This is an Op/Ed piece written by Putin to the US citizens and politicians. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Couldn't agree more with Putin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it, now Americans are being swayed by the master manipulator...and a commie at that. I wonder if Bush can still see into his soul.

This is the same Putin who accused the US of masterminding the Georgian War for political purposes?

Here's the translation of his op-ed. I don't give a #^&#^&#^&#^& about the people of Syria, I just NEED them to continue spending billions on Russian arms and giving me access to the Med.

-spence

Ok so you and The legislative branch are now in favor of a "surgical strike" on Syria the rest of the world is opposed and in favor of a diplomatic resolution. Ok
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it, now Americans are being swayed by the master manipulator...and a commie at that. I wonder if Bush can still see into his soul.

This is the same Putin who accused the US of masterminding the Georgian War for political purposes?

Here's the translation of his op-ed. I don't give a #^&#^&#^&#^& about the people of Syria, I just NEED them to continue spending billions on Russian arms and giving me access to the Med.

-spence

Bottom line is that Putin is winning the chess game with Obama right now. Putin is "manipulating" Obama.

I love it, now Americans are being swayed by the master manipulator...and a commie at that. I wonder if Bush can still see into his soul.

This is the same Putin who accused the US of masterminding the Georgian War for political purposes?

Here's the translation of his op-ed. I don't give a #^&#^&#^&#^& about the people of Syria, I just NEED them to continue spending billions on Russian arms and giving me access to the Med.

-spence

I couldn't agree more. Putin's a slime ball. His oped is full of hypocraci. Obama has simply been out foxed by a wolf. This is not a game to be played by amatures .
I'm afraid for America. We can fix the economy and health care, no matter the damage left in Obamas wake but this is serious sheet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is not a game to be played by amatures .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But Obama went to Harvard. Doesn't that necessarily mean he's brilliant?

But Obama went to Harvard. Doesn't that necessarily mean he's brilliant?

Quite the opposite . MIT maybe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I seriously think that the rebels let loose that gas. Think about it. You are desperate for help. Your beliefs do not value life very much with huge rewards on a glorious death. Why not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it, now Americans are being swayed by the master manipulator...and a commie at that.

-spence

No that already happened in 2004 and 2008.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quite the opposite . MIT maybe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Believe me, I was being sarcastic. Though I would agree about MIT.

What Obama is learning is that there is a big, big difference between (1) actually doing things, and (2) talking about doing things in an Ivy League faculty room. One cannot get beaten any more thoroughly than Obama got beaten here, although he will likely save himself the humiliation of having his own Senate reject his proposal, whatever it was to begin with.

I also love how in Obama's speech this week, he talked about the nobility of America's being willing to not only help draft rules for countries to obey, but that we were willing to enforce those rules. Obama sang our praises.

How the heck do you reconcile that with his 2008 European apology tour, where he bemoaned Americas's history of being arrogant, divisive, and dismissive?

How long, O lord?

I seriously think that the rebels let loose that gas. Think about it. You are desperate for help. Your beliefs do not value life very much with huge rewards on a glorious death. Why not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the rebels had the gas, there's no reason to assume they wouldn't be capable of releasing it. I don't know that they had access to the weapons that were used.

There's also no reason to assume that Assad wouldn't do it, as he killed 100,000 citizens the old-fashioned way over the years. What's another 2,000 with gas?

If the rebels had the gas, there's no reason to assume they wouldn't be capable of releasing it. I don't know that they had access to the weapons that were used.

I believe the UN report is going to blast Putin's remarks about it being a rebel attack.

From what I've read the volume of gas and munitions used aren't congruent with any known rebel capacity...even if they do have some access to chem weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe the UN report is going to blast Putin's remarks about it being a rebel attack.

From what I've read the volume of gas and munitions used aren't congruent with any known rebel capacity...even if they do have some access to chem weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For what it's worth, I have heard the same things. There's also zero reason to doubt that Putin would have fabricated the lie that it was the rebels, since that serves his interests and he is a lunatic capable of anything. Who knows what to believe? That is a sinister part of the world, and God help any little kid unlucky enough to be born there.

What I find amazing is that a former KGB agent seeks to further divide Americans, on freaking 9/11 no less, purely for the national interests of a communist country....and the hatred for Obama, our President is so great nobody is willing to stand up and call him out.

Where are all the flag wavers? Where are the blogs blasting Putin's hypocrisy, manipulation and self interest?

Anybody proud to still be an American?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What I find amazing is that a former KGB agent seeks to further divide Americans, on freaking 9/11 no less, purely for the national interests of a communist country....and the hatred for Obama, our President is so great nobody is willing to stand up and call him out.

Where are all the flag wavers? Where are the blogs blasting Putin's hypocrisy, manipulation and self interest?

Anybody proud to still be an American?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're mis-reading the tea leaves here. Americans do not like what Putin is doing. I don't hear any rational American saying that Putin is a nicer man than Obama. What we're saying is, Obama came across as an absolutely incompetent, clueless, buffoon on this issue, and Putin is clobbering him. If I state that Putin is winning on this one issue, that doesn't mean I like Putin more than I like Obama.

It's your love of Obama that is clouding your vision on this, not my contempt for Obama. The anti-Obama folks here, I htink, are seeing this for what it is...another reduction in American supremacy at the hands of Obama.

