Obama, servant of evil

[Nonc Hilaire]

.

Obama came to power, Democratic party nominating him, the political elite and establishment accepting him, by committing to follow the "grand plan" for ME which was put in motion by Carter's time .. he would be W. Bush continuation in foreign policy

In that sense, military attack on Syria was pre-programmed long ago

but

looks to me

unless I mistaken

Obama looking for all excuses he can grab, to backtrack from disaster .. makes sense, as fact on the ground have changed and other facts now prevail than 1980's




.

I rarely agree with HP but he's right here. Somebody has a slipknot tied around Obama's balls and they are yanking on the string pretty hard.

[Azrael]

Obama looking for all excuses he can grab, to backtrack from disaster .. makes sense, as fact on the ground have changed and other facts now prevail than 1980's.

Definitely.

This 1980's mentality that we should back Islamic terrorists -- people like bin Laden -- in order to screw over Russia has been a disaster.

The Cold War is over. Obama and Putin realize it. Unfortunately, most Republicans and even some Democrats are trying to bring it back.

[Azrael]

.

Obama came to power, Democratic party nominating him, the political elite and establishment accepting him, by committing to follow the "grand plan" for ME which was put in motion by Carter's time .. he would be W. Bush continuation in foreign policy

In that sense, military attack on Syria was pre-programmed long ago

but

looks to me

unless I mistaken

Obama looking for all excuses he can grab, to backtrack from disaster .. makes sense, as fact on the ground have changed and other facts now prevail than 1980's




.

I rarely agree with HP but he's right here. Somebody has a slipknot tied around Obama's balls and they are yanking on the string pretty hard.

What would you have done?

If Obama hadn't made any threats, Assad could act with impunity. Forget the taboo against chemical weapons.

If Obama had fired the missiles, they wouldn't have destroyed all of the chemical weapons. Some of the weapons could have been released by accident, killing innocent people. Assad may have said "what the hell" and launched even more chemical attacks. Assad's regime could have fallen -- to Al Qaeda.

So what would you have done?

Does it hurt your feelings so much seeing Putin look clever? Poor thing.

Pardon me, but I'm more concerned about the children of Syria than your hurt feelings.

[Nonc Hilaire]

.

Obama came to power, Democratic party nominating him, the political elite and establishment accepting him, by committing to follow the "grand plan" for ME which was put in motion by Carter's time .. he would be W. Bush continuation in foreign policy

In that sense, military attack on Syria was pre-programmed long ago

but

looks to me

unless I mistaken

Obama looking for all excuses he can grab, to backtrack from disaster .. makes sense, as fact on the ground have changed and other facts now prevail than 1980's




.

I rarely agree with HP but he's right here. Somebody has a slipknot tied around Obama's balls and they are yanking on the string pretty hard.

What would you have done?

If Obama hadn't made any threats, Assad could act with impunity. Forget the taboo against chemical weapons.

If Obama had fired the missiles, they wouldn't have destroyed all of the chemical weapons. Some of the weapons could have been released by accident, killing innocent people. Assad may have said "what the hell" and launched even more chemical attacks. Assad's regime could have fallen -- to Al Qaeda.

So what would you have done?

Does it hurt your feelings so much seeing Putin look clever? Poor thing.

Pardon me, but I'm more concerned about the children of Syria than your hurt feelings.

I would have done the same thing Obama did. Take any excuse to de-escalate.

[Demon of Undoing]

I would have stayed the hell out of a fight that isn't ours, over principles that nobody enforces, in light of having only tools that will do no good.

I also don't plan on intervening when the sun runs out of hydrogen.

[Mr. Perfect]

Putin didn't "dictate" anything to Obama.

He sure did.

If Obama actually wants to fire missiles at Syria, Putin can't stop him.

Putin did stop him.

If we can get Assad from using chemical weapons, and Al Qaeda from taking over Syria, we're doing pretty well.

That was going on just fine before Obama opened his big mouth.

[Mr. Perfect]

.

Obama came to power, Democratic party nominating him, the political elite and establishment accepting him, by committing to follow the "grand plan" for ME which was put in motion by Carter's time .. he would be W. Bush continuation in foreign policy

Actually McCain would have been a better choice. Obama handpicked yes, but not by who you think.

In that sense, military attack on Syria was pre-programmed long ago

No. Nobody cares about Syria. Nobody.

but looks to me unless I mistaken Obama looking for all excuses he can grab, to backtrack from disaster .. makes sense, as fact on the ground have changed and other facts now prevail than 1980's

Actually, barack plunged headlong into disaster, Kruschev 1961. Putin tricked him into getting out.

