Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

[Mega]

http://news.sky.com/story/1140394/sy...embers-to-meet

Everything is going to plan..........for PUTIN!

I been thinking about this today, has Obama had his "Jimmy Carter/Iran hostage rescue fail" moment?

Is he doomed like Jimmy?

Mike

[Mega]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

Never let a good crisis go to waste:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ctor-IRAN.html

Mike

[Mega]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

Ah French reistance!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rman-rule.html

[Forrest]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

http://news.sky.com/story/1140394/sy...embers-to-meet

Everything is going to plan..........for PUTIN!

I been thinking about this today, has Obama had his "Jimmy Carter/Iran hostage rescue fail" moment?

Is he doomed like Jimmy?

Mike

We can only hope so. Obama, like Carter did, thinks with his ideals and his heart, rather than with his principles, and his common sense.

[c1ue]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

I don't think this is anything like the failure of the Iran hostage rescue.

Nor are we seeing daily images of hostage Americans being paraded around like trophies.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

http://news.sky.com/story/1140394/sy...embers-to-meet

Everything is going to plan..........for PUTIN!

I been thinking about this today, has Obama had his "Jimmy Carter/Iran hostage rescue fail" moment?

Is he doomed like Jimmy?

Mike

I don't understand. If a solution is found that prevents future chemical weapon attacks without the risk and expense of a military strike, isn't that a cause for celebration? Who cares whether Putin gets credit or if Kerry just blundered into it?

This obsession with how our leaders must "feel" about their foreign policies is ludicrous. I have absolutely no concern about whether my President will be "embarrassed" by a peaceful alternative to war. Ask an 85 year old Japanese citizen if they are still "ashamed" about Hirohito's surrender. If the most face-anxious people on the planet can quickly get past the "humiliation" of defeat in WW2, so can we, particularly when the proposed settlement gets us exactly what we claimed we wanted through war --- the prevention of another chemical weapons attack.

Granted, that's not really what we wanted, which is why the proposed settlement is so upsetting to so many people in the MIC. But to those people I say tough shit. If you lie about your real objectives, you cannot complain when somebody accepts your lie as the truth.

[Forrest]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

I don't understand. If a solution is found that prevents future chemical weapon attacks without the risk and expense of a military strike, isn't that a cause for celebration? Who cares whether Putin gets credit or if Kerry just blundered into it?

The solution is an excellant one for anyone who actually cares about the Syrians, and about our military personnel, and I will be very grateful to Kerry for opening his mouth and off handedly offering the Syrians a way out of a mess they may not have committed. Assad can always make more chemical weapons. But Putin gets the upperhand in an international game of sheer chutzpah, and that will do him a lot of good in negotiating lots of important matters, like how he is going to his pipeline built to Europe without opposition from his oil competitors, or whether China would prefer Russia's oil to Iran's, and so forth.

Everyone wins if we don't get in a war except the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Quada, and the politicians in Washington who do not care who they are supporting if they can keep the Russians and the Chinese from getting what they want, even if that won't hurt us in the slightest.

This obsession with how our leaders must "feel" about their foreign policies is ludicrous. I have absolutely no concern about whether my President will be "embarrassed" by a peaceful alternative to war.

Ah, but in the world of Diplomacy, actually having a known Foreign Policy is a good thing...it lets people know what you are likely to do if they hurt one of your friends, or one of your citizens. Obama has no Foreign Policy except to be liked and admired by the people he likes and admires. The rest of the people don't matter, like American Citizens, or the people we would be attacking, or all the other nations who simply cannot find a smoking gun in Assad's hands, and therefore are not supporting a military strike just because Obama likes to kill people.

Ask an 85 year old Japanese citizen if they are still "ashamed" about Hirohito's surrender.

Based on my Dad's feelings about the Japanese before his recent death at 87, you can be very sure that a lot of people recall more vividly how they felt at the end of WWII than they do about what they observe happening now. Our world is beyond their recognition, and they mostly want to go back to how it was in their childhood. I am only 58, and I want to go back to how it was in my childhood. Kids half my age want to go back to my time of childhood too...it was a much saner, polite, and concerned society. The Japanese Samurei warriors that remained alive after WWII were merely so horrified by the Atomic Bomb, and it's ramifications that they gave up their old world for the new. That is not to say they liked it. They gritted their teeth and bore it.

If the most face-anxious people on the planet can quickly get past the "humiliation" of defeat in WW2, so can we, particularly when the proposed settlement gets us exactly what we claimed we wanted through war --- the prevention of another chemical weapons attack.

