Putin takes Obama's american exceptionalism speech and shoves it up his....

[LnGrrrR]

I might agree with some and disagree with some



done something? Like what? can he control the jihadists storming the country on a daily basis. If Assad couldn't do anything, what would Putin have done?

Hasn't Putin made an agreement with Syria to have Assad turn in their chemical weapons? That would imply Putin can do something.

[cheguevara]

Che, so they are both assholes on an equal level?

Different. Putin is an asshole because Russia needs an asshole to govern them. Those mother ers were turning Russia into an anarchy after Soviet. The Mafia and corruption of officials grew to exponential levels during those times. Now, Putin will kill any mother er that gets out of line. Again, I compare it to a woman running a tight ship in a halfway house. You don't like it, get the out.

Obama is different, fool inherited Bush Jr. presidency. Even a mongoloid would have had a good presidency after Bush Jr. But Obama's 2nd term is the real test, and he is failing miserably. Most of his campaign promises have been lies or in the process of becoming lies.

[cheguevara]

Hasn't Putin made an agreement with Syria to have Assad turn in their chemical weapons? That would imply Putin can do something.

Again, the US navy and air force were on the way, that move was to stop them in their tracks for a while, and it did.

[LnGrrrR]

Che, I would argue that Obama's main goal was stopping Assad from using chemical weapons. As I noted in another thread, the threat of military action was a TACTIC used to achieve the OBJECTIVE of stopping Assad from using chemical weapons. If Obama achieves his objective through a different tactic (Putin doing so), it's still a win. The objective wasn't to attack Syria.

Fair enough on the Obama thing.

[cheguevara]

Che, I would argue that Obama's main goal was stopping Assad from using chemical weapons. As I noted in another thread, the threat of military action was a TACTIC used to achieve the OBJECTIVE of stopping Assad from using chemical weapons. If Obama achieves his objective through a different tactic (Putin doing so), it's still a win. The objective wasn't to attack Syria.

Fair enough on the Obama thing.

sure thing. But I would conclude that the decision to bomb Syria has been decided pre-Obama and by people higher in the food chain to him. Somehow, he has been convinced this is the thing to do. He still seems reluctant as you see clearly in his speeches and the fact he brings up Mic e.

We really don't know the inner workings but as far as I can see, the decision has been made to do a regime change in Syria and Obama has either no power, no will or no guts to change this.

[boutons_deux]

"Obama's main goal was stopping Assad from using chemical weapons."

USA, Sunni countries, Turkey, Israel, Arab league, etc ALL want (shiite) Assad dynasty taken down, ultimately, aka, regime change

[LnGrrrR]

sure thing. But I would conclude that the decision to bomb Syria has been decided pre-Obama and by people higher in the food chain to him. Somehow, he has been convinced this is the thing to do. He still seems reluctant as you see clearly in his speeches and the fact he brings up Mic e.

We really don't know the inner workings but as far as I can see, the decision has been made to do a regime change in Syria and Obama has either no power, no will or no guts to change this.

I'm hoping that our generation (Millenials) will have learned something and be more isolationist.

[cheguevara]

I'm hoping that our generation (Millenials) will have learned something and be more isolationist.

I'm hoping that

IMO what really stopped the warmongers in their tracks the public outcry. Unfortunately these warmongers have the unlimited funds and plenty of time to have a plan B, C, D, E, F......

[ChumpDumper]

sure thing. But I would conclude that the decision to bomb Syria has been decided pre-Obama and by people higher in the food chain to him. Somehow, he has been convinced this is the thing to do. He still seems reluctant as you see clearly in his speeches and the fact he brings up Mic e.

OK, who is higher up the food chain then Obama?

We really don't know the inner workings but as far as I can see, the decision has been made to do a regime change in Syria and Obama has either no power, no will or no guts to change this.

But he's at least delayed the strikes. Why would even an attempt at diplomacy be made?

[cheguevara]

OK, who is higher up the food chain then Obama?

You don't think there are people more powerful than Obama in the world?

But he's at least delayed the strikes. Why would even an attempt at diplomacy be made?

Easy. The public outcry against the war, his "take it to congress" move was going to fail miserably. In other words, to avoid a huge embarrassment and a huge dip in his already crappy approval rating. Plus nobody wants to start a war with close to 80% public opposition, even the warmongers know that. They need time to "change" the public views.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't think there are people more powerful than Obama in the world?

I'm asking you who. Give us a list.

Easy. The public outcry against the war, his "take it to congress" move was going to fail miserably. In other words, to avoid a huge embarrassment and a huge dip in his already crappy approval rating. Plus nobody wants to start a war with close to 80% public opposition, even the warmongers know that. They need time to "change" the public views.

There's no way to say anyone wants to start an actual war.

And what do you mean by "change"?

[cheguevara]

I'm asking you who. Give us a list.

A list of what?

And what do you mean by "change"?

propaganda, false flags, etc, etc

[symple19]

While Putin is an election-rigging, human rights violating, piece of , he has also brilliantly outmaneuvered Obama and simultaneously grown Russian power worldwide with his handling of Syria.

1. While standing with Syria, he has shown other countries that Russia will hang in and fight to support those with whom they are allied.
2. Anybody who thinks Putin wrote one letter of that well-crafted bit of rhetoric in the NYT is re ed (more likely the American desk at the FSB), but it doesn't change the fact that it was incredibly effective.
3. Russia is now being perceived as the power that forced America to back down from using force, and that perception is a massive loss for US credibility in the region.
4. Iran and N.Korea will take notice of this and adjust their strategies accordingly i.e. be willing to push further when the next crisis flares up (which it inevitably will)

Obama/Kerry/United States are being viewed simultaneously as an aggressor/waffler in this affair, while Putin has been utterly consistent in his support and rhetoric for Syria.