What I find amazing is that a former KGB agent seeks to further divide Americans, on freaking 9/11 no less, purely for the national interests of a communist country....and the hatred for Obama, our President is so great nobody is willing to stand up and call him out.

Where are all the flag wavers? Where are the blogs blasting Putin's hypocrisy, manipulation and self interest?

Anybody proud to still be an American?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, very proud to be an American. Not proud of our President though. How would Regan have played this one……………..

I think you're mis-reading the tea leaves here. Americans do not like what Putin is doing. I don't hear any rational American saying that Putin is a nicer man than Obama. What we're saying is, Obama came across as an absolutely incompetent, clueless, buffoon on this issue, and Putin is clobbering him. If I state that Putin is winning on this one issue, that doesn't mean I like Putin more than I like Obama.

It's your love of Obama that is clouding your vision on this, not my contempt for Obama. The anti-Obama folks here, I htink, are seeing this for what it is...another reduction in American supremacy at the hands of Obama.

True that Jim!
In fact the ones that are actually giving Putin credibility are sitting in the Whitehouse or Genova
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're mis-reading the tea leaves here. Americans do not like what Putin is doing.
Where's the outrage?

-spence

Where's the outrage?

-spence

Everywhere. Which Americans are saying that Putin is a swell guy? No one is denying that Assad and Putin are a pair of unsavory characters. The fact is, those 2 unsavory characters, on this issue, are opening up a big can of whoop-ass on Obama.

You say you don't like what Putin is doing, particularly near the anniversary of 09/11, and I agree with you. Just because I think Putin is a maniac, doesn't mean that I cannot recognize that he is beating Obama on this one issue.

Putin is despicable. He is a despicable man who out-smarted Obama in this case, and any somewhat-rational person can see that.

Putin is despicable. He is a despicable man who out-smarted Obama in this case, and any somewhat-rational person can see that.
I'm not seeing much outrage.

As for outsmarting, just because they're getting the Admin to react doesn't mean they're winning.

Obama has some breathing room which he needed. Syria has fessed up about even owning chem weapons and already agreed in principal to give them up.

If Russia tries to play this as they'll only support a UN Mandate if there's no condition for force I think this will only galvanize International support. The genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in...

-spence

I'm not seeing much outrage.

As for outsmarting, just because they're getting the Admin to react doesn't mean they're winning.

Obama has some breathing room which he needed. Syria has fessed up about even owning chem weapons and already agreed in principal to give them up.

If Russia tries to play this as they'll only support a UN Mandate if there's no condition for force I think this will only galvanize International support. The genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in...

-spence

You believe in genie's too??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not seeing much outrage.

Pointless sarcasm.

As for outsmarting, just because they're getting the Admin to react doesn't mean they're winning.

Debating on whether Obama or Putin is winning is about as meaningless as debating on whether Assad or the "rebels" should win. Or, for that matter, whether Democrats or progressive Republicans should win. One, in each case, is a lighter version of the other.

Obama has some breathing room which he needed. Syria has fessed up about even owning chem weapons and already agreed in principal to give them up.

It seems that he is in constant need of breathing room. To do what?

Does Syria "fessing up" to what everyone already knew give Obama "breathing room"? Is Assad's denying he had chem weapons a whole lot different than him agreeing "in principal" to give them up? What is stopping Assad and the despised Putin from some trickery to pretend he has given them up? Oh, that's right, the "International community" will see to it that all is done correctly.

Right.

If Russia tries to play this as they'll only support a UN Mandate if there's no condition for force I think this will only galvanize International support. The genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in...

-spence

How does the "International Community" overcome a Russian veto? And does this "International Community," after what it considers an Iraq fiasco which it supported, really want to back a mandate with force?

Yeah, the genie of supposedly disastrous military intervention in Middle East squabbles is out of the bottle. Maybe Obama, the genius genie can stuff it back in.

How does the "International Community" overcome a Russian veto? And does this "International Community," after what it considers an Iraq fiasco which it supported, really want to back a mandate with force?
I think Russia have painted themselves into a corner. What good is a resolution to enforce disarmament that doesn't have repercussions if Syria fails to comply? There may be some concessions but I think Russia will ultimately comply while declaring a diplomatic victory.

As for Iraq, there was no UN mandate for force. The fiasco started when Bush warned the inspectors off and went in anyway.

-spence

I'm not seeing much outrage.

As for outsmarting, just because they're getting the Admin to react doesn't mean they're winning.

Obama has some breathing room which he needed. Syria has fessed up about even owning chem weapons and already agreed in principal to give them up.

If Russia tries to play this as they'll only support a UN Mandate if there's no condition for force I think this will only galvanize International support. The genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in...

-spence

"just because they're getting the Admin to react doesn't mean they're winning."

Spence, I agree...just because Putin is getting a reaction does not mean he's winning. What does mean he is winning, is that Putin is getting the outcome he wanted (Assad stays put with no price to pay), and Obama has egg on his face, since no one was supporting Obama's plan, whatever that was.

"Obama has some breathing room which he needed"

And why did he need it? Because there was no support for his plan.

As for Iraq, there was no UN mandate for force. The fiasco started when Bush warned the inspectors off and went in anyway.

-spence

You need to re-think where you get your information. Iraq repeatedly kicked out the weapons inspectors, in blatant violation of the UN treaty ending the first war.

