Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

[c1ue]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

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

I consider it ludicrous because Obama had a chance to have a sit-down in Geneva between Syria, the FSF, the US, Russia, and anyone else who cares to discuss peace terms, 4 months ago.

He chose not to engage.

Now, when Obama's threats to attack have been derailed by Kerry's mouth, you're trying to tell me that Obama was really trying to set up peace talks all along?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

I'll further note that literally 1 month after the above May proposal for peace talks, that was when the 1st 'chemical weapons attack' fiasco occurred - when Obama drew his 'red line'.

So this latest iteration isn't even the first time Obama has threatened Syria over chemical weapons. Even disregarding that the first try was shown by the UN to have been performed by the rebels - the timetable for the proposed peace summit was still valid, and Obama still failed to engage.

[verdo]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

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.

except we don't have all the facts to what is really going on at the top level. For all we know he was bluffing this whole time, but pulling a hard face in order to scare Russia into putting more pressure on the Assad regime. Push things to the absolute brink and take some political heat/division for it in order to get the desired result, which is to disarm Assad of weapons that are largely frowned upon internationally

[c1ue]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

except we don't have all the facts to what is really going on at the top level. For all we know he was bluffing this whole time, but pulling a hard face in order to scare Russia into putting more pressure on the Assad regime. Push things to the absolute brink and take some political heat/division for it in order to get the desired result, which is to disarm Assad of weapons that are largely frowned upon internationally

Sorry, but this is wishful thinking on your part.

Nothing that is on the table now, was not on the table previously.

I'll further note that Obama is in a horrible political sinkhole with Syria: he's put his own credibility at stake with his 'red line', then has been pushing very hard for military action despite a tremendous upswell of disapproval from voters as well as pretty much the entire rest of the world.

Right now Obama has positioned himself as a hotheaded bully and simultaneously made Putin look like the voice of reason. Oops.

I also noted in a previous thread that Obama himself possesses chemical weapons.

[verdo]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

As much as I was (and still am) against actual strikes against Syria, I also don't believe that Assad is this gem of a man who is responsible enough to hold chemical weapons in his possession either, or better yet the person to replace him later. Throughout this whole thing, I've maintained the position that both sides to this proxy war aren't people that I could personally stand with. But with all the negative things coming out of Washington these days, I think it's easy to forget that the other side to this war aren't the kind of people this world needs either.

I also don't believe that Obama going to the negotiation table months ago with people like Putin and Assad when he had little leverage (Assad still beating back the rebels, and there was almost no legitimate pretext for the U.S. to get involved with direct military strikes) would have given him nearly as much result as he would get by going to the negotiation table today when he has put on his "I don't care what congress says, im going to attack you anyways" face to the whole world. If I had to make a choice between coming to the negotiation table today or four months ago (as Obama), I'd choose today when Assad has visual proof that the current administration doesn't care whatsoever what Congress says concerning the contest over Syria. Take the situation to the absolute brink, and break the backbone of Assad's overconfidence on his position that the U.S. will not use their military to change the outcome on the ground.

If the mission was to disarm an oppressive dictator of chemical weapons without creating a hot war, the mission is looking more and more like a success. He drew a red line about chemical weapons being used, and now we may get a resolution where less chemical weapons will ever see the light of day. I don't really care personally who gains credit for it. All I care about is that a potential regional war might now be diffused, with the added bonus of disarming Assad of weapons almost universally frowned upon

Now if the mission was regime change, Syria disarming itself of chemical weapons seems to go along with the typical U.S. "long-game" strategy when it comes to regime change. The U.S., after turning a blind eye to Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (which served their interests at the time), turned the tables on Saddam once they set their sights on Iraq by first disarming him of his chemical weapons (Then later claiming that he's still hiding a few WMD's that they "missed"). Later they attacked Iraq, removed Saddam, and got the regime change they wanted. Same thing happened in Libya. Qaddafi while he played by everyone's rules wasn't harassed much, but once he started to show shifts in principle, the U.S. showed a shift in theirs. They disarmed him of as many of his "weapons of mass destruction" as they could in 2004. Once a new opportunity arrived, their "boots on the ground" (which were rebel radicals) were bolstered by the fact that Qaddafi didn't have everything at his disposal and by extra air support (Again without putting their own boots on the ground). Qaddafi was removed, and they got the regime change they wanted. History doesn't necessarily repeat exactly the same way every time, but it certainly rhymes...and in my opinion events are rhyming right now. What is going on in terms of these negotiations to disarm Syria today could be seen as a failure to get regime change if you see it as the last move on the United States part. Historically however, this could easily be seen as just the first step.

