Not that I'm in favor of a military response, but I am curious. (Reply #5)

In the discussion thread: Per the NY Times--no vote would be tough love for Obama, good for America [View all]

Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Sep 6, 2013, 10:49 AM

5. Not that I'm in favor of a military response, but I am curious.

Would a Republican president have as much trouble selling a Bush redux as it is turning out for Obama?

I will say this about Obama's democratic way. We're all in on this decision to walk away. For better or worse.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

62 replies	Author	Time	Post
Per the NY Times--no vote would be tough love for Obama, good for America [View all]	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	OP
I was thinking that doesn't sound all that bad to me.	dkf	Sep 2013	#1
It sounds bad to Bill Kristol. nt	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#2
Exactly. But he loves war.	dkf	Sep 2013	#3
It sounds bad to Bibi Netanyahu too.	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#4
Maybe this will get them closer to a two state solution.	dkf	Sep 2013	#6
It sounds bad to Thomas Friedman too.	avaistheone1	Sep 2013	#49
Agreed!!!	Buddaman	Sep 2013	#8
Not that I'm in favor of a military response, but I am curious.	Baitball Blogger	Sep 2013	#5
Of course not. half the numbnutz in the House still think Iraq was a swell idea.	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#7
We should be thankful to have a president that understood that unilateral decisions	Baitball Blogger	Sep 2013	#10
Well, he understands that the President can't act unilaterally	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#20
Let's be honest.	Baitball Blogger	Sep 2013	#23
We'd be having it, but we'd be in much more danger of losing it. nt	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#25
probably because they got filthy rich behind it.	barbtries	Sep 2013	#27
They're voting against Obama	jmowreader	Sep 2013	#47
No. Thank God the Reps are reflexive. At least they may have kept us out of WWIII.	dkf	Sep 2013	#9
I hear you.	Baitball Blogger	Sep 2013	#11
Would a Democratic president have as much trouble for a Kosovo redux?	blm	Sep 2013	#14
Congratulations to Bush for assuring the certain death of Geneva Conventions, and	blm	Sep 2013	#12
That's ridiculous. This belongs in an international court, not in the court of the US deciders	dkf	Sep 2013	#13
That will not happen ever again.	blm	Sep 2013	#15
Take your false equivalency and shove it.	Maedhros	Sep 2013	#46
I was being facetious - point being that the bottom line to forced inaction	blm	Sep 2013	#51
International courts are a joke and not an effective argument against military strikes.	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#18
The US cannot be expected to be the sole enforcer of international treaties. That is ridiculous.	dkf	Sep 2013	#21
That is the argument.	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#22
That's right. We have got to come to terms with the fact that sometimes a bad thing happens in this	totodeinhere	Sep 2013	#42
Or bad things in the rest of the world we can do something about (with positive results)...	deurbano	Sep 2013	#48
If the Geneva Conventions depend on the US illegally bombing other countries	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#16
Then put Clinton on trial for Kosovo.	blm	Sep 2013	#30
Kosovo was a success, but is as outdated of a model	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#31
Because weapons and their operators are dumber now?	blm	Sep 2013	#50
The US is weaker relative the rest of the planet	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#55
What makes you claim that AlQaeda is the alternative here?	blm	Sep 2013	#56
Bush isn't the one that was supposed to be prosecuting Bush's war crimes.	JoeyT	Sep 2013	#52
I concur - and it will always be that way as long as Bushes live.	blm	Sep 2013	#54
OTOH, Obama and Kerry have been proven truth tellers now:	freshwest	Sep 2013	#57
Thanks for your post, freshwest.. and the link	Cha	Sep 2013	#61
Oh, please. You're describing Superman, not the US government. No heroes here, pal. n/t	ocpagu	Sep 2013	#58
I doubt the next group of victims of chemical weapons are looking	blm	Sep 2013	#59
Yeah, they are desperate asking Obama to save them by striking them with missiles... n/t	ocpagu	Sep 2013	#60
Oh, I didn't know the plans called for striking villages and towns.	blm	Sep 2013	#62
I actually see this as a way out for Obama, he did not jump when the report went out Assad had used	Thinkingabout	Sep 2013	#17
I think he's being honest here--he's a true believer in non-proliferation	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#19
Which is funny because we have all the WMDs. Seems hypocritical doncha think?	dkf	Sep 2013	#24
Possession and use are two different things nt	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#26
So what is the statute of limitations on use of chemical weapons?	rhett o rick	Sep 2013	#28
I have been arguing that our official position on Syria's use of chemical weapons should be	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#29
That doesn't seem like a morally tenable position.	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2013	#32
I see dozens of homeless people every week where I live.	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#34
Maybe "so what" is not the best answer. But spending 200 million on bombing Syria is	rhett o rick	Sep 2013	#35
There is a continuum between bombing someone and callous indifference/nt	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2013	#37
Humanitarian aid to the refugees is a good thing. I hope that we can all agree that the world	totodeinhere	Sep 2013	#43
Well right now its "so what", "who cares"	Iliyah	Sep 2013	#44
I misunderstood. nm	rhett o rick	Sep 2013	#36
I would like the precedent.	whttevrr	Sep 2013	#33
My brother says this is all due to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.	Mellow Drama	Sep 2013	#38
Yes, Bush showed us the folly of overseas adventurism, nt	geek tragedy	Sep 2013	#39
Even without context, bombing Syria is stupid	Demeter	Sep 2013	#40
Your brother is right	dem in texas	Sep 2013	#41
I'd rather look like the chicken in this case, rather than	glowing	Sep 2013	#53
No it does not make sense. Your post that is.	Rebellious Republican	Sep 2013	#45

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.