You need to re-think where you get your information. Iraq repeatedly kicked out the weapons inspectors, in blatant violation of the UN treaty ending the first war.
But did the UN ever legally allow for the use of force? I don't think the no fly zones were explicitly stated, nor was Operation Desert Fox, nor was the 2003 war.

-spence

Spence, I agree...just because Putin is getting a reaction does not mean he's winning. What does mean he is winning, is that Putin is getting the outcome he wanted (Assad stays put with no price to pay), and Obama has egg on his face, since no one was supporting Obama's plan, whatever that was.
If Assad gives up his WMD he becomes more vulnerable which means Russia's interests are more at risk even if they buy more conventional weapons.

It could be a calculation, perhaps they think intervention could stall the civil war and radicalization of rebels is a bigger risk.

-spence

Where's the outrage?

-spence

here's some outrage from across the pond....



Henninger: The Laurel and Hardy Presidency

After the Syrian slapstick, it's time to sober up U.S. foreign policy.
By DANIEL HENNINGER

After writing in the London Telegraph that Monday was "the worst day for U.S. and wider Western diplomacy since records began," former British ambassador Charles Crawford asked simply: "How has this happened?"

On the answer, opinions might differ. Or maybe not. A consensus assessment of the past week's events could easily form around Oliver Hardy's famous lament to the compulsive bumbler Stan Laurel: "Here's another nice mess you've gotten us into!"

In the interplay between Barack Obama and John Kerry, it's not obvious which one is Laurel and which one is Hardy. But diplomatic slapstick is not funny. No one wants to live in a Laurel and Hardy presidency. In a Laurel and Hardy presidency, red lines vanish, shots across the bow are word balloons, and a display of U.S. power with the whole world watching is going to be "unbelievably small."

The past week was a perfect storm of American malfunction. Colliding at the center of a serious foreign-policy crisis was Barack Obama's manifest skills deficit, conservative animosity toward Mr. Obama, Republican distrust of his leadership, and the reflexive opportunism of politicians from Washington to Moscow.

It is Barack Obama's impulse to make himself and whatever is in his head the center of attention. By now, we are used to it. But this week he turned himself, the presidency and the United States into a spectacle. We were alternately shocked and agog at these events. Now the sobering-up has to begin.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323595004579069291111631648.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Anybody proud to still be an American?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

should anyone not be proud to "still be an American"? I imagine most are planning to still be an American for quite some time and proudly so, no matter how hard some try to diminish what it means to be an American or diminish America itself :uhuh:

If Assad gives up his WMD he becomes more vulnerable which means Russia's interests are more at risk even if they buy more conventional weapons.

It could be a calculation, perhaps they think intervention could stall the civil war and radicalization of rebels is a bigger risk.

-spence
I think the powers that be want this civil war to drag on a long long time. It's brilliant really. Give all the extremists a place to go and play with other extremists.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But did the UN ever legally allow for the use of force? I don't think the no fly zones were explicitly stated, nor was Operation Desert Fox, nor was the 2003 war.

-spence

You are right, the UN never legally "allowed" for the use of force against Iraq. And Jim in CT didn't say it did either. So you dodged his post about who actually thwarted the UN inspectors by questioning something that you think I said.

I also did not say that the UN did such a thing. I spoke of the fictional "International Community" to which you like to invoke as some force to "galvanize"--even into a mandate which is backed by military force. And weren't the 30 nations who participated in the coalition of the willing against Saddam, plus 15 others who allowed air space and other assistance, a sizable portion of the "International Community" (which included the U.S. Congress and the UK), and didn't most, if not all, eventually regret it. How is that "International Community" plus the others who were not willing going to be galvanized into mandating the use of force? Saddam was every bit the tyrant as Assad, and even more so. And how will it override vetoes in the UN security council against such a mandate?

You, as often, pick on a small piece of a post, often erroneously, disregarding the rest.

should anyone not be proud to "still be an American"? I imagine most are planning to still be an American for quite some time and proudly so, no matter how hard some try to diminish what it means to be an American or diminish America itself :uhuh:

I think Spence's questions re where is the outrage and still proud to be an American are just sarcastic references to previous questions by conservative posts wondering where was the outrage about Obama administration policies and mandates, and a poke at "conservative" pride in American exceptionalism.

Spence feels we should be outraged by Putin's hypocrisy and his attempt to further divide Americans to promote his country's interests. And, because of what Spence "perceives" (he is a great promoter of "perception" and "context", and "variables" and, no doubt, innumerable relativities) as hatred of Obama, nobody is willing to call Putin out for his hypocrisy. Spence wonders where are all the flag wavers and blogs who should be blasting Putin's manipulation and self interest.

Duh . . . whatever "hate" there is for Obama is for his hypocrisy, and manipulation, and self interest, and his constant dividing us into classes, and haves and have-nots who he will giveth to and taketh away from. And he has certainly agreed with Putin's assessment of our "exceptionalism" and its dangers. He has equated ours with those of any other country. We are no better. Of course, that is not what is meant by American exceptionalism, but that is how Putin and Obama see it. So we are concerned with our "leader" and his hypocrisies and manipulations and self interests and divisiveness, not with Putin's.

I think Spence's questions re where is the outrage and still proud to be an American are just sarcastic references .

