Biden Says President Should Be Impeached IF...

esmith said:

No I'm not bored, just a concerned citizen that thinks Obama has backed himself into a corner and can't figure how to get out. His foreign policy has more holes in it than a shotgun pattern test.

Click to expand...

A lot of the US agrees with you including me. It is my opinion that Obama isn't going to do anything "unilaterally" when it involves ground troops. Obama is not a war president, he is a social reforms president. Congress and the US people are going to have to strongly demand that he uses ground troops, which they won't, before he will use them and even then he will not want to. In Libya the US just took out the Libyan air power and the rest was done mostly by the rebels backed up by the French. And even if Obama wanted to send in ground troops, which he absolutely does not want to because it is his nature, there is not any money for it. The US and the rest of the western world is broke. The world has to do something even though there is no political will or money for it because chemical weapons are a threat to the whole world. And if Obama can thump things from a distance, for the most part, he will help "unilaterally". This is a world problem not a just US problem and Obama should have said that, "the world will not stand for it" and not said that, "the US won't stand for it." Obama is an intellectual social reforms president and he knows absolutely nothing about military stuff and would actually rather not have to deal with it. In my opinion. And I do not know why Biden is shooting his mouth off. That is absolutely ridiculous and he should know better. john

tytlyf said:

Oh ya, Libya didn't turn into a war. So much for that theory.

Click to expand...

The "theory" is that we can't predict how things will turn out.
Your approach is the Russian roulette survivor's reasoning, ie,
"I played the game once, & didn't have a problem. I'm skilled at this."

Bush is a war mongering loon like his father. He didn't take the steps necessary like Obama is to make sure we're absolutely certain.

Click to expand...

Ach! Dat's just name calling.
Bush isn't so dumb (similar academic performance to Gore & Kerry....not great, but slightly above average), & Obama isn't so smart (secret grades, & he never made full professor). But bad decisions typically aren't the result of insufficient intelligence or even lack of information...they're made on impulse, whim & intuition, which people tend to trust too much. Obama & his minions are not immune. To go to war, even a precise limited one, is to enter an unpredictable future. So no matter how bad things are in Syria, that's their tough luck....let's our money, guns & soldiers at home.

Revoltingest said:

Ach! Dat's just name calling.
Bush isn't so dumb (similar academic performance to Gore & Kerry....not great, but slightly above average), & Obama isn't so smart (secret grades, & he never made full professor). But bad decisions typically aren't the result of insufficient intelligence or even lack of information...they're made on impulse, whim & intuition, which people tend to trust too much. Obama & his minions are not immune. To go to war, even a precise limited one, is to enter an unpredictable future. So no matter how bad things are in Syria, that's their tough luck....let's our money, guns & soldiers at home.

Click to expand...

! That was well said, in my opinion. john

tytlyf said:

There's a difference between precision strikes and going to war esmith.

Click to expand...

No there's not. Any kind of military action against a foreign nation is an act of war. If a foreign nation, say Russia, launched "precision strikes" into Washington D.C. would that not be an act of war? :sarcastic

Adramelek said:

No there's not. Any kind of military action against a foreign nation is an act of war. If a foreign nation, say Russia, launched "precision strikes" into Washington D.C. would that not be an act of war? :sarcastic

Click to expand...

It would certainly result in a whole lotta imprecise follow up violence on both sides.
Anyone who says they know how it will turn out is deluded. Tytlyf thinks that the
occasional right prediction means something. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Adramelek said:

No there's not. Any kind of military action against a foreign nation is an act of war. If a foreign nation, say Russia, launched "precision strikes" into Washington D.C. would that not be an act of war? :sarcastic

Click to expand...

Define military action. Surveillance flight? Espionage? They are military actions, but not a causus belli.

Adramelek said:

No there's not. Any kind of military action against a foreign nation is an act of war. If a foreign nation, say Russia, launched "precision strikes" into Washington D.C. would that not be an act of war? :sarcastic

Click to expand...

