How Bad is BHO gonna screw up in Syria?

• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1498452 wrote:Only way Russia and Syria would react to the potential strikes of the U.S. is if a real, conservative MAN had made them and not some capitulating, wimpy librUl like Obama.
  
  Let's imagine the opposite...suppose Russia was claiming they had evidence that Israel used Sarin gas on the Palestinians and was threatening a strike on Israel...Israel and the U.S. both deny vehemently that they used chemical weapons and that they even exist.....then suddenly John Kerry and Obama acknowledge for the first time that Israel does indeed have chemical weapons and they offer to get Israel to hand them over to the U.N.
  
  ^^^Such an event would be viewed as a ridiculous foreign policy failure by Republicans like our buddy Ted here who is giving props to Putin for doing essentially the same thing.
  
  We can also rest easy he'd be playing the same card as David Axelrod if it weren't that fairy Obummer in office but a REAL man like W.

  
  That would indeed be a ridiculous foreign policy failure by the Republicans. Which party fails isn't the issue here...at least it's not with me.
• majorspark

  

  So now Syria gets to play hide and seek with their chemical weapons. Maybe they just turn over an "unbelievable small" amount. It would be impossible to verify the full arsenal was turned over in the middle of a hot war zone. Who is going to attempt to get on the ground and try? Sounds like fun times ahead.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1498455 wrote:That would indeed be a ridiculous foreign policy failure by the Republicans. Which party fails isn't the issue here...at least it's not with me.

  So how do you feel about Putin and co. outing Assad and brokering a deal for chemical weapons that they both denied existed until now? Ted thinks this is a great success on the part of Putin.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1498479 wrote:So how do you feel about Putin and co. outing Assad and brokering a deal for chemical weapons that they both denied existed until now? Ted thinks this is a great success on the part of Putin.

  I have no doubt that Mr. Putin was doing what he thinks is best for his country. That's how I feel about it.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;1498479 wrote:So how do you feel about Putin and co. outing Assad and brokering a deal for chemical weapons that they both denied existed until now? Ted thinks this is a great success on the part of Putin.

  Putin didn't out Assad. Syria confirmed they had chemical weapons in July of 2012. Putin's plan is to further Russia's influence in the Middle East.
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577544632378473006.html
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;1498489 wrote:Putin didn't out Assad. Syria confirmed they had chemical weapons in July of 2012. Putin's plan is to further Russia's influence in the Middle East.
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577544632378473006.html

  Well Gee, I didn't know that. Thanks for making me look dumb. That's what I get for repeating what I hear on the radio.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;1498498 wrote:Well Gee, I didn't know that. Thanks for making me look dumb. That's what I get for repeating what I hear on the radio.

  I wouldn't feel too bad. John Kerry didn't know either.
  

  Well, it's the credible threat of force that has been on the table for these last weeks that has for the first time brought this [Syrian] regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal.

  John Kerry today while testifying before congress.
  
  http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-kerry-dealying-tactics/25101918.html
• believer

  

  majorspark;1498653 wrote:John Kerry didn't know either.

  Barry has a habit of picking Secretaries of State with bad memories.
• gut

  majorspark;1498489 wrote: Syria confirmed they had chemical weapons in July of 2012.

  But they could have just been pretending to have chemical weapons....like Saddam
• gut

  believer;1498671 wrote:Barry has a habit of picking Secretaries of State with bad memories.

  It's easier to lie when you can't remember the truth.
• gut

  LMAO....do you think Obama has actually read these "letters and questions many of you have sent to me"? Or is it just a device to point fingers and shift responsibility?
  
  This speech is absolutely horrible. Slipping into campaign mode now...
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;1498653 wrote:I wouldn't feel too bad. John Kerry didn't know either.
  
  
  John Kerry today while testifying before congress.
  
  http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-kerry-dealying-tactics/25101918.html

  I heard multiple news reporters and pundits say it as well. Probably just repeated it from Kerry. Pretty stunning. Haven't really heard anybody call them on it either thus far either.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1498720 wrote:LMAO....do you think Obama has actually read these "letters and questions many of you have sent to me"? Or is it just a device to point fingers and shift responsibility?
  
  This speech is absolutely horrible. Slipping into campaign mode now...

  It's become so vogue to just slip in "national security" as if it's icing on the cake. "And btw X will make us all safer in bed at night too!" It just reeks of bullshit and undermines whatever other pleas you make.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1498741 wrote:It's become so vogue to just slip in "national security" as if it's icing on the cake. "And btw X will make us all safer in bed at night too!" It just reeks of bullshit and undermines whatever other pleas you make.

  I thought the worst part was "we are not the world's police [except when international law is violated]"
  
  That was part of my argument with OTrap. Why do you participate in the making of international law if you aren't going to demand the international community enforce it? If you're going to act unilaterally, then why box yourself in and subject yourself to the political fallout if you intend to act outside international law whenever it suits you? I really thought he put his foot in his mouth to be talking about international law in practically the same breath he's proposing unilateral action.
  
  Anyway, I said some time ago that we should let Russia take the reigns on this mess. Turns out in spite of the incompetence of this administration they may accomplish just that.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;1498737 wrote:I heard multiple news reporters and pundits say it as well. Probably just repeated it from Kerry. Pretty stunning. Haven't really heard anybody call them on it either thus far either.

  Obama alluded to it as well in his speech. But you are right it is quite stunning no one calling them on it.
• O-Trap

  

  BGFalcons82;1498454 wrote:But he served in Vietnam.

  
  Ah yes, the man with three Purple Hearts. I remember the jokes during the 2004 election ...
  

  gut;1498747 wrote:I thought the worst part was "we are not the world's police [except when international law is violated]"
  
  That was part of my argument with OTrap. Why do you participate in the making of international law if you aren't going to demand the international community enforce it?

