Gogouyave.com's Forum

Views expressed on this website are those of the person or persons posting the message and does not reflect the views of Gogouyave.com

Rules Of this Talk Shop

  1. Do not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, obscene, vulgar, hateful, abusive, threatening, or an invasion of a person's privacy, or otherwise a violation of any laws.

  2. Finally, the owners of this web site reserve the right to remove any messages posted, for legal reasons. 

So please! please! try to keep your posts clean. Webmaster

Gouyave Talk
Start a New Topic 

Is Obama the latest George W. Bush? Why did he called off the Iraqi war, and planned to end the war in Afghanistan in 2014? Was it because he'd planned to start a new war in Syria, and the Iraqi/Afghanistan wars were in his way?

George W. Bush had proof that Sadaam Hussein had, and used chemical weapons on his own people. Later, George organized a team, and invaded Iraq, which led to the capture, and execution of Sadaam, the so-called dictator, and President of the people of Iraq. The Iraqi war was indeed uncalled for, and before it ended, no chemical weapons were found there. But, Sadaam had made the case to the international world, that no chemical weapons were in his hands, and that he'd no intention of acquiring it. However, his words fell on deaf ears, and he paid for telling the world the truth, with his life.

Today, President Barack Obama is trodding down the same lane with Syria, as George W. Bush did with Iraq. The United States Secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry, convinced his Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, with an angry tone of voice, I supposed, that Assad, the Presidreent of Syria had used chemical weapons on his own people, and that he should be punished by the United States for his disobedience for the International Law, that forbids the use of chemical weapons against people in protests. Obama then decided that Assad had indeed got out of hand, and it was time to set afloat an attack on him to draw him back to the line of compassion and clear thinking that his deeds will not go unchallenged, by the United States of America.

For the last few years, America had acted like the world's police. They'd many other countries joined in with them. Recently, the British voted against any participation with striking Syria with the Americans at the helm of it. But France got in for the ride, and they're the only country that wants a war with Syria, besides America.

In America, the President, Barack Obama is seeking from Congress the approval to strike Syria, and is awaiting a response from them. Knowing the men in Congress and the kind of love they have for the American President, I am foreseeing a long shot, at giving Obama the type of help he needs to strike Syria, and its people. Since that the Congress wants Obama to fail in everything, Executive Power might be the best way out for Obama is acheive his goals.

I said "Executive Power" because Obama is working hard to protect his lacacy as a great American President. Besides, he's in his last term as President of the United States. So, he thinks that the time is right to be "the new big, bad wolf!"

Almost five years ago, Obama was seen as the prohibitive favorite leader of the world. Everyone had thought of him as the one solution for world peace. He started off on the right foot, and received high marks for his aggressiveness in putting America into retirement from the unfavorable nation, to the preferred nation in the world that it once was.

The over-stepping of boundry, in terms of Obama striking Syria will change the way of how the world has been, for the last five years. So, all the efforts and eenergy that Obama made and used will be deemed for naught. For one thing, there isn't enough support worldwide, for a new war between Syria and.America. Especially as the Syrians are living in trepidation of a war, as they're keenly mindful of the destruction that was done in the neighboring country of Iraq, when George W. Bush invaded it. President Assad isn't faint-heaarted by the news of Obama's intended move towards putting his fingers where it doesn't belong. In fact, Assad saw that Obama seeking approval from Congress to start a war with him as a "retreat", long before that war is on. And, he might've just be right with his take on it.

The world is watching with anxious eyes to see if Obama will eventually follow in George W. Bush's footsteps. And, what if he does? Will he find WMD in Syria, or will he come up empty, as was the case with GWB, and the unprovoked Iraqi war?

Having the mentality of a "new big, bad wolf" is easy to acquire, by a politician. But Obama, above all, is definately shocking the world, with his latest way of making major strides for Peace, while preparing for war, a priority to acheive it.

Obama had the ability to make everyone feel like he was their friend. Now, he is shifting that around, to make everyone feel like he's their enemy.

That's not a good way for Obama, and his Administration to go in this time. He should keep his hands clean, and ask the rebels in Syria to unarmed themselves, for the sake of peace.

On the contrary, what will Obama do if a rebel group in America decide to take him out of his job? Will he run away from them or, will he stand up and fight against them? Just asking!



I do not agree with the assessment in your post re. the current Syrian situation and particularly,the comparison you made between former President Bush and the current POTUS. I believe their two philosophies are quite different, both in their approach to presidential use of power and in their method of assessing a situation. While the former President seem to had taken a "knee-jerk" approach to the Iraqi problem (notwithstanding the UN calamity/Colin Powell and the embarrassing fall-out)as a means of avenging the September 11 catastrophe to appease the public,the current POTUS seems determined not to repeat that mistake but to hold the Assad's of the the world accountable in defiance of the UN resolution....but with concrete proof this time.

Secondly, in light of the POTUS condemnation of President Bush's approach to his decision leading up to that Iraqi war,his/current(Obama's)seem to move the focus of the decision back to ("the peoples') representatives of government (The House and The Senate) rather than the circumvention of the power to wage war as ascribed through the War Powers Act given to the Office of the Presidency. His option not to use the latter represents in my opinion, a stark contrast between the two.

Thirdly, even though the ultimate result of both Assad and Saddam reprehensive act of using chemical weapons as a means of suppressing dissension are the same (killing men, women and children)there must be some "establishment of order" and the willingness to stop despotic governments from carrying out this despicable act. I see Obama as providing for the continuity of such action (with restrictions, of course)rather than leaving the situation to go unchallenged.

These to me are not the same by any stretch of the imagination.



G, you were very good.at what you said here. I remember the story of George W. Bush well. But he's history now, even if it is sad history on his part.

George W. Bush is a difficult one to be compared with any other American President. During his Presidency, he used to much of the power of his office to create hoovc for everyone. Especially those from the Middle East. He's objectives did not meet with much resistance, as most people sat down and watched him in action. Even the UN couldn't deter him from his mission. Along with Colin Powell, they fabricated a story just to go to war with Iraq. It was in retaliation for the bombings of The World Trade Center, and Saddam Hussein's handling of George Bush , Sr., for Desert Storm. This is why I don't trust Obama, and John Kerry with their take on Syria.

America has accused the Assad's regime for using chemical weapons on its own people. John Kerry cited enough to prove it. Assad, on the other hand denied that he used chemical weapons on his people. But, I wonder whether or not Syria has.anything to carry chemical weapons, in the first case.

However, Obama has taken anther route in respect of going to war with Syria. Sure, he leaned a good lesson from the errors that George W. Bush made. But, still, war is war, though matter where it fought. Everyone has a different path to destiny. At the end, there's one meeting place. Obama should keep his hands clean, and listen to the two-thirds of the American people, who doesn't see the need for a new war. So far, Obama had asked Congress to postpone the approval of military actions on Syria.

George W. Bush used his arrogance to find a solution for the Iraqi crisis, but Obama is letting other leople have a say with the decision he made on Syria. That to me was the right thing to do.