Mr. Obama, you've already lost the Syrian War -- here's how to win the big one

This lady has the credentials to back up her opinion, and she hit the nail on the head

President Obama – face it, you’ve already lost the Syrian war. You probably lost it a year ago when you laid down that "red line" threat without any idea how you respond if Assad called your bluff.

As any parent knows, if you make a threat, you better be ready to carry it out. If you tell your teenager, “Be home before dark or I’ll ground you,” and then if he isn’t and you don’t, you can bet he will stay out ‘til midnight next time, and before long he’ll be sneaking out in the middle of the night.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...to-win-big-one/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2e3dXMNGI

 

what credentials? not trying to pick a fight, I just don't know what you're talking about. I also don't know what she's talking about when she said he's lost the Syrian war. it would be more accurate to say he's lost public support for himself and the war, right? That's not really all that compelling either, since you almost always see a jump in aproval ratings at the beginning of a military conflict. Beyond those fallacies, there most likely will be military action approved by congress, so it doesn't really shake out to say that by giving them a chance to vote on it will end in defeat through public pressure.

That's why I'm asking for the credentials you said she had without naming what they are. She obviously isn't very good at composing editorials or understanding American politics. I'm guessing they must have something to do with foreign policy or military matters?

 

I've never herd of her either....but it sounds like she has an oil finding stick. She clearly knows that we have more oil than we think we have.

Funny, she suggests we become oil independent and her first move is to import oil from Canada.

 

Google her name.

The bottom line is, Obama after shooting off his big mouth a year ago, now has to (*)(*)(*)(*) or get off the pot, which he should have never had to do. If he would have followed the example of Reagan when Gaddafi was warned, Reagan without warning launched a missile at his palace killing one of his wives and a couple of kids. Not a peep out of Gaddafi for at least a decade. That is what she is basically saying

 

Or, we can keep importing from nations that want us dead. Gee, what a hard choice

 

Or...we can invest in alternative forms of energy.......instead of dreaming about finding oil that does not exist.

Become the world's greenest nation and reduce use of fossil fuels altogether. That is winning.

BTW, it ain't Obama holding back the shovels....

http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/letting-sleeping-oil-deposits-lie

 

I don't like anything that relates to following an example set by Reagan. Anyway, We know Gaddafi wasn't behaving all of that time and eventually he got cocky again so I guess the threat didn't go too far. Plus what's a wife and a kid here and there. I think the chemical weapon thing as spooked a lot of people. Can't say we've lost anything yet, when we're not a country that loses anyway...look at Vietnam...Iraq...so on.

 

The woman is dumber'n dirt and you think she hit the nail on the head??? C'mon, pally, gimme a break. Obama didn't make this stuff up.

All she had to do was go to Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

 

What like wood that has 2% of our energy needs higher than wind or solar???.....

These things will never replace oil. Wind takes up tons of land and kill endangered species of birds. Are you for that? Even ol' Teddy didn't want them in his back yard, but it was OK for everyone else. How about those electric cars that take coal, while Obama destroys the coal industry.

 

We can have all of the above, but as long as we are tied to the middle east we are (*)(*)(*)(*)ed

BTW, it most certainly is Obama holding up the oil from Canada

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/president-obama-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline/story?id=15387980

We also have a vast amount of shale, and with 300 million+ people, solar energy won't come even close

 

Interesting article. I agree with the first half of her analysis. I disagree with her claim that becoming energy independent would mean we 'won' the Syrian conflict. Not that becoming energy independent is bad- I think every President since Carter has vowed that the U.S. should become energy independent.

 

Why should I have to do the research on a person you're quoting as an authority when I don't find her writing the least bit credible and have found no reason, in this solitary piece of her writing I've ever been exposed to, to respect her ability to persuade me toward her line of thinking? I would've been inclined to ignore the Fox article completely from the lead in quote, except that you said she had credentials. What are they?

 

God you are lazy, try Google, it is an amazing search engine. I can tell you have no desire to look at any opinion other than your own

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Troia_McFarland

an American communications consultant. She served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs under President Ronald Reagan from 1982 to 1985. She also served as a speech writer to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger


McFarland is a graduate of George Washington University. Her government career began while she was a freshman at George Washington University, working part-time in the White House Situation Room typing the President's Daily Brief. She spent seven years in the West Wing of the White House, working her way up to become a key member of Henry Kissinger's National Security Council Staff. After the Ford Administration, McFarland studied at Oxford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with concentrations on nuclear weapons, China and the Soviet Union.

 

It is Obama's idiotic line in the sand and now having to step on his Johnson because he opened his big mouth.

And your uneducated of her is duly noted

 

So she was a cold war press secretary for the DoD. Go figure.

 

Yeah, you probably would say the same thing about Condi Rice. Go figure

It is obvious you can't address the points in her article, but instead you choose to denigrate her

 

No offense but your blogger has no clue how the world oil trade works. "Energy independence" just means we buy it from Canada, venezuela, an the US all set at a price determined by the world market. Problems in oil producing regions will affect prices worldwide even if we get our oil locally.

 

We did. Obama failed at that too.

 

how can anyone not know who K T Mcfarland is? been in a cave the last 10 years?

 

It's about buying from countries that want you dead, and the middle east is a cesspool of skum

- - - Updated - - -

Those are the people that ride the short bus

 

[



Those are the people that ride the short bus[/QUOTE]

i think we need a bigger bus

 

How much oil do you think we get from syria currently? How much do you think we for from Iraq?

This isn't about oil. It is about setting clear international rules of warfare. Obama was right to stay out unless so etching severe happened, Assad is wrong for killing and gassing his people so he won't have to look for a job or face a vote. I don't like the president. At all. But i think he is right on this one. If another middle eastern civil war is won with the use of chemical weapons what is to stop biological weapons the next time? What is the hope of change in that region or any other? Our fore fathers are remembered for great bravery, but they faced muskets with muskets. Small arms vs bombers and sarin shells is a lot to overcome. For any people anywhere.

That said, I have been wrong before on war, I am not in the military and never served and I have no clue to be honest. I would like to see Assad crippled and stuck in a fair fight. Whether or not that is possible or will start WW3 is another thing. Personally I think this will work out like Libya. A country we shouldn't have gotten involved with.

 

The points in her article are barely comprehensible, so how can I address them? I'm not denigrating her personally, I'm denigrating her ability to make a cogent argument.

And Condi is a brilliant person, albeit occasionally misguided and hampered by the rest of the administration she worked under. A PhD in political science that was Sercetary of State and presidential national security advisor is a lot more impressive than some PR shill for the DoD. When Rice writes something, even if I disagree with it, at least I can understand what she's trying to say.

I'm guessing that was a joke.

 

So break it down for me, what is it you don't understand in the article?

 

no thanks.