  Demanding that the international organization that makes such laws (which I already disagree with, but that's another matter) enforce them is not the same as trying to enforce them yourself.
  
  If we "participated" in the making of the laws, I don't see the logical progression that permits us to forcibly punish violators unilaterally. Could you, perhaps, provide the logical progression for such a belief?
  

  gut;1498747 wrote:If you're going to act unilaterally, then why box yourself in and subject yourself to the political fallout if you intend to act outside international law whenever it suits you? I really thought he put his foot in his mouth to be talking about international law in practically the same breath he's proposing unilateral action.

  I do agree with the reasoning here. I merely suggest that the premise (that one decides to act unilaterally) is illogical.
  
  If a nation decides to flip the bird to the UN and bomb/attack any nation or people it pleases, it seems that subjecting oneself to the fallout administered by the former is silly, and the latter just seems like terrorism with a side order of politicking.
  

  gut;1498747 wrote:Anyway, I said some time ago that we should let Russia take the reigns on this mess. Turns out in spite of the incompetence of this administration they may accomplish just that.

  I'm not sure it's "in spite of" this administration as much as it was aided by the errors by this administration. In a sense, Putin should be kissing our nuts for fucking this whole mess up as badly as we have.
• Mulva

  

  O-Trap;1498815 wrote:Ah yes, the man with three Purple Hearts. I remember the jokes during the 2004 election ..

  [video=youtube;z8Q-sRdV7SY][/video]
  
  Not sure why, but I still remember this video like it came out yesterday.
• O-Trap

  

  Mulva;1498852 wrote:[video=youtube;z8Q-sRdV7SY][/video]
  
  Not sure why, but I still remember this video like it came out yesterday.

  Yep, I still hum it at the very mention of "John Kerry."
• Heretic

  

  Mulva;1498852 wrote:[video=youtube;z8Q-sRdV7SY][/video]
  
  Not sure why, but I still remember this video like it came out yesterday.

  So do I. Jib-Jab's the best.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;1498737 wrote:I heard multiple news reporters and pundits say it as well. Probably just repeated it from Kerry. Pretty stunning. Haven't really heard anybody call them on it either thus far either.

  And now Jay Carney this morning like its fact. Can the administration really be this ignorant? If so it borders on incompetence. Or are they propagating an outright lie spinning something that is factually incorrect to appear as though they have achieved a great foreign policy triumph? Knowing full well no one in the mainstream media is going to call them on it. My first thought it was the latter but its a mixture of both. Why not say this is the first time Syria has offered to sign on to the treaty banning the use of chemical weapons and is willing to turn over its arsenal?
  
  Either way its a long painstaking process in a nation at peace with itself let alone one that is currently involved in a brutal civil war. This is quite frankly a folly that is fraught with disaster. Likely a worse risk than the military response the administration has proposed.
  
  Jay Carney

  Before this morning, the Syrian government had never even acknowledged they possessed chemical weapons. Now they have.

  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/jay-carney-syria-96536.html
  
  Note the use of the specific words "chemical weapons" by the administration. The official Syrian government statement over a year ago only referred to the possession of "weapons of mass destruction" and "unconventional weapons". General terms that could be danced around if the administration were ever called on this.
  
  Kerry was great the first day after that he looked like a blithering idiot. The John Kerry gaffe which the Russians pounced on within hours has only caused the administration to double down on this clusterfuck. Kerry made an off the cuff statement of impossibility. He even said so. Its not possible to turn over one of the largest caches of chemical weapons in the world in one week. He was right its not going to happen in a week.
  
  Now that week will likely be walked back into many many months. The Syrian government has no interest giving up all of its chemical weapons. Only a fool would believe so. Just preventing immediate US military action. The Syrian government now will have time to disperse hide and transfer that supply while diplomatic efforts carry on. Hezbollah has been quite helpful in supplying fighters to push back the rebellion. Perhaps some of these weapons could fall into their hands. The average American who does not keep up on this stuff has no idea how dangerous this situation has become.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• gut

  Ultimately they, errrrr, "achieved" a politically expedient way to keep from intervening in this clusterfuck. That's a win in my book, even if they bumbled their way to dumb luck.
  
  Of course, you can almost bet this "crisis" is going to flare-up again just in time for the 2014 elections.
• believer

  

  majorspark;1499231 wrote:Can the administration really be this ignorant? If so it borders on incompetence. Or are they propagating an outright lie spinning something that is factually incorrect to appear as though they have achieved a great foreign policy triumph? Knowing full well no one in the mainstream media is going to call them on it. My first thought it was the latter but its a mixture of both.

  Agreed. This administration is replete with people who are at best borderline incompetent or at least accomplished in the art of obfuscating facts and creating foggy reality. And by now it's no secret that the Obama-loving media refuses to hold this administration's feet to the fire.
  
  Obama has bumbled his way into a faux face-saving situation thanks in part to Vladimir Putin. Putin is a thug and a KGB throwback, but I give him credit for being a leader and sporting a set of testicles...qualities Barry needs in a big way.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ
  
  
  ...about where we are
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  So, nice note I saw this morning,
  Last August, now Former Senator Lugar (who was somehow beaten in an R primary, which made no sense), floated the idea of the U.S. and Ruskies coming together to disarm Syria with their Chemical Weapons, and the Ruskies said, nope.
  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/world/europe/senator-richard-lugar-urges-united-states-and-russia-to-rid-syria-of-chemical-weapons.html?_r=2&
  
  Should have listened to the wise former Senator, who I would say, is one of the few Senators who knows anything about WMDs.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/12/White-House-Putin-Owns-worlds-syria-strategy
  
  
  It just gets more incredible all the time. At some point even the left-wing media will have to stop running interference for the (completely) empty suit.