I got all of that..it was odd wording... to "still" be an American.. we know to read carefully when he writes something

"So we are concerned with our "leader" and his hypocrisies and manipulations and self interests and divisiveness, not with Putin's."

bingo :uhuh:



"No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage." putin

I'm outraged about this one...."no one"????....Spence could have authored some of these statements.....



don't know who watched or read the Speech, I only read...consider this paragraph, the one that Putin referred to...

"Our ideals and principles (the reals ones or your redefinition of them?) , as well as our national security (please esplain') , are at stake in Syria (really?), along with our leadership (from behind) of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used (according to you they already have been used, you should never say never). America is not the world's policeman (we've heard this many times but you keep sticking your nose in things don't you?) . Terrible things happen across the globe (no way, when did this first dawn on you?), and it is beyond our means to right every wrong ( that's right,we're broke). But when, with modest effort and risk (pinprick?), we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run ???, I believe we should act. That's what makes America different. That's what makes us exceptional. (THAT??)

anybody proud to still be a different, exceptional American?:huh:

On May 18, 2008 in Pendelton, Ore., Obama said that "strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, SYRIA — these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’ (I don't believe Gorby ever said anything like this)

"And ultimately, that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time, allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall," Obama continued. "Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran SYRIA ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have, to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world."


Pelosi, Kerry, Clinton, Obama...all close friends and big supporters of Assad...no one there that can "talk" to him or "listen" to him??

A White House official called it a "stylistic thing". "It's accurate and not meant to signal any walking away from the assessment's figure," the person said.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-syria-crisis-intelligence-idUSBRE98B1C220130912?irpc=932


which an official U.S. government assessment put at 1,429 people, including 426 children.

French intelligence says deaths from the gas attacks could be as high as 1,500, but it reported confirmed deaths from video evidence of 281.

Estimates of gas attack deaths by British intelligence, the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and non-governmental group Doctors without Borders fall within a range of 322 to 355.

"stylistic"....over substance...sounds about right

I would like to see a formal explanation of the just who made the decision and chain of command for when the Sarin was used. Those guys need to be held accountable. I also think we are way past the point of a meaningful strike for using the Sarin. That window was about 2-3 days max if you really wanted it to mean something. Let the Russians see what they can do for getting the remainder sequestered and get those individuals to the Hague soon.

Sadly, if we are not the world police, either on our own or the leaders of a coalition or the bulk of any UN force, then nobody is. Although you must admit the French have stepped up lately.

I would like to see a formal explanation of the just who made the decision and chain of command for when the Sarin was used. Those guys need to be held accountable.
I doubt we'll ever know for sure. There's apparently intel suggesting that leaders of the chem weapons have been asking for permission to use them for some time. There are unconfirmed reports of multiple attacks over the past months.

It's certainly possible that the military acted on their own, which would be even more disturbing.

-spence

You are right, the UN never legally "allowed" for the use of force against Iraq. And Jim in CT didn't say it did either. So you dodged his post about who actually thwarted the UN inspectors by questioning something that you think I said.
I didn't dodge anything, he implied Saddam violating the UN Mandate authorized the use of force which none ever did.

I also did not say that the UN did such a thing. I spoke of the fictional "International Community" to which you like to invoke as some force to "galvanize"--even into a mandate which is backed by military force. And weren't the 30 nations who participated in the coalition of the willing against Saddam, plus 15 others who allowed air space and other assistance, a sizable portion of the "International Community" (which included the U.S. Congress and the UK), and didn't most, if not all, eventually regret it. How is that "International Community" plus the others who were not willing going to be galvanized into mandating the use of force? Saddam was every bit the tyrant as Assad, and even more so. And how will it override vetoes in the UN security council against such a mandate?
The regret is because like many they were caught up in the post 9/11 world led by few with an agenda. Very different than the coalition in 1991 when, like with Syria, there was an active issue at hand.

-spence

CHarles Krauthammer's take...clearly, Krauthammer has no love for Obama, but that doesn't mean he's wrong here...

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-krauthammer-putin-assad-best-obama-over-syri-20130912,0,597395.column

Spence, you keep talking about the benefits of a UN coalition. SOmeone asked you a very pertinent question, and you didn't respond, meaning either you didn't see it, or you chose not to answer it. Here it is again, and this should end any discussion of the value of getting any buy-in from the UN...

Russia is a charter member of the UN, and as such, they can single-handedly veto any resolution to use force. So, on this specific issue Spence, how is the UN going to overcome the certain Russian veto of any threat of using force against Putin's friend Assad?

When then-Senator Obama was asked what he would do about Russia's invasion of Osessia (or whatever that province was called), Obama said he'd ask the UN for sanctions. Obama's plan presumes that he, Obama, is so charismatic, that he would be able to convince the Russians to agree to impose sanctions against themselves.

Amateur hour. Unbelievable.

So Spence, one last time, how can the UN be expected to do anything, when Russia can unilaterally veto?

I didn't dodge anything, he implied Saddam violating the UN Mandate authorized the use of force which none ever did.


The regret is because like many they were caught up in the post 9/11 world led by few with an agenda. Very different than the coalition in 1991 when, like with Syria, there was an active issue at hand.

-spence

"he implied Saddam violating the UN Mandate authorized the use of force "

No, I didn't. What I did was, I correctly repudiated your nonsensical claim that it was Bush's doing that the weapons inspectors were booted out of Iraq.

"Very different than the coalition in 1991 when, like with Syria, there was an active issue at hand."