The prevention of another chemical attack has not been made. Too many people have chemical weapons for that to happen that are not in Assad's government. There were ton's of stuff scattered from Iraq at the time of the last Middle Eastern police action, as Saddam Hussein was known to have made a lot of them, yet by the time the UN got there, there weren't any. Hmmm...the UN couldn't find much proof of who did what to whom, only that it happened...that seems to be their modus operendi.

Humiliation of a President only lasts a few years, at least for the people of America. Obama may never quite get over it, just as Jimmy Carter hasn't...he is a very bitter man. The next President will have a very difficult time getting anything done to America's advantage, because Obama is burning every bridge we have to other countries. Overcoming the mess Obama has made of America's public image internationally will take decades under more Reaganesque leaders, plus many many years for people to forget that our banking system has made most of their countries into poor nations while impoverishing ourselves as well.

And yes, we will eventually recover a modicum of International respect after letting others run the globe for a while, after they see just how tricky it is to do without unending wealth...presuming our country survives being a backwater until our demographics change, and our unpaid bills are forgotton. That will take a couple of decades after the financial crash kills everybody's economies. But we will never be the nation we were after WWII, when people actually wanted us around when someone threatened them, and had such bad economies and currency that they loved the American Dollar...until we stopped settling our international debts with Gold in '71.

Granted, that's not really what we wanted, which is why the proposed settlement is so upsetting to so many people in the MIC. But to those people I say tough shit. If you lie about your real objectives, you cannot complain when somebody accepts your lie as the truth.

The Military-Industrial Complex will still run the world...they just will not be doing it through our military all the time...but then, they never have. And I sincerely doubt that any patriotic American wanted the U.S.A. to be running guns to Mexico, or Libya, much less bomb a bunch of people just because it's fun, and easy to do. As a nation, we get nothing from hurting Assad, and Syria gets nothing by anyone hurting Assad.

As for the government lying about their objectives, well, you may not know, but diplomacy is not supposed to be about lying. It is about scratching other people's backs some of the time, so they will scratch yours when you need it. You are not supposed to lie to other countries...just not tell them all they want to know all the time. Diplomacy is about thousands of small agreements, concessions and favors made over a long time, so that others will make more agreements, give concessions, and arrange for favors to be done when you need them.

Politicians, now...their job is, by it's nature, not about telling the truth, but getting things done. The current politicians aren't doing that very well, so they are lying a great deal. The press is supposed to expose the truth, but the Mainstream Media are merely government propaganda machines, and have been for a very long time, so very few politicians are ever called on it anymore.

As for what the truth is...well, every piece of information that is published by anyone, government or not, is not necessarily the truth. Having the internet helps us to guess at what it might be.

Unfortunately, it is very hard to prove any of it until well after we need to know the information, and that creates distrust. So if Obama loses all ability to present a stable course of intentions that the rest of the world can rely on, America is damaged. Which means Americans are damaged in ways that we may never know, while all sorts of opportunities slip away from us, and doors are quietly closed in our faces.

I at least find that to be of concern to me, and to others. However, I am not obsessed by it...merely very aware that life gets harder every day the status quo is in place.

[verdo]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

I don't really get why Obama is getting so much heat for this outcome honestly. No one wanted war, we didn't get a war. People were weary of Assad and his chemical weapons, now he is being disarmed of his chemical weapons. Oil wont spike to $150/barrel, Iran will calm down, and the conflict stays isolated within Syria. As far as I'm concerned, job well done. I mean its true that Obama didn't exactly come up with the solution, but does anyone here really think Assad and Russia would have been brought to the negotiation table at all if Obama didn't threaten to use force, even in the absence of Congressional support?

[LorenS]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

I don't really get why Obama is getting so much heat for this outcome honestly. No one wanted war, we didn't get a war.

Probably for the same reason you get less jail time for attempted murder.

[verdo]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

Probably for the same reason you get less jail time for attempted murder.

except that he's getting attacked from every direction. Some say he was too soft. Some say he should not have done anything at all. Some want him to strike when they least expect it. I mean he really couldn't please people no matter what he did. I was and still remain firmly against striking Syria, but the fact that we may just get a peaceful resolution of this through diplomacy is satisfactory to me. I criticized him for wanting to go in even without congressional support, but I also give credit where its due. If he's willing to resolve the issue without having to go to war, this is positive thing in my eyes

[c1ue]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

I mean its true that Obama didn't exactly come up with the solution, but does anyone here really think Assad and Russia would have been brought to the negotiation table at all if Obama didn't threaten to use force, even in the absence of Congressional support?

