Krauthammer: British parliament voting against action in Syria “ Complete Humiliation

[Revmitchell]

This is a complete humiliation for the Obama administration. Forget about the merits of what Obama wants to do, which I think it’s a bad idea, but let’s assume it’s a good idea. This involves the elementary conduct of international diplomacy, trying to get some allies aboard so you don’t act unilaterally.
So who’s the main ally in the world who has been with us in every trench for the last 100 years? The British. And now the British have voted against us.

The other supposed ally was the French, President Hollande, and now he’s saying we got to wait for the report from the UN inspectors which will be early next week. So here is Obama and the Democrats, who railed against the Bush administration for its supposedly unilateral invasion of Iraq where we had 48 allies for a mission that involved boots on the ground — a real invasion, a real war. And here’s Obama trying to gather an ally or two for a pinprick, and he gets nothing.


http://youngcons.com/krauthammer-br...on-in-syria-a-complete-humiliation-for-obama/

 

[Zaac]

I truly hope that the rest of the Christian community takes some time out to pray for the man and his decision making instead of always complaining about every little move he makes.

Some on this board must have dreams with Obama in them.

 

[exscentric]

"Some on this board must have dreams with Obama in them."

That would be me, I've had night mares for several years now.

" I truly hope that the rest of the Christian community takes some time out to pray for the man and his decision making instead of always complaining about every little move he makes."

Yest an observation. Just cuz some complain, dosen't mean they aren't praying.

 

[Jedi Knight]

This is a complete humiliation for the Obama administration. Forget about the merits of what Obama wants to do, which I think it’s a bad idea, but let’s assume it’s a good idea. This involves the elementary conduct of international diplomacy, trying to get some allies aboard so you don’t act unilaterally.
So who’s the main ally in the world who has been with us in every trench for the last 100 years? The British. And now the British have voted against us.

The other supposed ally was the French, President Hollande, and now he’s saying we got to wait for the report from the UN inspectors which will be early next week. So here is Obama and the Democrats, who railed against the Bush administration for its supposedly unilateral invasion of Iraq where we had 48 allies for a mission that involved boots on the ground — a real invasion, a real war. And here’s Obama trying to gather an ally or two for a pinprick, and he gets nothing.


http://youngcons.com/krauthammer-br...on-in-syria-a-complete-humiliation-for-obama/

He needs to be humbled seeing he accused Mr Bush many times then does the same himself.

 

[InTheLight]

I find it interesting that "W" was able to put together a coalition to invade Iraq (partially) on the argument that Saddam had used poisoned gas on the Kurds in 1988. In this instance we have incontrovertible proof that chemical weapons have been used in Syria and Obama can't get the U.S. top two allies to go along with his plans.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I find it interesting that "W" was able to put together a coalition to invade Iraq (partially) on the argument that Saddam had used poisoned gas on the Kurds in 1988. In this instance we have incontrovertible proof that chemical weapons have been used in Syria and Obama can't get the U.S. top two allies to go along with his plans.

It has nothing to do with who the president is. People are sick and tired of trying to make the world safe for democracy when they don't want democracy to begin with.

 

[ktn4eg]

Finally the Brits did something right! :thumbs:

 

[webdog]

It has nothing to do with who the president is. People are sick and tired of trying to make the world safe for democracy when they don't want democracy to begin with.

Thats not entirely accurate. Iraq intelligence showed and later proved there were plans in place to attack America after the invasion, regardless of whether weapons were never found (they went to Syria wh are using them). Syria is no direct threat to the US. Entirely different scenarios.

 

[pinoybaptist]

there is no incontrovertible proof the Syrian leader used chemical weapons on his own people.
The proof there is no proof, is the Brits voting against intervention on the grounds the white house tenant is raising.
and even if the Syrian leader did use chemical weapons, is the US chief enforcer of chemical weapons treaties ?

 

[Revmitchell]

It has nothing to do with who the president is. People are sick and tired of trying to make the world safe for democracy when they don't want democracy to begin with.

It has everything to do with who the President is. When people here in America do not agree with this President the claim is because he is black. So apparently so is the UK.

Obama is so arrogant he is not willing to do anything to build coalitions. He refused to talk with Putin over Snowden citing "Why should I have to?"

However his arrogance works in our favor this time. We have no business going into Syria at all.

 

[Inspector Javert]

It has everything to do with who the President is. When people here in America do not agree with this President the claim is because he is black. So apparently so is the UK.

Obama is so arrogant he is not willing to do anything to build coalitions. He refused to talk with Putin over Snowden citing "Why should I have to?"

However his arrogance works in our favor this time. We have no business going into Syria at all.

:thumbsup:Obama's personal and intentional insults and snubs to the British may have caught up with him. He has (quite intentionally) taken every available opportunity to insult them and undermine our Alliance with them. I found this editorial interesting. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/30/obama-has-only-himself-to-blame-for-britains-syria-snub/..................from the article: ...To see this no vote as just about Syria does not fully explain the mentality in the UK. Instead, we must look at the state of the Anglo-American alliance. For most interventions do not directly serve British interests, but American. Britain therefore goes into battle because America is Britain’s strongest ally, and a strong America means a strong Great Britain.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Another Obama gem:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner...mas-british-gift-gaffe-not-reported-u-s-media

 

[Zaac]

It has nothing to do with who the president is. People are sick and tired of trying to make the world safe for democracy when they don't want democracy to begin with.

