Sowell: Syria and Obama

[Wehrwolfen]

By Thomas Sowell
September 10, 2013

I cannot see why even a single American, a single Israeli or a single Syrian civilian should be killed as a result of a token U.S. military action, undertaken simply to spare Barack Obama the embarrassment of doing nothing, after his ill-advised public ultimatum to the Syrian government to not use chemical weapons was ignored.

Some people say that some military response is necessary, not to spare Obama a personal humiliation, but to spare the American presidency from losing all credibility — and therefore losing the ability to deter future threats to the United States without bloodshed.

There is no question that the credibility of the presidency — regardless of who holds that office — is a major asset of this country. Another way of saying the same thing is that Barack Obama has recklessly risked the credibility of future presidents, and the future safety of this country, by his glib words and weak actions.

Some people who disagree with Obama's issuance of a public ultimatum to the Assad regime in the first place, and who also disagree with his recent threat of military action against Syria, nevertheless say that we must back up that threat now, simply to forestall future dangers from a loss of American credibility in the eyes of other countries, including both our enemies and our allies.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/syria-and-obama.html

The question remains. Will and is Obama willing to start another World War?

 

[OriginalShroom]

We don't need to get into a war to save Obama's face.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

By Thomas Sowell
September 10, 2013

Chickens are coming home to roost for Barack Obama, both at home and overseas. When he first entered the White house, to worldwide acclaim, and backed by huge majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, he could do whatever he wanted — and could do no wrong, in the eyes of the mainstream media.

People believed whatever he said, whether about how he would cut the federal deficit in half during his first term or how people could keep their current insurance and their current doctor under ObamaCare, which would also insure millions more people and yet somehow lower the costs at the same time.

If he could have done these things, it is hard to know what he could have done for an encore. Walking on water would have been an anticlimax.

Of course he did none of these things. The Obama administration added more to the national debt in his first term than President Bush had in both his terms put together. As for ObamaCare, which has not yet fully taken effect, health care costs have already gone up, and many people's hours of work have already gone down, as employers seek to escape the huge costs of ObamaCare by hiring part-time workers, who are exempt.

As for foreign policy, President Obama began by betraying a pre-existing American commitment to allies in Eastern Europe, to supply them with an anti-missile defense system. These nations had risked the wrath of Russia by allying themselves with the United States, but Obama blithely talked about pressing the "reset button," as he flew off to Moscow to try to cut a deal with the Russians behind their back.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/syria-and-obama-part-ii.html

The only thing Obama can do now to force the country into war is rain missiles on Bandar Šâhpur and force Iran to act themselves. WWIII will be attributed to a Noble Prize winner.

 

[g5000]

We don't need to get into a war to save Obama's face.

It's not a war. It's a missile strike.

I seem to recall Bush drawing no end of red lines when it came to Hussein. Then he started the first pre-emptive war in American history. Hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of US dead, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, a boon for Al Qaeda, 3 trillion dollars spent, eight years of war.

This is a missile strike which will fire less missiles than were fired in the first 60 seconds of Bush's ACTUAL war.

 

[Moonglow]

Thomas Sowell, the man the GOP would not let be president.

 

[Bfgrn]

It wouldn't matter what the President said, didn't say, did or didn't do... he would be wrong. Thomas Sowell is a shill.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

We don't need to get into a war to save Obama's face.

It's not a war. It's a missile strike.

I seem to recall Bush drawing no end of red lines when it came to Hussein. Then he started the first pre-emptive war in American history. Hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of US dead, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, a boon for Al Qaeda, 3 trillion dollars spent, eight years of war.

This is a missile strike which will fire less missiles than were fired in the first 60 seconds of Bush's ACTUAL war.

A missile strike is not an act of war?

What is it then, a candygram?

 

[The T]

By Thomas Sowell
September 10, 2013

I cannot see why even a single American, a single Israeli or a single Syrian civilian should be killed as a result of a token U.S. military action, undertaken simply to spare Barack Obama the embarrassment of doing nothing, after his ill-advised public ultimatum to the Syrian government to not use chemical weapons was ignored.

Some people say that some military response is necessary, not to spare Obama a personal humiliation, but to spare the American presidency from losing all credibility — and therefore losing the ability to deter future threats to the United States without bloodshed.

There is no question that the credibility of the presidency — regardless of who holds that office — is a major asset of this country. Another way of saying the same thing is that Barack Obama has recklessly risked the credibility of future presidents, and the future safety of this country, by his glib words and weak actions.

Some people who disagree with Obama's issuance of a public ultimatum to the Assad regime in the first place, and who also disagree with his recent threat of military action against Syria, nevertheless say that we must back up that threat now, simply to forestall future dangers from a loss of American credibility in the eyes of other countries, including both our enemies and our allies.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/syria-and-obama.html

The question remains. Will and is Obama willing to start another World War?

To save his own petulant whiney ass? YOU bet he would.

 

[tinydancer]

We don't need to get into a war to save Obama's face.

It's not a war. It's a missile strike.

I seem to recall Bush drawing no end of red lines when it came to Hussein. Then he started the first pre-emptive war in American history. Hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of US dead, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, a boon for Al Qaeda, 3 trillion dollars spent, eight years of war.

This is a missile strike which will fire less missiles than were fired in the first 60 seconds of Bush's ACTUAL war.

Why?

Unless you want to get your rocks off killing innocent syrians, why?

AND FUCK OFF over Iraq....................geeze louise. I hope you are single because otherwise I would pity your wife.

 

[tinydancer]

OK why do you libs want to bomb Syrians?

Come on now. Don't be shy. Why do you want to bomb the fuck out of innocent Syrians?

 

[tinydancer]

It wouldn't matter what the President said, didn't say, did or didn't do... he would be wrong. Thomas Sowell is a shill.

Why do you back your President wanting to bomb innocent people?

Make your case.

 

[chikenwing]

We don't need to get into a war to save Obama's face.

It's not a war. It's a missile strike.

I seem to recall Bush drawing no end of red lines when it came to Hussein. Then he started the first pre-emptive war in American history. Hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of US dead, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, a boon for Al Qaeda, 3 trillion dollars spent, eight years of war.

This is a missile strike which will fire less missiles than were fired in the first 60 seconds of Bush's ACTUAL war.

Always the Bush

That was then this is now.

 

[OriginalShroom]

We don't need to get into a war to save Obama's face.

It's not a war. It's a missile strike.

I seem to recall Bush drawing no end of red lines when it came to Hussein. Then he started the first pre-emptive war in American history. Hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of US dead, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, a boon for Al Qaeda, 3 trillion dollars spent, eight years of war.

This is a missile strike which will fire less missiles than were fired in the first 60 seconds of Bush's ACTUAL war.

Are you actually saying that this would be not be considered an act of war if the Syrians were firing missles into the U.S.?

 

[The T]

We don't need to get into a war to save Obama's face.

It's not a war. It's a missile strike.

I seem to recall Bush drawing no end of red lines when it came to Hussein. Then he started the first pre-emptive war in American history. Hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of US dead, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, a boon for Al Qaeda, 3 trillion dollars spent, eight years of war.

This is a missile strike which will fire less missiles than were fired in the first 60 seconds of Bush's ACTUAL war.

You may take that to the bank.

Are you actually saying that this would be not be considered an act of war if the Syrians were firing missles into the U.S.?

g is a typical LIB/Statist...knee-jerk...forget the consequences...These people cannot think ahead of TODAY.