i'm still unclear, is it ok for assad to use chemical weapons or not ??

[washamericom]

this is in politics so i'll justify it being here. it's obama's foreign policy, and would be bernie's or hillary's or martin o'malley's (or as trump calls o'malley "the third guy")

Trump would not have first drawn that ridiculous red line that would change our calculus.

i think security is slipping away. obama make's idle threats and then, telegraphs his plans to the enemy, i don't think that's good for America. trump wants to keep the enemy "off guard", not tell them what we will and won't do. that makes more sense to me. we are less secure than we were before obama. the world is a mess, and it's coming here.

Obama 'red line' erased as Bashar Assad's chemical weapons use goes unchecked by U.S. military - Washington Times

By James S. RobbinsOct. 13, 2015

On Sunday, President Barack Obama told Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" that despite Russia's armed intervention in Syria, he was going to stay the course. However, it is unclear what that course is, or why Obama believes it will lead to success.


RELATED

Obama’s Solution Lies in His Own Advice on Iraq and Syria
There is little to cheer about in Syria. The United States has met none of its strategic objectives. The Islamic State group still controls as much territory as it did a year ago, if not more. A half-billion dollar U.S. Defense Department investment in training opposition fighters produced "four or five" who are probably either dead or fighting with the enemy. Air and drone strikes seem infrequent, routine and ineffective. And Syrian strongman President Bashar Assad, whom Obama demanded be removed from power over four years ago, is still in Damascus. With Moscow's support, he is likely to remain there.

Part of the problem is the general aimlessness in the U.S. approach to Syria. The White House has consistently called for a negotiated transfer of power in Damascus to a coalition successor government, but it is unclear who would be part of it, what it would look like and, most importantly, how it would take power.



obama "staying the course" interesting choice of words.

 

[TNHarley]

He compalisn when he does but when Islamic jihadists do it in Syria, not a fuckin word.
Take last week for example. Maybe I missed him mention it?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Ask Pooting.

Oh wait ...

 

[washamericom]

Ask Pooting.

Oh wait ...

Iranian supreme leader says Assad must stay in power to defeat ISIS

Krauthammer: "Obama's Days Are Numbered, But Not Assad's"

Obama Contradicts Kerry at UN: Syria's 'Tyrant' Assad Must Go


In remarks to the United Nations General Assembly, President Barack Obama insisted that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must be removed from power. His statement contradicts a remark from Secretary of State John Kerry that Assad is necessary to bring peace in the region.

“Yes, realism dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out ISIL [Islamic State], but realism requires a managed transition away from Assad into a new leader and an inclusive government that recognizes that there must be an end to this chaos so that the Syrian people can begin to rebuild,” he claimed.

He continued: “We’re told that such retrenchment is required to beat back disorder, that it’s the only way to stamp out terrorism or prevent foreign meddling. In accordance with this logic, we should support tyrants like Bashar al-Assad who drops barrel bombs to massacre innocent children, because the alternative is surely worse.”

The U.S. has been among the most vocal critics of Assad under President Obama since the Syrian Civil War began in 2011. However, only ten days ago, Kerry said that Assad is needed for Syria.

“Our focus remains on destroying ISIL and also on a political settlement with respect to Syria, which we believe cannot be achieved with the long-term presence of Assad,” he stated.


i thought, wow our foreign policy is all over the place, that's weird for America, then i remembered that our foreign policy comes from a box of cracker jack.