So my ultimate belief here is that these "resolution" talks are happening because the White House wants it to happen now (versus months ago). Nothing in my opinion has been permanently thwarted. Attacking Syria later after disarming them of their unconventional weapons today is no problem for the White House, as they often don't care about being seen as hypocrites no matter who the president is. Disarm them by any means necessary, then go in later. The only reason this situation is a little different (and taking a little longer) from situations in the past is because Russia has put on a bolder face. Russia has altered their tactics, and so the U.S. has altered theirs too.

I also noted in a previous thread that Obama himself possesses chemical weapons.

I trust the U.S. with chemical weapons more than I do a dictatorial regime in the middle east, with the caveat that I am well aware that even a country like the U.S. can still misuse it, and the world would be a better place if no one had them at all

[shiny!]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

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.

I trust Putin absolutely... to be working for Russia's interests. He is still a KGB man at heart. Obama OTOH is not only a former community agitator, but a former community agitator with strong ties to Communist/Socialist/Marxist mentors and business associates with those political leanings.

IMO if this was football, it would be regarded as a fumble by someone who was quite possibly paid to throw the game.

[flintlock]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

It is painfully obvious to me that Obama and others in Washington wanted a war for whatever reason. Just because they have temporarily been checked does not mean it won't happen later. And there are plenty of other small dictatorships to pick on and keep the ball rolling.

[lektrode]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

I would like to agree. However, Putin is former KGB while Obama is a former community agitator. Obama is out of his league ....

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

heheheh..... yep - just another instance of 'life/politix imitating art'

[LorenS]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

Gun control anyone??? Background checks?? Magazine capacity limits???



http://communities.washingtontimes.c...ng-guns-syria/

[Forrest]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

Gee, lets talk about the NSA, and the IRS, and what happened in Benghazi, and Fast and Furious, and Snowden...Oh, those are fake scandals. Sorry.

[c1ue]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

As much as I was (and still am) against actual strikes against Syria, I also don't believe that Assad is this gem of a man who is responsible enough to hold chemical weapons in his possession either, or better yet the person to replace him later. Throughout this whole thing, I've maintained the position that both sides to this proxy war aren't people that I could personally stand with. But with all the negative things coming out of Washington these days, I think it's easy to forget that the other side to this war aren't the kind of people this world needs either.

I don't think Assad is some benevolent dictator either, nor do I think the 'rebels' are either free or respectable. But the problem is, if we're attacking Assad because he's bad - and we've declared multiple groups within the 'rebel' faction bad, why bomb Assad? This distinction destroys all pretense of moral value in US intervention.

I also don't believe that Obama going to the negotiation table months ago with people like Putin and Assad when he had little leverage (Assad still beating back the rebels, and there was almost no legitimate pretext for the U.S. to get involved with direct military strikes) would have given him nearly as much result as he would get by going to the negotiation table today when he has put on his "I don't care what congress says, im going to attack you anyways" face to the whole world. If I had to make a choice between coming to the negotiation table today or four months ago (as Obama), I'd choose today when Assad has visual proof that the current administration doesn't care whatsoever what Congress says concerning the contest over Syria. Take the situation to the absolute brink, and break the backbone of Assad's overconfidence on his position that the U.S. will not use their military to change the outcome on the ground.

Interesting - what exactly changed from then to now? Did Obama do anything different?

He had the power back then to bomb - just as he does now.

He had a chemical weapons pretext then - just as he has now.

The only things that have changed are the the American people are ever more vocally against military intervention - and the British government has formally voted against it.

I fail to see how this combination in any way made Obama's position stronger.

