Putins Letter to the US

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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

"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.