So when Bush invaded Iraq, there was no issue at hand? Saddam didn't repeatedly violate the terms that ended the first Gulf War, by repeatedly kicking the weapons inspector out? Spence, do you deny that Saddam did that? Or are you saying that kicking the weapons inspectors out, does not rise to the level of calling it "an issue"?

Which is it?

Jesus God Almnighty.

. . . whatever "hate" there is for Obama is for his hypocrisy, and manipulation, and self interest, and his constant dividing us into classes, and haves and have-nots who he will giveth to and taketh away from. And he has certainly agreed with Putin's assessment of our "exceptionalism" and its dangers. He has equated ours with those of any other country. We are no better. Of course, that is not what is meant by American exceptionalism, but that is how Putin and Obama see it. So we are concerned with our "leader" and his hypocrisies and manipulations and self interests and divisiveness, not with Putin's.

Bingo,guess you just can't expect anything different from O after being mentored all those years by the "God Damn America" Rev. Wright.

Bingo,guess you just can't expect anything different from O after being mentored all those years by the "God Damn America" Rev. Wright.

Obama's spiritual advisor is Rev Wright. His political mentor is Bill Ayers. His wife is Michelle (proud of the country for the first time in my life blah blah blah).

Any wonder why some question his love of the country? That skepticism is not rooted in racism, it's rooted in the company Obama chooses to keep.

What's the line on another chemical attack? I'm guessing the end of next week. The rebels are not happy with us right now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Which is it?

Jesus God Almnighty.

not sure why you guys insist on frustrating yourselves by asking him questions knowing that he, just like Barry and his administration simply make everything up to suit their needs and then act like anyone who doesn't believe their concocted facts is stupid, uneducated haters :smash:

Spence, you keep talking about the benefits of a UN coalition. SOmeone asked you a very pertinent question, and you didn't respond, meaning either you didn't see it, or you chose not to answer it. Here it is again, and this should end any discussion of the value of getting any buy-in from the UN...

Russia is a charter member of the UN, and as such, they can single-handedly veto any resolution to use force. So, on this specific issue Spence, how is the UN going to overcome the certain Russian veto of any threat of using force against Putin's friend Assad?

When then-Senator Obama was asked what he would do about Russia's invasion of Osessia (or whatever that province was called), Obama said he'd ask the UN for sanctions. Obama's plan presumes that he, Obama, is so charismatic, that he would be able to convince the Russians to agree to impose sanctions against themselves.

Amateur hour. Unbelievable.

So Spence, one last time, how can the UN be expected to do anything, when Russia can unilaterally veto?
It's called negotiation.

-spence

No, I didn't. What I did was, I correctly repudiated your nonsensical claim that it was Bush's doing that the weapons inspectors were booted out of Iraq.
I said no such thing, what I did say was that point was the start of the real fiasco.

So when Bush invaded Iraq, there was no issue at hand? Saddam didn't repeatedly violate the terms that ended the first Gulf War, by repeatedly kicking the weapons inspector out? Spence, do you deny that Saddam did that? Or are you saying that kicking the weapons inspectors out, does not rise to the level of calling it "an issue"?
At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody, Bush was acting on a perceived threat. It was a preventative action.

-spence

Obama's spiritual advisor is Rev Wright. His political mentor is Bill Ayers. His wife is Michelle (proud of the country for the first time in my life blah blah blah).

Any wonder why some question his love of the country? That skepticism is not rooted in racism, it's rooted in the company Obama chooses to keep.

This speaks volumes.

-spence

So it looks like diplomacy wins in the short term. Syria has to comply on a very accelerated pace with UN oversight and Russia isn't faced with an immediate veto dilemma unless their little friend decides to cheat in which case it goes before the security council.

Very good chance we'll be able to rid the world of a huge WMD stockpile. Israel must be loving this...

-spence

go easy solocirclejerk.....

"The agreement will be backed by a U.N. Security Council resolution (we know how well these work) that could allow for sanctions (oh no, not the dreaded and ineffective "could sanctions") or other consequences (baaaaa haaa haaa) if Syria fails to comply, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said (need to consider the source:uhuh:).

Kerry said that the first international inspection of Syrian chemical weapons will take place by November (oh good, that gives them lots of time), with destruction to begin next year (like the Keystone Pipeline).

Senior administration officials had said Friday the Obama administration would not press for U.N. authorization to use force against Syria if it reneges on any agreement to give up its chemical weapons.

The Russians had made clear in talks here between Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Kerry that the negotiations could not proceed under the threat of a U.N. resolution authorizing a military strike. Russia also wanted assurances that a resolution would not refer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the International Criminal Court for possible war-crimes prosecution. (but isn't he guilty?)

President Obama has said that the unilateral U.S. use of force against Syria for a chemical attack last month remains on the table. (he says a lot of things) But consideration of that action, already under challenge by a skeptical Congress, has been put on hold pending the outcome of the Geneva talks. (oh, boo...(you know he wanted to pick some targets over lunch and blow some #^&#^&#^&#^& up)

The discussions here began this week following a Russian proposal Monday, quickly agreed to by Assad, to place Syria’s chemical arsenal under international control and eventually destroy it.