Depends if it were provoked. We've been drone striking pakistan for a while and that's essentially the same thing. They're an ally too.
With Syria you have a dictator who's killing civilians. With the chemical attack, a strike is imminent. America is viewed in the world as the nation that comes to the aid of others. That's why countries rely on us. To do nothing in this chemical attack (even though not directed at America) would show the US isn't going to keep their promise. (Kerry elaborated this viewpoint well)
The response will be stronger than in Libya. But I presume the president is being briefed with a plan to cripple the Assad regime just enough that it allows the rebels to take over.
If Assad should attack in some way after that, I doubt it would be anything close to starting a war. Part of planning a precision strike is additionally taking into the accountability of the retaliatory weapons that could be used. The strikes we see will render any counter attack useless.

On a side note, I bet that rocket recently launched from CA put some sort of new surveillance satellite up for this specific cause.

I would like to hear what the UN inspections report is .Even though they left a day early.(wonder why?) ..as to direct evidence chemical warfare was used .(and I think it was).But then is the question "by whom"?????

DallasApple said:

I would like to hear what the UN inspections report is .Even though they left a day early.(wonder why?) ..as to direct evidence chemical warfare was used .(and I think it was).But then is the question "by whom"?????

Click to expand...

by whom? the regime.
The UN cannot place blame, their job is to confirm the attack

tytlyf said:

The UN cannot place blame, their job is to confirm the attack

Click to expand...

Really? Is this in their charter somewhere?

While I agree with Esmith that Obama attacking Syria, even with so called "precision strikes" (there is always innocent collateral death), is hypocrisy ad a betrayal to those that elected him, I can't help but wonder about the hypocrisy of attacking Obama for the same things the Right once defended Bush for doing.

tumbleweed41 said:

While I agree with Esmith that Obama attacking Syria, even with so called "precision strikes" (there is always innocent collateral death), is hypocrisy ad a betrayal to those that elected him, I can't help but wonder about the hypocrisy of attacking Obama for the same things the Right once defended Bush for doing.

Click to expand...

IMO, it's only hypocrisy if esmith actually defended Bush. Has that occurred?

I think Bush was criticized by a lot of center and right-leaning people for these very same types of actions.

4consideration said:

IMO, it's only hypocrisy if esmith actually defended Bush. Has that occurred?

I think Bush was criticized by a lot of center and right-leaning people for these very same types of actions.

Click to expand...

That's only true if we are discussing esmith personally.

The tone of the OP and many of the posts since seem to focus on the parties and their members/politicians. For members of congress to berate Bush and give Obama a pass, or vice versa, is certainly hypocrisy.

Tarheeler said:

That's only true if we are discussing esmith personally.

The tone of the OP and many of the posts since seem to focus on the parties and their members/politicians. For members of congress to berate Bush and give Obama a pass, or vice versa, is certainly hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

You're right. I took it that way -- as though the word hypocrisy was being applied to esmith position personally. If that's not what was meant, then I stand corrected.

4consideration said:

You're right. I took it that way -- as though the word hypocrisy was being applied to esmith position personally. If that's not what was meant, then I stand corrected.

Click to expand...

No, just the general hypocrisy of the situation.

Revoltingest said:

Really? Is this in their charter somewhere?

Click to expand...

It is if the UN Security Counsel is in a state of dead lock. When the giants are having problems with each other everybody else has to be neutral.

Wirey said:

Define military action. Surveillance flight? Espionage? They are military actions, but not a causus belli.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about actions of force. Surveillance and espionage is intelligence gathering, primarily under the aegis of the CIA.

4consideration said:

IMO, it's only hypocrisy if esmith actually defended Bush. Has that occurred?

Click to expand...

Good question. The answer is I have never defended or attacked President G.W. Bush on any of the military actions he undertook. I will say this though, he did have Congressional approval for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether I disagree or agree with the actions is another issue.

esmith said:

Good question. The answer is I have never defended or attacked President G.W. Bush on any of the military actions he undertook. I will say this though, he did have Congressional approval for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether I disagree or agree with the actions is another issue.

Click to expand...

Didn't he and his boys lie to get that approval? The whole 'weapons of mass destruction right here in this picture' thing? Isn't that the same as not really having it?