If the mission was to disarm an oppressive dictator of chemical weapons without creating a hot war, the mission is looking more and more like a success. He drew a red line about chemical weapons being used, and now we may get a resolution where less chemical weapons will ever see the light of day. I don't really care personally who gains credit for it. All I care about is that a potential regional war might now be diffused, with the added bonus of disarming Assad of weapons almost universally frowned upon

Big if - given that the US has no problem with tanks and guns being used to remove a democratically elected leader in Egypt, and with hundreds if not thousands killed suppressing dissent. Sure, Morsi was doing very suspicious things, but I sure didn't hear the US complaining about human rights and what not with regards to Sisi.

Once again, the supposed moral imperative looks thoroughly empty.

Now if the mission was regime change, Syria disarming itself of chemical weapons seems to go along with the typical U.S. "long-game" strategy when it comes to regime change. The U.S., after turning a blind eye to Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (which served their interests at the time), turned the tables on Saddam once they set their sights on Iraq by first disarming him of his chemical weapons (Then later claiming that he's still hiding a few WMD's that they "missed"). Later they attacked Iraq, removed Saddam, and got the regime change they wanted.

I suggest you do some reading - the US was far from turning a 'blind eye' with Iraq's use of chemical weapons. It not only knew about them, US intelligence was assisting with the targeting. That's because back then, Saddam was 'our guy' because he was fighting the nasty Iranian revolutionaries (which he attacked first).

It was only after Saddam tried to get cute in taking over Kuwait that he became 'bad'.

Same thing happened in Libya. Qaddafi while he played by everyone's rules wasn't harassed much, but once he started to show shifts in principle, the U.S. showed a shift in theirs. They disarmed him of as many of his "weapons of mass destruction" as they could in 2004. Once a new opportunity arrived, their "boots on the ground" (which were rebel radicals) were bolstered by the fact that Qaddafi didn't have everything at his disposal and by extra air support (Again without putting their own boots on the ground). Qaddafi was removed, and they got the regime change they wanted. History doesn't necessarily repeat exactly the same way every time, but it certainly rhymes...and in my opinion events are rhyming right now. What is going on in terms of these negotiations to disarm Syria today could be seen as a failure to get regime change if you see it as the last move on the United States part. Historically however, this could easily be seen as just the first step.

Good lord - where are you getting your information from?

Qaddafi started out bad - Libya was openly sponsoring all sorts of anti-Western terrorists in the 70s and 80s. This all changed - Qaddafi was playing ball for a long time after. I suggest you look up the post I made where you can see Qaddafi shaking hands with Blair and various other world leaders. The removal of Qaddafi had nothing to do with any policy changes on his part - at least not policy changes for the worse for world peace.

Now, however, all those dictators out there know full well that they need chemical weapons, they need nuclear weapons, they need all sorts of protection because no change of behavior will be enough once 'they' decide to change the game.

So my ultimate belief here is that these "resolution" talks are happening because the White House wants it to happen now (versus months ago). Nothing in my opinion has been permanently thwarted. Attacking Syria later after disarming them of their unconventional weapons today is no problem for the White House, as they often don't care about being seen as hypocrites no matter who the president is. Disarm them by any means necessary, then go in later. The only reason this situation is a little different (and taking a little longer) from situations in the past is because Russia has put on a bolder face. Russia has altered their tactics, and so the U.S. has altered theirs too.

Well, your belief is your own. I disagree - and have pointed out numerous factual flaws with your understanding of events.

Russia's tactics all along have been 100% consistent: hold peace talks. Hold elections.

Then again, the US' tactics have been 100% consistent as well: toss Assad out no matter what disgusting pawns needs to be accommodated along the way.

Now that these pawns are losing - up the ante.

[verdo]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

Okay for starters, I don't even understand why you had a problem with my "turn a blind eye comment" concerning saddam and chemical weapons. What i meant by that is that the U.S. didn't care that Saddam used them against the Iranians whatsoever, so we aren't even on a different page there. The only reason I didn't go in depth about it is because it wasn't all that relevant to the point I was trying to make. In terms of Qaddafi, you again didn't really read what I said. No where did I suggest a lack of knowledge of Qaddafi's improving relationship with people like Blair. Exactly the opposite actually. I didn't say he started off as anything either. I said that while he was playing by the rules, no one had a problem with him (As in people like blair who shook his hand etc) until he changed policy (which he most certainly did). Qaddafi was removed once he started throwing out threats about nationalizing Libyan oil, and announcing plans to create a gold backed dinar which could be used for the buying and selling of oil, not unlike Saddams calls to use the Euro instead of the dollar for the purchasing of oil shortly before Iraq was invaded.