[Mr. Perfect]

I rarely agree with HP but he's right here. Somebody has a slipknot tied around Obama's balls and they are yanking on the string pretty hard.

Putin.

[Mr. Perfect]

I would have done the same thing Obama did. Take any excuse to de-escalate.

Obama was the sole escalator.

I wonder what universe some of you come from.

[Azrael]

I would have done the same thing Obama did. Take any excuse to de-escalate.

Thank you. Exactly.

Sorry if I got a bit snippy.

I would have stayed the hell out of a fight that isn't ours, over principles that nobody enforces, in light of having only tools that will do no good.

I also don't plan on intervening when the sun runs out of hydrogen.

Yes.

But, when chemical weapons are used, one does not remain silent.

The fact that there is a taboo against their use is a good thing.

One shouldn't send the message that the taboo is gone for good, so go ahead and use chemical weapons whenever it is convenient.

[Mr. Perfect]

That was exactly the message that was sent, chemical weapons are now ok to use. Way to go.

[Azrael]

That was exactly the message that was sent, chemical weapons are now ok to use. Way to go.

Really? We send the message by having him admit that he has chemical weapons and agree to give them up?

We've been trying to get countries in that region to give up their chemical weapons for decades.

[Ibrahim]

Its interesting to watch each US president melt into every other US president, becoming one giant mess of bad ideas, failed promise, and eventually war crimes and corruption. But at this stage of the game anybody who both wants to be - and could conceivably actually become - president is probably already evil.

[Mr. Perfect]

That was exactly the message that was sent, chemical weapons are now ok to use. Way to go.

Really? We send the message by having him admit that he has chemical weapons and agree to give them up?

We've been trying to get countries in that region to give up their chemical weapons for decades.

He will not give up his chemical weapons, and has not promised to. He promised to if we meet a bunch of conditions, and we will not meet those conditions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/world ... ml?hp&_r=0

Therefore, chemical weapons will have been used without penalty, and other bad actors globally are taking note.

People who want to attack future users of Chemical Weapons will have to explain why they do in some instances and not others and of course they will have no leg to stand on.

This is basic Louis L'amour rules of engagement and living.

Not long ago, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria seemed a remote and embattled figure, with the United States threatening airstrikes and other Arab leaders denouncing him for having used chemical weapons against his own people.

Yet in recent days, he appears, paradoxically, to have turned the crisis to his advantage, making clear to a global television audience that he aims to use President Obama’s own “red line” against him.

In exchange for relinquishing his chemical arsenal, Mr. Assad said Thursday, he will require that the United States stop arming the Syrian opposition — a demand that might seem wishful from the leader of a devastated country where civil war has left 100,000 dead, two million living as refugees and large swaths of territory beyond his control.

Mr. Assad outlined his demands on Thursday, telling a Russian TV interviewer that the arms-control proposal floated by his patron in Moscow would not be finalized until “we see the United States really wants stability in our region and stops threatening, striving to attack and also ceases arms deliveries to terrorists.”

Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a blunt response to Mr. Assad’s comments after meeting Thursday with Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, saying the standard procedures for identifying and securing the weapons were too slow in Syria’s case. “There is nothing standard about this process,” Mr. Kerry said. “The words of the Syrian regime, in our judgment, are simply not enough.”

Mr. Assad, sounding relaxed and confident, hinted in his interview that the Russian proposal — which requires Syria to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention — could become a lever for endless negotiations and delays, much as Saddam Hussein delayed arms control inspectors during the 1990s. “It doesn’t mean that Syria will sign the documents, fulfill the obligations, and that’s it,” Mr. Assad said.

The state-owned Syrian newspaper Al Watan put it bluntly in a headline on Thursday: “Moscow and Damascus pull the rug out from under the feet of Obama.”

Mr. Assad’s comments on Thursday were the latest chapter in a rhetorical offensive by the Syrian president and his surrogates, who seem to feel that global perceptions of the Syrian opposition — with its strong component of Islamic radicalism — have shifted in their direction. Mr. Assad has granted interviews to American and French reporters in recent weeks, and has brought back the media adviser who had largely disappeared from public view for the past two years, a Western-educated interpreter and author named Bouthaina Shaaban.

Ms. Shaaban is a skilled interlocutor who helped Mr. Assad shape his image in the West as a reform-minded leader during the years before the uprising in 2011. Her re-emergence has “signaled a coherent determination to launch a media blitz,” said Jon Snow, a veteran anchor for Britain’s Channel 4 news.

