Putins Letter to the US

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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



"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?

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??

[scottw]

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

[rphud]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by rphud

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

[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]

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

[Jim in CT]

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?

[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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

. . . 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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

[buckman]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[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

[scottw]

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).

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!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

go easy solocirclejerk.....

Wow, that's pathetic.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw

go easy solocirclejerk.....

Originally Posted by spence

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....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[scottw]

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

[spence]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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?