Putins Letter to the US
 

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/op...=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

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

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

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

No that already happened in 2004 and 2008.
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?

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

"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.

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

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

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/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

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 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

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.

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 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/...30912?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 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

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

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/...,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?