In recent weeks, thousands of Syrians have recorded personal appeals to members of Congress and the American public urging them to oppose an airstrike, though it is not clear whether those efforts are coordinated with their government.

For the rebels, who could often use a tip or two in the area of public relations, all of this is unqualified bad news. “It is disappointing,” said Najib Ghadbian, the main Syrian opposition group’s special representative to the United States. “If the regime wants to play with this, it could take months or years. This is why we need accountability.”

A rebel brigade commander named Moaz al-Yousef, reached by telephone, spoke bitterly of Mr. Obama’s interest in the Russian proposal — and the delay of the Congressional votes — as a betrayal.

“We had hopes, it was a dream, and now it’s gone and we feel disappointed,” he said. “We should completely cut off our relationship with him — Obama has completely lost his credibility.”

[Enki]

Yeah, what exactly is Obama winning here, besides the Russians giving him an excuse not to do something he shouldn't have ever even mentioned? I mean, it's accidental. Or it's intentionally legitimizing chemical weapons anywhere, as long as those trustworthy Russians and Chinese approve? I mean, chemical weapons are permissible by default, but this is just putting a blue ribbon on a turd. Why do it? Where exactly do you see a victory for Obama here? Tell me you don't think there's actually going to be less chemical weapons, less war , or better US position here.

He drew a bright line on chemical weapons. That benchmark is being met without any actual bombing. In otherwords Assad is being coerced through threat of violence. It's called negotiating.

Remember, when negotiating, set your bid high, but not too high that it's dismissed out of hand and then let the other guy haggle you down to the price you wanted in the first place, and walk away with him thinking he got the better of you.

I just don't see how this isn't a comedy of errors. Obama may be a genius to people that really don't know jack about foreign policy, but he's completely unimpressive, across the board, with those that do. Even the players themselves.

A good compromise leaves everyone angry.

Really? You know Putin and Assad's minds? Do tell.

[Mr. Perfect]

He drew a bright line on what? Where is it? Where can this line be found? When you negotiate aren't you supposed to get something?

[Mr. Perfect]

Tinker gold. No wonder you never go anywhere in business.

A good compromise leaves everyone angry.

[Enki]

Where did these good cop/bad cop talking points originate? They are pretty desperate.

Putin just waltzed in, dictated complicated terms that will not come to fruition and then rubbed our nose in it because he could.

This is a perfect example of American schoolyard jingoism that we use to look at all foreign policy. Can't let someone else in the negotiations come up with the idea we eventually run with.

I am wondering when you are going to register Republican because you seem to have doubled down on the idea that being perceived as manly is more important than you know, saving lives.

And furthermore, making Putin "look like a great statesmen" isn't really a concession you want to brag about.

Again, because what's important is that Obama looks like a MAN and Putin looks like a wimp. I know you grew up in the Cold War and all, but you should recognize that you've imbibed half a century's worth of bloviating muscular foreign policy that is arrogant and disrespectful, even hateful based on the fact that we can destroy anyone who disagrees with us.

He's not head of client state #5, he's in charge of an powerful rival who is looking to kick you in the teeth. One that members of both parties, both in the machine and out of it, didn't believe needed "propping." You know these people: they are the one a brilliant political strategist appeases or pacifies first and foremost 'cause their closer to the throne than the chinless guy running Syria or that big bear who spied from Milan to Minsk....

The Cold War is over. Letting Putin be the hero and stopping chemical attacks in Syria and not having to commit troops or mass murder is a positive outcome.

I'm glad we aren't bombing Syria- but I'm pretty sure I just watched Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers political savvy go down in real time (and with the English dubbing.)

You certainly did treat this like Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers in your analysis. That's very true. Obama looks like a girly man, he was bent over and raped by Tsar Putin. Hahaha, pwned noob!

EDIT: I can't stress enough that Putin and the Russians aren't playthings or children that you can make "to look," like it was all a game of dress up with Polly Pockets. He acted like a "great statemen" because he stopped more conflict on the international stage by taking control of the conversation and dictating when the US gets to use weapons and when they can't. There isn't going back on that until the Russians flub one.

That isn't what actually happened. The US didn't want to go to war, he provided us an out. Obama and Putin negotiated a tense situation and if this outcome works it is in the best interests of everyone involved. Your WWE analysis of diplomacy is the great disease of the American mind when it comes to foreign policy. Maybe if Obama had thrown Putin into the trashcan you'd be more satisfied. Of course, Putin isn't our enemy and you obviously never got the memo.

