Will Assad blink?

[bobabode]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

President Obama has said military action is imminent against Syria for their use of chemical weapons on their own people. The bigger question to my mind is will Assad blink and go into exile or will his military act with a coup?
One would hope that the back channels are being utilized to forestall the need for military action.

[bobabode]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/31/obama-to-congress-put-up-or-shut-up/?hpid=z1

Will congress blink? ;)

[Oerets]

Both will kick the can down the road and take a wait and see approach IMO.


Barney

[Rajoo]

I cannot see how the Congress can take a vote on this.
The Dem's do not want another war that will cost lives and money especially with the budget fight looming. The Repub's will have a hard time saying yes after our previous debacles in the Middle East. Neither the Dem's for the President or the Repub's for the MIC are going to look good, with a NO vote. And if they vote YES, midterm elections anyone?

Congress needs a new scandal to investigate. Any more NO votes on Obamacare would be seen as stalling.

[Mr. Lin]

I can't believe this insanity, that we're actually even considering 'intervening' here.

[icenine]

Assad wins he gets to use chemical weapons and get away with it.

Give this some time. This may be the low point in Obama's legacy.

[bobabode]

Looks like the Senate chickenhawks are either getting cold feet or taking the Prez's decision as a sign that their opinions actually mean sh*t, these days.:rolleyes:
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-gop-senators-syria-20130901,0,2785978.story

[bobabode]

Give this some time. This may be the low point in Obama's legacy.

Really? This looks to be a low point for the chickenhearted Teabaggers, imo.

[bobabode]

Looks like the Arab League is on board.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/01/20280931-arab-states-call-for-international-action-against-syrian-regime?lite

[mpholland]

Hmmm,

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1727888/BugsBunnyCrossThisLine.png

Bugs Obama and Yosemite Assad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkzWyOaS8kU)

Maybe we should think more like ol' General George Washington and try and mind our own affairs for the time being. You know, he never joined a political party. He always thought the partisan system would wind up with a bunch of fighting and bickering between parties instead of individuals voicing their own beliefs.

[Rajoo]

Hmmm,

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1727888/BugsBunnyCrossThisLine.png

Bugs Obama and Yosemite Assad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkzWyOaS8kU)

Maybe we should think more like ol' General George Washington and try and mind our own affairs for the time being. You know, he never joined a political party. He always thought the partisan system would wind up with a bunch of fighting and bickering between parties instead of individuals voicing their own beliefs.

Agreed. Even the Sunni Arabs are complaining that Obama is reluctant to take sides as in Egypt and now Syria. In any war if you make a friend you also get an enemy. So neutral we should stay.

[bobabode]

It appears that there was some last minute blinking going on today via the Russians and the Syrians. Obama and crew even addressed the opening provided in an interview today. I hope it isn't some sort of stalling tactic.

[Wasillaguy]

I'm sure we can trust Putin and whatever he and Obama agreed on once they were sure no microphones were on.

[Dondilion]

I believe Putin will pressure Assad to put the chemicals under some
type of international control.

Putin wants stability - no regime change, and he realizes also that loose chemicals are a danger to everybody.

[piece-itpete]

Everyone on TV is jumping to this! You should've heard Charlie Rose et al on the Newshour. It's the great salvation.

I don't trust the Russkies meaning Putin. I do believe it's a stalling tactic unfortunately. The only way to give it teeth, if it got that far, would be for Congress to give permission to Obama (and successors) to act if it was delayed or ignored, without having to go back to Congress.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Or better yet a UN resolution authorizing use of force with no further resolution necessary, make Russia sing on to that.

Pete

[whell]

It appears that there was some last minute blinking going on today via the Russians and the Syrians. Obama and crew even addressed the opening provided in an interview today. I hope it isn't some sort of stalling tactic.

You can bet that it is whatever Russia and Syria need it to be. It looks like they took an off-handed remark by Kerry and ran with it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/john-kerry-in-london-campaigns-for-world-to-support-military-strike-against-syria/2013/09/09/e8ad7a72-193d-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html

"The timing of the new proposal was awkward and its apparent genesis perhaps more so.

It began when Kerry was asked early Monday whether Assad could avoid a U.S. attack. This one reeks of a Russo-Syrian attempt to outmaneuver Washington. Some ally Putin is. Sheesh!

“Sure. He could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay,” Kerry responded with a shrug. “But he isn’t about to.”

As Kerry flew back to Washington to help lobby lawmakers, he received a midair call from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who said he had heard the secretary’s remarks and was about to make a public announcement.

The statement in Moscow came before Kerry landed.

“We are calling on the Syrian authorities [to] not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,” Lavrov said, adding, “We have passed our offer to [Syrian Foreign Minister] Walid al-Moualem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer.”

Moualem, who was in Moscow meeting with Lavrov, followed with a statement that his government “welcomes Russia’s initiative, based on the Syrian government’s care about the lives of our people and security of our country.”

Although Syrian President Bashar al-Assad denies having a stockpile of the widely banned weapons, the idea of international control also quickly gained traction among diplomats and at least some senior Democrats whose support Obama seeks for a show of force.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was the first senior lawmaker to voice support for the Russian proposal."

So, what was initially a casual remark from Kerry is now a "Russian proposal". Ain't that special. Kerry is looking like someone who just got schooled.