Kerry and Lavrov, negotiating behind closed doors with teams of disarmament experts, have said little about the talks that began Thursday. But administration officials in Washington provided some details on the condition that they not be identified or quoted directly. (yeah, I'd like a second opinion)

The officials insisted that any agreement must be verifiable and include consequences for non-compliance. Short of a threatened use of force, it is not clear what those consequences would be. (tickle torture with an ostrich feather most likely)



good grief.....

hey Spence, you do know that Putin announced he's sending missiles and building a reactor in Iran....that the US and Israel vehemently opposed a couple of years ago...Israel must be thrilled!

I said no such thing, what I did say was that point was the start of the real fiasco.


At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody, Bush was acting on a perceived threat. It was a preventative action.

-spence

"At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody"

Spence, no one said Saddam was gassing somebody...see if you can go two seconds without moving the goalposts, shall we?

you said that unlike what Bush 43 faced with Iraq, Obama has a real issue with Syria. Meaning, there was no issue in Iraq. No issue. The fact that Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the UN peace treaty, to you, was not an issue to be addressed. Your words, not anyone else's.

"Bush was acting on a perceived threat."

Oh, Bush did it unilaterally? He didn't get formal support from the US Senate, including Senators Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Schumer, Boxer, et al? All those conservative neocons?

Lots of people that are considered heroes by the left, were every bit as certain as Bush, that Iraq had WMDs.

go easy solocirclejerk.....
Wow, that's pathetic.

-spence

"At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody"

Spence, no one said Saddam was gassing somebody...see if you can go two seconds without moving the goalposts, shall we?

you said that unlike what Bush 43 faced with Iraq, Obama has a real issue with Syria. Meaning, there was no issue in Iraq. No issue. The fact that Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the UN peace treaty, to you, was not an issue to be addressed. Your words, not anyone else's.

"Bush was acting on a perceived threat."

Oh, Bush did it unilaterally? He didn't get formal support from the US Senate, including Senators Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Schumer, Boxer, et al? All those conservative neocons?

Lots of people that are considered heroes by the left, were every bit as certain as Bush, that Iraq had WMDs.
You're just talking now, trying to find things to object to.

-spence

At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody, Bush was acting on a perceived threat. It was a preventative action.

-spence

Isn't destroying Assad's stuff a preventative action? Aren't Assad's weapons a perceived threat?

Do you perceive chemical weapons to be a greater threat than radical, jihadist Islam?

WMD have been owned by nations for more than 60 years. Doesn't it depend on the rational makeup of the owners more than the weapons? Isn't the ideology and conviction of the owners the far greater threat than the weapons?

If so, why do we support and supply the "rebels" who will most likely be co-opted by jihadist types whose ideology and conviction is world domination, not merely domination of a state? Do we really think that Assad would use his weapons against us if we left him alone? Do we think he has a mission to bring down the evil West?

Why are we so willing to use force against a local tyrant, but support those who wish to destroy us? I don't know if it is possible to rid the world of chemical weapons if the ability to produce them exists. I would rather rid us of those who wish us harm and destruction by any means possible, chemical or otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw

go easy solocirclejerk.....


Wow, that's perfect.

-spence

fixed it for you, I agree that your constant use of the term is a little childish but I was inspired after reading over the little orgasm post you were having and the crazy conclusions that you were coming to based on very little....:rotf2:

You're just talking now, trying to find things to object to.

-spence

Spence, you said that what Bush faced in Iraq did not rise to the level of being an issue. That's what you said. Your words. Nonsensical words, but your words nonetheless.

Spence, you said that what Bush faced in Iraq did not rise to the level of being an issue. That's what you said. Your words. Nonsensical words, but your words nonetheless.
No, you're just hearing what you want to hear, that's why is sounds like nonsense.

-spence

this is pretty funny....

"United Nations Security Council resolution 678, adopted on 29 November 1990, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674 and 677 (all 1990), the Council noted that despite all the United Nations efforts, Iraq continued to defy the Security Council

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments........


"4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach."


Iraq didn't really rise to the level of being an issue and the threat was "perceived" ? Spence should have notified the UN and they could have saved all of that time pounding out all of these resolutions and threats of consequences for nothing......But now Syria....there's s SERIOUS threat from a tiny country :rotf2:

You're conflating a lot of mumble here.

The threat perceived from Iraq wasn't that he had defied his obligations, it was that he would give WMD to alQaeda.

-spence

No, you're just hearing what you want to hear, that's why is sounds like nonsense.

-spence

OK. So now, you are denying that you said the events leading up to the second Gulf War didn't rise to the level of being called an "active issue"

here is an exact quote.

"The regret is because like many they (those dealing with Saddam) were caught up in the post 9/11 world led by few with an agenda. Very different than the coalition in 1991 when, like with Syria, there was an active issue at hand."

You say here that there was no active issue. You also say that the war was launched by a few with an agenda.

Spence, read the Senate vote on authorizing the use of force. Those in favor included the current Vice President, as well as senators Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Boxer, Edwards, all those neocons. You're saying they all had an agenda?

What was Joe Biden's agenda, Spence? Enlighten me. What was Senator Clinton's agenda, and Senator Kerry?

OK. So now, you are denying that you said the events leading up to the second Gulf War didn't rise to the level of being called an "active issue"

here is an exact quote.

"The regret is because like many they (those dealing with Saddam) were caught up in the post 9/11 world led by few with an agenda. Very different than the coalition in 1991 when, like with Syria, there was an active issue at hand."