These "factual flaws" you point out are largely coming from you either not reading what I said at all, or simply misreading what I said. Again, no where did I state any sort of denial of the U.S. involvement in Saddam using chemical weapons. I specifically mentioned that in order to show how hypocritical the U.S. can be on issues like this, so you pointing out that I somehow missed something doesn't register with me. And on the issue of Qaddafi, again it's really as if you didn't read what I said, as nothing that you said (besides him changing policy) contradicts with what I said.

Anyways, you clearly have your own views on this and I respect that. We'll just have to agree to disagree

[flintlock]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

Gun control anyone??? Background checks?? Magazine capacity limits???



http://communities.washingtontimes.c...ng-guns-syria/

Its crazy isn't it? Arming terrorists.

What a lot of people are failing to realize is that countries like Syria have always been ruled by men like Assad. In some ways it is a necessary evil. The various religious and other factions require a strong hand or they end up in constant civil war or anarchy. Sure, Assad and his Alawite faction are bad guys, but what is the alternative? I just don't see a moderate faction waiting in the wings. Its just not the way its done in that region apparently. No, the Obama administration has a larger agenda. Just as the Bush administration did.

[LorenS]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

Its crazy isn't it? Arming terrorists.

What a lot of people are failing to realize is that countries like Syria have always been ruled by men like Assad. In some ways it is a necessary evil. The various religious and other factions require a strong hand or they end up in constant civil war or anarchy. Sure, Assad and his Alawite faction are bad guys, but what is the alternative? I just don't see a moderate faction waiting in the wings. Its just not the way its done in that region apparently. No, the Obama administration has a larger agenda. Just as the Bush administration did.

The true irony of the Obama administration is their "guns cause death" meme. In their minds if we could eliminate guns people would stop dying to violence. Now, they're trying to convince us that "arming" someone might actually be beneficial in the long run. Never mind the fact that Obama is arming terrorists, they're fighting hard at home to argue that arming anyone is bad, particularly honest, hardworking Americans. It's just completely ridiculous for them to ship hundreds of "assualt" weapons to anyone after their blathering about Sandy Hook and Aurora (and Columbine which happened during a nationwide ban on normal capacity magazines).

[c1ue]

Re: Is there ANYWAY back for Obama?

Okay for starters, I don't even understand why you had a problem with my "turn a blind eye comment" concerning saddam and chemical weapons. What i meant by that is that the U.S. didn't care that Saddam used them against the Iranians whatsoever, so we aren't even on a different page there. The only reason I didn't go in depth about it is because it wasn't all that relevant to the point I was trying to make.

Let me get this straight: if the US is completely hypocritical in terms of who it attacks because of use of chemical weapons against civilians - this is a positive in what way?

If this a re-run of the old "he's bad so we should get rid of him" meme used with Saddam post bogus WMD, the equal problem is that Assad's enemies are worse. Assad has never been linked to any form of terrorist activity which occurred on US soil.

So still confused by your justification.

In terms of Qaddafi, you again didn't really read what I said. No where did I suggest a lack of knowledge of Qaddafi's improving relationship with people like Blair. Exactly the opposite actually. I didn't say he started off as anything either. I said that while he was playing by the rules, no one had a problem with him (As in people like blair who shook his hand etc) until he changed policy (which he most certainly did). Qaddafi was removed once he started throwing out threats about nationalizing Libyan oil, and announcing plans to create a gold backed dinar which could be used for the buying and selling of oil, not unlike Saddams calls to use the Euro instead of the dollar for the purchasing of oil shortly before Iraq was invaded.

Once again - I'm confused. Are you trying to say that making up any ridonkulous excuse in order to perpetuate the primacy of the US dollar is fine?

Even assuming this is true - which I do not - this still leads inescapably to the conclusion that the Libyan and Syrian activity is all just a thin disguise for power.

I have no problem with that - but equally to say that this is in any way moral or just is completely ludicrous.

Why don't you then clarify for me: is the US an imperialist, colonialist power with no compunction or sense of decency?

If so, then I too will agree that the US' actions in the past several years is fully consistent with its public stance.