Little has changed in terms of reality, but reality is not always the main driver of diplomacy/allegiances in a region where power and loyalty are valued more than morality and human rights.

The United States is failing miserably right now, and it's beyond me how anyone can spin this as good for our long term interests. There is no consistency, no long term strategy, and a continued misunderstanding of how things work in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Russia has made all the right moves. Whether you like them or not (I don't), they have strengthened their position in relation to their national self-interests, while the United States has harmed theirs immensely.

[ChumpDumper]

A list of what?

the people higher up the food chain then Obama.

propaganda, false flags, etc, etc

[ChumpDumper]

While Putin is an election-rigging, human rights violating, piece of , he has also brilliantly outmaneuvered Obama and simultaneously grown Russian power worldwide with his handling of Syria.

1. While standing with Syria, he has shown other countries that Russia will hang in and fight to support those with whom they are allied.
2. Anybody who thinks Putin wrote one letter of that well-crafted bit of rhetoric in the NYT is re ed (more likely the American desk at the FSB), but it doesn't change the fact that it was incredibly effective.
3. Russia is now being perceived as the power that forced America to back down from using force, and that perception is a massive loss for US credibility in the region.
4. Iran and N.Korea will take notice of this and adjust their strategies accordingly i.e. be willing to push further when the next crisis flares up (which it inevitably will)

Obama/Kerry/United States are being viewed simultaneously as an aggressor/waffler in this affair, while Putin has been utterly consistent in his support and rhetoric for Syria.

Little has changed in terms of reality, but reality is not always the main driver of diplomacy/allegiances in a region where power and loyalty are valued more than morality and human rights.

The United States is failing miserably right now, and it's beyond me how anyone can spin this as good for our long term interests. There is no consistency, no long term strategy, and a continued misunderstanding of how things work in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Russia has made all the right moves. Whether you like them or not (I don't), they have strengthened their position in relation to their national self-interests, while the United States has harmed theirs immensely.

A little overly dramatic.

[symple19]

A little overly dramatic.

It's jmo, but I don't think so at all. When was the last time we had a real face-off with the Russians? I'm not suggesting that we're returning to a bi-polar situation, but Russia has definitely improved their position.

I'm curious what you disagree with? *no trolling*

[CosmicCowboy]

While Putin is an election-rigging, human rights violating, piece of , he has also brilliantly outmaneuvered Obama and simultaneously grown Russian power worldwide with his handling of Syria.

1. While standing with Syria, he has shown other countries that Russia will hang in and fight to support those with whom they are allied.
2. Anybody who thinks Putin wrote one letter of that well-crafted bit of rhetoric in the NYT is re ed (more likely the American desk at the FSB), but it doesn't change the fact that it was incredibly effective.
3. Russia is now being perceived as the power that forced America to back down from using force, and that perception is a massive loss for US credibility in the region.
4. Iran and N.Korea will take notice of this and adjust their strategies accordingly i.e. be willing to push further when the next crisis flares up (which it inevitably will)

Obama/Kerry/United States are being viewed simultaneously as an aggressor/waffler in this affair, while Putin has been utterly consistent in his support and rhetoric for Syria.

Little has changed in terms of reality, but reality is not always the main driver of diplomacy/allegiances in a region where power and loyalty are valued more than morality and human rights.

The United States is failing miserably right now, and it's beyond me how anyone can spin this as good for our long term interests. There is no consistency, no long term strategy, and a continued misunderstanding of how things work in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Russia has made all the right moves. Whether you like them or not (I don't), they have strengthened their position in relation to their national self-interests, while the United States has harmed theirs immensely.

[ChumpDumper]

It's jmo, but I don't think so at all. When was the last time we had a real face-off with the Russians? I'm not suggesting that we're returning to a bi-polar situation, but Russia has definitely improved their position.

I'm curious what you disagree with? *no trolling*

As has been posted, the immediate US interest here is to stop the use of WMDs, not to strike Syria. Russia is accommodating that interest with this initiative.

No one seems to notice that Syria claimed it never had chemical weapons until Russia outed them. The compromising has already started.

If this initiative works out, I don't see how it could be seen as a loss for the US.

[Trill Clinton]

so we got hardcare americans with the american flag in their avi, co-signing a russian president saying americans aint ? damn the hatred for barry is strong.

[cheguevara]

the people higher up the food chain then Obama.

let me get this straight, you want a list of all people in the world more powerful than Obama?

how old are you kid?

[CosmicCowboy]

let me get this straight, you want a list of all people in the world more powerful than Obama?

how old are you kid?

Actually, I'd be interested in your list too. POTUS is pretty high up the food chain.

[cheguevara]

Actually, I'd be interested in your list too. POTUS is pretty high up the food chain.

never said it wasn't but to think there aren't people or groups of people more powerful is silly

[CosmicCowboy]

how about just ONE name?

[symple19]

As has been posted, the immediate US interest here is to stop the use of WMDs, not to strike Syria. Russia is accommodating that interest with this initiative.

No one seems to notice that Syria claimed it never had chemical weapons until Russia outed them. The compromising has already started.

If this initiative works out, I don't see how it could be seen as a loss for the US.

Short term, sure, long term, I disagree.

America is seen as an aggressor, reactionary, and only acting in our own myopic interests, while Russia is seen as steadfast and a peacemaker, even if American saber rattling was the reality which brought compromise to the table. In the middle east, imo, the latter trumps the former.

It's incredibly ironic to me that the Russians, in helping Assad, will ultimately be doing us a favor in the long term should the rebels fail.

[cheguevara]

how about just ONE name?

Bilderberg