States have interests, this outcome aligns very well with American interests. That you want a statesmen who swings his dick around rather than look weak getting exactly what he wants...that's cool.

I used to come to these fora because there was a higher level of discourse than what I could find outside of the milieu. These days this sort of lightweight bloviating is tedious to me. It's idiotic and not worth my time.

If it works:

We get what we want, it costs us very little, we don't have to murder thousands of Syrians to accomplish it and it doesn't destabilize the region. And best of all it's not even appeasement. Hopefully the children who think foreign policy is about having the biggest biceps will get over the fact that the President of Russia takes the glory in this instance.

There are so many good reasons to criticize Obama, I cannot help but wonder why people are so enamored with doubling down on the asinine ones.

I mean seriously man, up your game, this post was ridiculous. I switched away and looked at other windows. I have one friend testifying before a committee on public corruption, another guy asking us to port our code we used for city elections over to Minneapolis/St. Paul elections, how to store solar heating for the winter using photovoltaics and underground thermal storage and I come over here for your critique of Barack Obama's people's elbow.

[Mr. Perfect]

The Cold War is over. Letting Putin be the hero and stopping chemical attacks in Syria and not having to commit troops or mass murder is a positive outcome.

The only reason mass murder was in play was because of Obama.

Obama looks like a girly man, he was bent over and raped by Tsar Putin. Hahaha, pwned noob!

Well put. I see a consensus forming.

That isn't what actually happened. The US didn't want to go to war, he provided us an out.

Why did Obama want to go to war if he didn't want to go to war. Why did he need an out.

Obama and Putin negotiated a tense situation and if this outcome works it is in the best interests of everyone involved.

What did Obama get from Putin in the negotiation?

Your WWE analysis of diplomacy is the great disease of the American mind when it comes to foreign policy. Maybe if Obama had thrown Putin into the trashcan you'd be more satisfied.

If you don't want the world controlled by a statist slaver then yes that would have been more satisfying but of course you would be perfectly happy with that.

I used to come to these fora because there was a higher level of discourse than what I could find outside of the milieu. These days this sort of lightweight bloviating is tedious to me. It's idiotic and not worth my time.

Look at the quality of the material we have to work with.

If it works:

If what works.

We get exactly what we want,

What did we want?

it costs us very little,

Just leadership of the globe.

we don't have to murder thousands of Syrians to accomplish it and it doesn't destabilize the region.

We never had to murder thousands of Syrians and destabilize the region. Why did you guys want to do that? It wasn't necessary.

And best of all it's not even appeasement.

What is it? What do you think happened? What information did your minders actually allow through?

Hopefully the children will get over the fact that the President of Russia takes the hoi polloi glory.

This issue may be far too complex for you. Putin tapdancing is only 1/100th of what happened. This event altered the course of global politics much like the Cuban Missile Crisis,, Reykjavik or the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Perhaps you should leave this to the adults.

[Enki]

Putin didn't "dictate" anything to Obama. If Obama actually wants to fire missiles at Syria, Putin can't stop him.

If we can get Assad from using chemical weapons, and Al Qaeda from taking over Syria, we're doing pretty well.

^This

[Mr. Perfect]

^That has nothing to do with anything that happened in the last couple of weeks.

[Azrael]

That was exactly the message that was sent, chemical weapons are now ok to use. Way to go.

Really? We send the message by having him admit that he has chemical weapons and agree to give them up?

We've been trying to get countries in that region to give up their chemical weapons for decades.

He will not give up his chemical weapons, and has not promised to. He promised to if we meet a bunch of conditions, and we will not meet those conditions.

Conditions like not arming terrorists? I think those are conditions we can live with.

[Demon of Undoing]

I keep seeing " if" used here, as in " if he gives up the CW".

We do all understand that there is zero reason for this to happen, right?

[Nonc Hilaire]

I keep seeing " if" used here, as in " if he gives up the CW".

We do all understand that there is zero reason for this to happen, right?

The US and Israel have CW. If Assad can use this to prove the CW source is not his government that might be a reason.

[Mr. Perfect]

That was exactly the message that was sent, chemical weapons are now ok to use. Way to go.

Really? We send the message by having him admit that he has chemical weapons and agree to give them up?

We've been trying to get countries in that region to give up their chemical weapons for decades.

He will not give up his chemical weapons, and has not promised to. He promised to if we meet a bunch of conditions, and we will not meet those conditions.

Conditions like not arming terrorists? I think those are conditions we can live with.

They are conditions we will not meet. There will be no surrender of CW, except maybe a token amount. Obama was teabagged all the way around.