I don't know where this meme arose from, but it is utterly false.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05...conference-in/

The Syrian government has agreed "in principle" to attend a conference proposed by Russia and the United States on ending the country's civil war, Russia's Foreign Ministry said Friday, the first confirmation that President Bashar Assad's regime would be willing to take part in the talks with the opposition.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/26/world/...war/index.html

Both the Syrian government and the opposition Syrian National Coalition indicated Sunday they are interested in a peace conference next month in Geneva, Switzerland, though both sides tempered any optimism about the summit with caveats.

Notice the dates on the above.

The primary reason why this conference didn't happen?

Crickets ... on the US side.

Thus to say that Obama's threat was the one which "brought Syria to the negotiating table" ... utterly ludicrous.

[LorenS]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

If he's willing to resolve the issue without having to go to war, this is positive thing in my eyes

I would like to agree. However, Putin is former KGB while Obama is a former community agitator. Obama is out of his league and I doubt this will end well no matter how encouraging it looks at the moment. I don't trust Putin, he is dangrous as an enemy, but I believe more so as an ally.

In football this would be regarded as a fumble. Putin now has the ball.

[DSpencer]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

I don't really get why Obama is getting so much heat for this outcome honestly. No one wanted war, we didn't get a war. People were weary of Assad and his chemical weapons, now he is being disarmed of his chemical weapons. Oil wont spike to $150/barrel, Iran will calm down, and the conflict stays isolated within Syria. As far as I'm concerned, job well done. I mean its true that Obama didn't exactly come up with the solution, but does anyone here really think Assad and Russia would have been brought to the negotiation table at all if Obama didn't threaten to use force, even in the absence of Congressional support?

I understand your sentiment to a degree. To the extent that Obama didn't immediately start a war without congressional approval or popular support he deserves a sliver of credit. Every other part of his handling of the situation is a joke.

In his arrogance, he overestimates his own power by drawing the "red line". When he realizes how little support he has he starts to waffle on enforcing the red line. He wants the backing of congress but hedges by claiming not to really need it. He claims that his proof is definitive but far from everybody thinks so. Now Putin basically corners him by offering an option that would make Obama seem belligerent to not accept. And the outcome is still unknown and temporary anyway.

[DSpencer]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

except that he's getting attacked from every direction. Some say he was too soft. Some say he should not have done anything at all. Some want him to strike when they least expect it. I mean he really couldn't please people no matter what he did. I was and still remain firmly against striking Syria, but the fact that we may just get a peaceful resolution of this through diplomacy is satisfactory to me. I criticized him for wanting to go in even without congressional support, but I also give credit where its due. If he's willing to resolve the issue without having to go to war, this is positive thing in my eyes

How could anyone logically support him?

Those who support war: They didn't get it. He said there's a red line and it's been crossed and then did nothing.
Those who oppose war: Obama wanted a war. His failure to get it is not to his credit. You don't give someone credit for trying to murder people but failing because they couldn't unholster their gun.

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

EDIT: I actually think this will work out OK for Obama in the end. Most people don't pay attention. If we aren't at war in a couple years they will forget this whole thing happened. He will claim it as a diplomatic victory and many will buy that. Not that it matters now anyway.

[verdo]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

Thus to say that Obama's threat was the one which "brought Syria to the negotiating table" ... utterly ludicrous.

I really don't see how it's ludicrous. The threat to the Syrian regime by the U.S. has reached a far more critical point now than it was a few months ago due to the serious push by the Obama administration to strike regardless of the congressional vote. Knowing this, there is a lot more incentive to actually act and remove these chemical weapons provided that they get some support on the matter by Russia. I mean, if some of you want to blame Obama for everything that goes wrong that's fine, but for myself, I pick and choose what I'm willing to attack Obama for (which is a lot), and what I'm willing to give him some leeway on. Point 1) I and most people don't want a war. Reality: Under threat of the U.S. getting directly involved militarily (and no, the Russian's aren't going to fire upon the U.S. and start a world war over Syria), Assad may end up having no choice now but to surrender his chemical weapons (which whether he actually used them or not, I consider this a good thing because Assad is far from being a saint himself) while at the same time, diffusing the situation without major players having to get involved militarily. Whether Obama had much to do with it or not, I consider it a win for international peace