You say here that there was no active issue. You also say that the war was launched by a few with an agenda.

Spence, read the Senate vote on authorizing the use of force. Those in favor included the current Vice President, as well as senators Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Boxer, Edwards, all those neocons. You're saying they all had an agenda?

What was Joe Biden's agenda, Spence? Enlighten me. What was Senator Clinton's agenda, and Senator Kerry?

Iraq's status (from bad to critical) was elevated because those in power at the time had an agenda. I don't think there's any question that the Admin had an Iraq fixation.

-spence

Iraq's status (from bad to critical) was elevated because those in power at the time had an agenda. I don't think there's any question that the Admin had an Iraq fixation.

-spence

"I don't think there's any question that the Admin had an Iraq fixation."

If that's true, it wasn't just the administration Spence. You must necessarily concede, then, that most of the Democrats in the Senate also had that same fixation, and many of those democrats are in the current administration. Shouldn't that frighten you? If senators Biden, Kerry and Clinton all agreed to war because of some irrational fixation, do they belong in the positions of VP and Secstate? Good luck! Let's see how you move the goalposts on this one!

also Spence, do you agree that Saddam repeatedly kicked out the weapons inspectors? And that was in violation of the terms that ended the first war? What would you have done with that fact? Nothing? The US-led coalition gave him all kinds of chances to comply with the weapons inspectors, and there would have been no war had he agreed to the treaty that he signed.

"I don't think there's any question that the Admin had an Iraq fixation."

If that's true, it wasn't just the administration Spence. You must necessarily concede, then, that most of the Democrats in the Senate also had that same fixation, and many of those democrats are in the current administration. Shouldn't that frighten you? If senators Biden, Kerry and Clinton all agreed to war because of some irrational fixation, do they belong in the positions of VP and Secstate? Good luck! Let's see how you move the goalposts on this one!

also Spence, do you agree that Saddam repeatedly kicked out the weapons inspectors? And that was in violation of the terms that ended the first war? What would you have done with that fact? Nothing? The US-led coalition gave him all kinds of chances to comply with the weapons inspectors, and there would have been no war had he agreed to the treaty that he signed.

Bush's and the UN's red lines were clear to the world . They didn't go to save face or to back up tough talk. The reason Bush had support was because he had credibility and a incredible talented cabinet .
Not so much this time around .
I'm thinking the negotiations are coming along much like Obamas try at securing the Olympics for the US
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bush's and the UN's red lines were clear to the world . They didn't go to save face or to back up tough talk. The reason Bush had support was because he had credibility and a incredible talented cabinet.
Hey, after 9/11 I thought the same thing. Thank god we have that team in place...

Makes it even more astounding that they got nearly everything wrong.

-spence

Hey, after 9/11 I thought the same thing. Thank god we have that team in place...

Makes it even more astounding that they got nearly everything wrong.

-spence

Help me out here Spence. How many attacks after 9/11 on their watch ?
Nearly everything ??? How's Obama doing?? His records a little worse I think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Help me out here Spence. How many attacks after 9/11 on their watch ?
Nearly everything ??? How's Obama doing?? His records a little worse I think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe there were 11 attacks under Bush's watch after 9/11 to US consulates, embassies and places where Americans congregate.

Funny, you didn't hear about most or any of these from the evil liberal media or Democrats trying to make air time. Yet, on 9/11 just last week you had republicans still out beating the Benghazi drum. It's shameful...

-spence

I believe there were 11 attacks under Bush's watch after 9/11 to US consulates, embassies and places where Americans congregate.

Funny, you didn't hear about most or any of these from the evil liberal media or Democrats trying to make air time. Yet, on 9/11 just last week you had republicans still out beating the Benghazi drum. It's shameful...

-spence

we've listed them before, no Americans died, no lies were told by the administration and they were not the result of incompetence from the administration...you get dumber by the post :uhuh:

I believe there were 11 attacks under Bush's watch after 9/11 to US consulates, embassies and places where Americans congregate.

Funny, you didn't hear about most or any of these from the evil liberal media or Democrats trying to make air time. Yet, on 9/11 just last week you had republicans still out beating the Benghazi drum. It's shameful...

-spence

I think Scott covered this quite well .
Amazing you found nothing shameful about the way this Administration handled Benghazi .
You're just getting annoying at this point. I keep waiting for you to say you were just kidding around for the last 5 years. A 5 year practical joke would be amusing :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we've listed them before, no Americans died, no lies were told by the administration and they were not the result of incompetence from the administration...you get dumber by the post :uhuh:

Seriously Scott, you should think before you post. You're wrong of course, and the ad hominem stuff is just juvenile.

-spence

Btw I just gave you a way to save face Spence. I would take the cue from your dear leader and run with it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Btw I just gave you a way to save face Spence. I would take the cue from your dear leader and run with it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I just like it when you post. Seeing Reagan and knowing that you don't agree with so much that he stood for makes me happy.

-spence

I just like it when you post. Seeing Reagan and knowing that you don't agree with so much that he stood for makes me happy.

-spence

Really ? Coming from somebody with an abstruse view of reality, that's funny
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, after 9/11 I thought the same thing. Thank god we have that team in place...

Makes it even more astounding that they got nearly everything wrong.

