

[JoeB131]

When the Black Guy Did It.

Which is pretty much anything Obama does. The minute Obama does it, it's bad.

George Bush Sr. drew a 'line in the sand' against Iraq over Kuwait in 1990, but never acted on it until he got congressional authorization in Jan. of 1991.

I defy anyone to find a conservative complaint about that timeline.

He waited for a world concensus and violations of UN resolutions, i.e. he did it right.

I am not saying that I think attacking Iraq was right or that we should have done it, I am just saying the Bush had the approval of congress and the world community BEFORE doing it.

Which is what Obama is attempting to do...

And he might pull off our goals without firing a shot.

So what's your problem again?

 

[Meathead]

We can safely say that OBama doesn't amount to a zit on Reagan's ass. Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot or collapsing in front of a Russian counterpart.

 

[JoeB131]

We can safely say that OBama doesn't amount to a zit on Reagan's ass. Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot or collapsing in front of a Russian counterpart.

If Reagan won the Cold War, why was the CIA still publishing material in 1989 that called the USSR an imminent threat to the US?

The reality was, the USSR's collapse caught everyone in Washington by surprise. We found out the Evil Empire was really just a collection of third world countries.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Its the right thing to do. Bush did it on Iraq. But Obama said he did not need congress, he could bomb any country he wants on his own.

Who was right, Bush or Obama?

The president can take military action without Congress, if the circumstances warrant such action.

Yes, when there is an immediate danger to the USA or its people. please explain how the civil war in Syria presents an immediate danger to the USA or its people.

Obama has gone to Congress. What's your complaint?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We can safely say that OBama doesn't amount to a zit on Reagan's ass. Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot or collapsing in front of a Russian counterpart.

Won what? I wasn't aware that Russia was no longer a military threat to the United States.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When the Black Guy Did It.

Which is pretty much anything Obama does. The minute Obama does it, it's bad.

George Bush Sr. drew a 'line in the sand' against Iraq over Kuwait in 1990, but never acted on it until he got congressional authorization in Jan. of 1991.

I defy anyone to find a conservative complaint about that timeline.

He waited for a world concensus and violations of UN resolutions, i.e. he did it right.

I am not saying that I think attacking Iraq was right or that we should have done it, I am just saying the Bush had the approval of congress and the world community BEFORE doing it.

1990. Bush Sr. did not have congressional approval when he drew a line in the sand against Iraq.

 

[kaz]

How so? Russia and syria are buddies..so the idea russia came up with a solution is silly. There is a back door deal here as well.

What Putin won

- Assad is still in power buying weapons from Russia
- Russia still has their base in Syria
- Assad is still blocking the Qatar pipeline to Europe Russia opposes because it would compete with theirs and they are building a second one.
- Iran isn't being sucked into a war which is bad for Russian business.

What Putin lost

- nothing

The endless rhetoric by the left that Obama schooled Putin on anything is baseless.

Putin 'won' that? When did Putin not already have all that?

Maybe in hindsight you shouldn't have dropped out of school after the fifth grade.

 

[kaz]

How so? Russia and syria are buddies..so the idea russia came up with a solution is silly. There is a back door deal here as well.

What Putin won

- Assad is still in power buying weapons from Russia
- Russia still has their base in Syria
- Assad is still blocking the Qatar pipeline to Europe Russia opposes because it would compete with theirs and they are building a second one.
- Iran isn't being sucked into a war which is bad for Russian business.

What Putin lost

- nothing

The endless rhetoric by the left that Obama schooled Putin on anything is baseless.

so he gained the status quo.

You people are seriously not bright.

 

[rdean]

.

And it continues, the sociopathic thug Putin is in charge:

Obama concedes to Russia; will remove military trigger on Syria - The Hill's Global Affairs

.

From your link:

United States must take the threat of force off the table if Syria is to turn over its chemical weapons arsenal

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. If they turn over their weapons we won't attack? OK. I'm all for it.

But if they don't turn them over? Then what?

See how that works? It's called "negotiation". Republicans don't do that because they don't understand the concept. All they know are lies, suppression, trickery and destruction. Do you want examples? There are so many.

 

[Katzndogz]

As part of the deal was to include a US promise not to arm the rebels, what happened with that?

Assad remains in power. Any future use of chemical weapons will obviously NOT be him. US involvement is limited to use of chemical weapons leaving Assad free to use any other weapons. Russia gets to look like the only adult in the room.

Well done, President Putin, well done indeed.

 

[Mac1958]

.

And it continues, the sociopathic thug Putin is in charge:

Obama concedes to Russia; will remove military trigger on Syria - The Hill's Global Affairs

.

From your link:

United States must take the threat of force off the table if Syria is to turn over its chemical weapons arsenal

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. If they turn over their weapons we won't attack? OK. I'm all for it.