BINGO.:thumbsup: I've seen the mass graves. And the Kurdish people will tell you first hand who did it.

The British people have the same problem we have in the US: they are tired of fighting wars and sending their soldiers to war. They are experiencing war malaise just as Americans are. It's not a surprise that their parliament said no if you pay attention to the country's mood. Not to mention there is an election coming up.

Neither the British nor the American electorate are thrilled about giving lives to help folks who aren't, as you said C4K, looking for democracy.

 

[Zaac]

It has everything to do with who the President is. When people here in America do not agree with this President the claim is because he is black.

In the imaginations of those looking for a race angle, sure.

So apparently so is the UK.

Has someone come out and said this? The people against the President and his administration seem to make race an issue much more than he and his administration do.

Obama is so arrogant he is not willing to do anything to build coalitions. He refused to talk with Putin over Snowden citing "Why should I have to?"

People said the same thing about George Bush.

However his arrogance works in our favor this time. We have no business going into Syria at all.

Perhaps. But the nature of this country of late is to do a lot of stuff we ain't got no business doing.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Has someone come out and said this? The people against the President and his administration seem to make race an issue much more than he and his administration do.

That is either the most ignorant, or the most dishonest thing I have ever heard. That is essentially provably false.....NONE of Obama's detractors care a fig about his race (or anyone else's)...ONLY OBAMA makes horrifically charged statements like "If I had a son...he would look like Trayvon".

People said the same thing about George Bush.

Stupid ones did, sure....but, it is also stupid people who elected Obama in the first place...Here are the facts:

George Bush: Coalition of 48 countries including:
Brazil, England, Australia, Canada, Poland, U.A.E. Egypt, Italy, Ukraine, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Czech Republic, Belgium, Austria, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Chile, Columbia, South Korea, Indonesia, Spain, Israel, Greece........

Obama (scoring a tentative 4 countries so far) can't get Great Britain, Germany, Australia, Canada or a particularly committal France...

Only a Communist Leftist can compare the lies about Bush's "Unilateral" decisions to Obama's...he can't even convince the U.K. to be on our side...

Newsflash: If even the BRITS aren't with you...than you're the worst failure of a President possible in the last 100 years.

Run the numbers on what "other people said" about Bush's "unilateral" decisions...and they'll be DEMONSTABLY false every time.

Perhaps. But the nature of this country of late is to do a lot of stuff we ain't got no business doing.

Under Obama it's been:
Libya-WRONG
Egypt-WRONG
Afghanistan-WRONG
Syria-WRONG
Iran-WRONG (<--- Bush kinda mucked that up too)

 

[General Mung Beans]

Stupid ones did, sure....but, it is also stupid people who elected Obama in the first place...Here are the facts:

George Bush: Coalition of 48 countries including:
Brazil, England, Australia, Canada, Poland, U.A.E. Egypt, Italy, Ukraine, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Czech Republic, Belgium, Austria, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Chile, Columbia, South Korea, Indonesia, Spain, Israel, Greece........

Some of these are absolutely false: for example India sent no troops to Iraq neither did Israel or Saudi Arabia.

Obama (scoring a tentative 4 countries so far) can't get Great Britain, Germany, Australia, Canada or a particularly committal France...

Only a Communist Leftist can compare the lies about Bush's "Unilateral" decisions to Obama's...he can't even convince the U.K. to be on our side...

A Communist leftist would be too busy denouncing both Obama and Bush as a bunch of capitalist imperialists to care.

Newsflash: If even the BRITS aren't with you...than you're the worst failure of a President possible in the last 100 years.

Actually Cameron is all for intervention, its the situation in the British Parliament due to Cameron being in a coalition with the Liberal Democratic Party that is forcing the political maneuvers.

Run the numbers on what "other people said" about Bush's "unilateral" decisions...and they'll be DEMONSTABLY false every time.

Under Obama it's been:
Libya-WRONG

How so? We removed a dictator who murdered hundreds of Americans, with minimal air support.

Egypt-WRONG

So what should Obama do? Seems to me he's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Afghanistan-WRONG

How so?

Syria-WRONG

How so?

Iran-WRONG (<--- Bush kinda mucked that up too)

So you're disappointed we did not launch a massive invasion of Iran?

 

[Inspector Javert]

So you're disappointed we did not launch a massive invasion of Iran?

No......why would you immediately conclude something so simplistic? I don't think we would have had to.

 

[Revmitchell]

Just because they did not send troops does not mean they were not part of the coalition. Some people need to learn about coalitions and how they work.

 

[General Mung Beans]

No......why would you immediately conclude something so simplistic? I don't think we would have had to.

I was being sarcastic.

Just because they did not send troops does not mean they were not part of the coalition. Some people need to learn about coalitions and how they work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coalition_of_the_willing.svg

Which did not include those countries.

 

[Revmitchell]

From the source

Forty-nine countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

This number is still growing, and it is no accident that many member nations of the Coalition recently escaped from the boot of a tyrant or have felt the scourge of terrorism. All Coalition member nations understand the threat Saddam Hussein's weapons pose to the world and the devastation his regime has wreaked on the Iraqi people.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html

From your own source the number was not yet complete. Also trying to nitpic the countries does nothing to disprove the fact that Bush was able to build a coalition which we see here he did a good job.