-spence

Spence, the Bush administration was wrong about WMDs. How come you won't talk about the fact. that many prominent liberals were equally wrong. Bill and Hilary Clinton, Senators Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer. Does it concern you that many in the present administration (Biden, Clinton, Kerry) were every bit as wrong? Or are Republicans the only ones who can be labeled as incompetent for being wrong about Iraq?

I just like it when you post. Seeing Reagan and knowing that you don't agree with so much that he stood for makes me happy.

-spence

Ok you peaked my curiosity ! What did Reagan stand for that you think I oppose? A strong military, tax cuts to promote growth , against socialized health care, that people were better off with investing there own $$ instead of SS, pro life, capital punishment , against the dept of education , pro free market ????
Help me out here.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Help me out here.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

been through this..the usual revisionist tripe....you are enabling him to change the subject, spout even more bs and sound like an even bigger dope...oooooh...on third thought...go right ahead :uhuh:

pretty good article on the toothlessness of this agreement...

"Odds are that in agreeing to sign the CWC, Assad knew he was enrolling in a treaty that is cumbersome to apply and easy to manipulate. Indeed, U.S. authorities believe that Russia, now proposing to help rid Assad of his chemical weapons, has itself been cheating on the chemical-weapons treaty. According to the State Department’s 2013 report to Congress on compliance with the CWC, “the United States assesses that Russia’s CWC declaration is incomplete with respect to chemical agent and stockpiles.”



http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358475/syrias-pals-chemical-weapons-convention-claudia-rosett

I'm not sure about the Gas itself. I keep reading it's not the first attack but the 3rd or 4th by both sides.
There is no doubt in my mind that the rush Kerry and Obama were in to bomb, which completely contradicted there previous stances on war, makes me question the motivation. It was worse though to watch those 2 paint themselves right into a corner and Putin shut the door.




http://www.infowars.com/us-military-document-rebels-had-sarin-gas-for-attack-in-syria/

This presidency has been an epic failure, for the same reasons that I would be a failure if I was hired to be chief engineer at a nuclear reactor. Obama does not understand this country, its history, how it works, or most importantly, why it does what it does. And to be fair, how can he? Examine his associations. Everything he thinks he knows about America he "learned" at the feet of Marxist gasbags at Harvard or in the faculty lounge at the University of Chicago (infested by other Marxist gasbags who were educated at Harvard) or by his political cronies in the Democrat establishment (who are all Marxist gasbags who were educated at Harvard).

Spence, the Bush administration was wrong about WMDs.

Irag did have WMD's ...if U call the gassing of about 5,000 Kurds, men, women and children in one village just a coincidence then I do not know what WMD are.....the problem is we gave Irag time to remove them.

http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Report-Syria-transported-chemical-weapons-to-Iraq-326141

uh..oh...

they should send in Iranian inspectors, Jimmy Carter and Dennis Rodman immediately to get control of this situation

Here is what our president said in his Syrian speech...

"With modest risk and effort, we can [resolve the crisis, in essence]. That is what makes America exceptional. That is what makes us unique."

Obama is saying that what makes America exceptional, is our willingness to undertake "modest risk and effort" on behalf of those who are suffering. MODEST risk and effort?

Those teenagers who stormed the beaches of Normandy, were only taking a modest risk? The hundreds of thousands of union soldiers who died during the Civil War...only took a "modest" risk to try to free the slaves? The kids who stormed the beaches at Tarawa and Iwo Jima, only were asked to make a "modest" effort? The firemen and cops who ran INTO the burning buildings on 09/11, their sacrifices were merely "modest".

This is what you get from a guy who spends his life (1) in academia, and then (2) engaging in racial, divisive politics.

I cannot imagine the last time a president said something so stupid, inaccurate, offensive, and demonstrably false. To Obama, "real" effort is what kids do at Harvard, while the teenager on Seal Team 6 kicking down doors in Fallujah is only making a "modest" effort.

He's such a jerk.

.

"modest risk" is lobbing missiles into a country to punish a dictator whom you and many of your closest progressives were only recently enabling and licking the toes of, but who has fallen out of favor with you because he's embarrassed you in some way and so now you assume the even more "modest risk" of arming the rebels opposing the dictator with the tasty toes despite the fact that they are increasingly proven to be radical islamists/jihadists...

the enemy of my friend turned enemy is my friend/enemy

it's quite a pickle

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html

"modest risk" is lobbing missiles into a country to punish a dictator whom you and many of your closest progressives were only recently enabling and licking the toes of, but who has fallen out of favor with you because he's embarrassed you in some way and so now you assume the even more "modest risk" of arming the rebels opposing the dictator with the tasty toes despite the fact that they are increasingly proven to be radical islamists/jihadists...

the enemy of my friend turned enemy is my friend/enemy

it's quite a pickle

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html

"Significant" effort and risk is what is asked of people who teach law school, I suppose.

Pat Tillman, NFL all-star who quit the NFL and joined the Army Rangers after 09/11 and was killed, only made a "modest" sacrifice.

And the former Seals who worked security in Benghazi, who ran to the annex to help and paid for it with their lives? According to the SecState at the time, the woman who will likely be our next president, their sacrifice was so modest, that it "doesn't matter" to inquire as to the circumstances of their deaths.

This is what you get from Ivy League, elitist gasbags, who never, ever have to ante up themselves. They just sit back, drinking apple-tinis, disparaging those who roll up their sleeves and accomplish the actual good in the world.

It's repugnant.