But if they don't turn them over? Then what?

See how that works? It's called "negotiation". Republicans don't do that because they don't understand the concept. All they know are lies, suppression, trickery and destruction. Do you want examples? There are so many.

No, they won't turn over their weapons as long as we're threatening to attack.

See the difference?

Okay, trick question. I know you don't. Er, won't.

I hope Putin at least sends us a Thank You card for this. He already scolded us in the op-ed. Obama & Kerry put us in the position to be scolded by a sociopathic, murderous thug. Defend it all you want, I realize you're ideologically obligated to.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What Putin won

- Assad is still in power buying weapons from Russia
- Russia still has their base in Syria
- Assad is still blocking the Qatar pipeline to Europe Russia opposes because it would compete with theirs and they are building a second one.
- Iran isn't being sucked into a war which is bad for Russian business.

What Putin lost

- nothing

The endless rhetoric by the left that Obama schooled Putin on anything is baseless.

Putin 'won' that? When did Putin not already have all that?

Maybe in hindsight you shouldn't have dropped out of school after the fifth grade.

lol, this gets funnier all the time. The ODS sufferers keep claiming that this was some sort of big win for Putin and some big loss for Obama,

but not one of them can put into plain English what Putin won and what Obama lost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

And it continues, the sociopathic thug Putin is in charge:

Obama concedes to Russia; will remove military trigger on Syria - The Hill's Global Affairs

.

From your link:

United States must take the threat of force off the table if Syria is to turn over its chemical weapons arsenal

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. If they turn over their weapons we won't attack? OK. I'm all for it.

But if they don't turn them over? Then what?

See how that works? It's called "negotiation". Republicans don't do that because they don't understand the concept. All they know are lies, suppression, trickery and destruction. Do you want examples? There are so many.

Isn't it hilarious? The 'nuts who were throwing a tantrum because Obama might use force against Syria are now throwing a tantrum because he's pursuing a possible solution that doesn't involve military force.

Amazing. I would kill myself if I were that stupid.

 

[Redfish]

.

And it continues, the sociopathic thug Putin is in charge:

Obama concedes to Russia; will remove military trigger on Syria - The Hill's Global Affairs

.

From your link:

United States must take the threat of force off the table if Syria is to turn over its chemical weapons arsenal

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. If they turn over their weapons we won't attack? OK. I'm all for it.

But if they don't turn them over? Then what?

See how that works? It's called "negotiation". Republicans don't do that because they don't understand the concept. All they know are lies, suppression, trickery and destruction. Do you want examples? There are so many.

Isn't it hilarious? The 'nuts who were throwing a tantrum because Obama might use force against Syria are now throwing a tantrum because he's pursuing a possible solution that doesn't involve military force.

Amazing. I would kill myself if I were that stupid.[/QUOTE]

Obama has not proposed a solution---Putin did. Putin punked obama on this, big time.

will you use a gun or poison?

 

[Katzndogz]

Putin is now taking his major success against obama, which makes him de facto leader in the middle east to Iran.

Report: Putin to travel to Iran for nuclear strategy talks | The Daily Caller

 

[NYcarbineer]

From your link:

United States must take the threat of force off the table if Syria is to turn over its chemical weapons arsenal

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. If they turn over their weapons we won't attack? OK. I'm all for it.

But if they don't turn them over? Then what?

See how that works? It's called "negotiation". Republicans don't do that because they don't understand the concept. All they know are lies, suppression, trickery and destruction. Do you want examples? There are so many.

Isn't it hilarious? The 'nuts who were throwing a tantrum because Obama might use force against Syria are now throwing a tantrum because he's pursuing a possible solution that doesn't involve military force.

Amazing. I would kill myself if I were that stupid.[/QUOTE]

Obama has not proposed a solution---Putin did. Putin punked obama on this, big time.

will you use a gun or poison?

Russia has a veto vote on the Security Council, genius.

 

[Mac1958]

From your link:

United States must take the threat of force off the table if Syria is to turn over its chemical weapons arsenal

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. If they turn over their weapons we won't attack? OK. I'm all for it.

But if they don't turn them over? Then what?

See how that works? It's called "negotiation". Republicans don't do that because they don't understand the concept. All they know are lies, suppression, trickery and destruction. Do you want examples? There are so many.

Isn't it hilarious? The 'nuts who were throwing a tantrum because Obama might use force against Syria are now throwing a tantrum because he's pursuing a possible solution that doesn't involve military force.

Amazing. I would kill myself if I were that stupid.[/QUOTE]

Obama has not proposed a solution---Putin did. Putin punked obama on this, big time.

will you use a gun or poison?

Many who call others "stupid" for daring to disagree with them don't have any mirrors in their homes.

.