[merrylander]

Sure Putin wants to keep his best customer at the helm. The way those intercepted messages read it almost sounds like some army type launched the attack without Damascus' permission. If that was the case whey has Assad not hauled him up on the carpet? Is he afraid of his own military? Will we see a coup in Syria?

Now where is that popcorn smiley?

[piece-itpete]

"It's not enough just to trust. I think we're going to have to verify." -President Obama

Reagan said it better :p

Pete

[CarlV]

Reagan said it better :p

Pete

No.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/boring.gif

Carl

[icenine]

Everyone on TV is jumping to this! You should've heard Charlie Rose et al on the Newshour. It's the great salvation.

I don't trust the Russkies meaning Putin. I do believe it's a stalling tactic unfortunately. The only way to give it teeth, if it got that far, would be for Congress to give permission to Obama (and successors) to act if it was delayed or ignored, without having to go back to Congress.

Pete

this does not really work unless Congress gives its approval or Obama makes it clear he will strike if Syria refuses to follow through. Would be quite a victory if Assad did hand them over.

As far as Kerry being schooled there are some indications that this idea was discussed at the G-20 summit last weekend. It may have been an American idea. I heard it on the BBC World Service this morning.

[piece-itpete]

Assad threatens retaliation for US strikes. Reminds me of this:

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4604605539025697&w=264&h=185&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

Pete

[Rajoo]

Obama should "beg" Hillary to go to Russia and cut a deal with Puketin. ;)

[BlueStreak]

Assad threatens retaliation for US strikes. Reminds me of this:

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4604605539025697&w=264&h=185&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

Pete

"Are you daft? Your arm's off. Now step aside, or I shall lop another appendage.....................":)

Dave

[whell]

So, was Kerry against Syria turning over their chem weapons before he was for it? First, his remarks were characterized as "a goof" here: http://www.kvia.com/news/elections/URGENT-Syria-Kerry-Goof/-/390782/21849848/-/2vv941/-/index.html

Then, the remarks apparently were hijacked by Russia to become the basis for an "out" for Assad to avoid US military action, as described by WaPo here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/john-kerry-in-london-campaigns-for-world-to-support-military-strike-against-syria/2013/09/09/e8ad7a72-193d-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html

And now, Kerry is poised to back this, and potentially take credit for it? Interesting.

[BlueStreak]

As I see it, the administration is now, once again in a situation where one of them has run his mouth thinking; "There's no way in hell they'd actually do this."............

Then they do.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

And now, Kerry is poised to back this, and potentially take credit for it? Interesting.

He must have how to be so full of shit from the HR professionals at Heinz.

Dave

[Dondilion]

"It's not enough just to trust. I think we're going to have to verify." -President Obama

Reagan said it better :p

Pete

Reagan's performance in Lebanon was awful.

[BlueStreak]

Reagan's performance in Lebanon was awful.

Disgraceful, even. But, he made us feel good about being Americans.......so we give him a pass on this one.........and Iran/Contra.......:rolleyes:

Dave

[finnbow]

And now, Kerry is poised to back this, and potentially take credit for it? Interesting.

Who cares who takes the credit if things work out? Republicans, I suppose. It would be just awful if somehow we were able to somehow squeak out of this clusterf*ck. Simply awful.

[BlueStreak]

Who cares who takes the credit if things work out? Republicans, I suppose. It would be just awful if somehow we were able to somehow squeak out of this clusterf*ck. Simply awful.

No chit. The GOPs game is getting so old and obvious.......isn't it?

[CarlV]

Reagan's performance in Lebanon was awful.

But he did say Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! in a speech. :p


Carl

[BlueStreak]

But he did say Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! in a speech. :p


Carl

Yes, a fiery speech at the Berlin Wall by an American President was so original...................

Dave

[whell]

Who cares who takes the credit if things work out? Republicans, I suppose. It would be just awful if somehow we were able to somehow squeak out of this clusterf*ck. Simply awful.

Spare me. You'd be the first one posting your observations if this were a Repub administration looking this inept.

It would be awful if Kerry were revealed to be the empty suit that he is. Simply awful.

[icenine]

If we get these weapons out of Syria it will be the crowning achievement of this administration foreign policy wise. Big if.

To be fair, things are done way more openly in the diplomatic world today than in the 70s when Kissinger was flying around telling one country one thing and another one without an internet or CNN to expose his every mistake.

[finnbow]

Spare me. You'd be the first one posting your observations if this were a Repub administration looking this inept.

It would be awful if Kerry were revealed to be the empty suit that he is. Simply awful.

As inept as Obama looks in Syria, his performance is still leagues ahead of the previous Republican President's efforts in Iraq. Thus far, he hasn't cost us $1 Trillion, over 4,000 combat deaths, and tens of thousands of injuries, both physical and emotional.

Personally, I'd be perfectly content if Obama's actions (or inactions) resulted in a loss of his credibility than for us to go to war in an effort to protect it.

As for Kerry (or Hillary before him), at least neither has allowed him or herself to be completely rolled by the SecDef, as Powell & Rice did with Rumsfeld.

[BlueStreak]

In "The Art of War", Sun Tzu wrote that the sweetest victories are won without spilling a single drop of blood.

I suppose we should have just invaded in a storm of flag waiving he man hullabaloo and strutting peacock pride only to discover that the well over 100,000 lives we just took in addition to a few thousand of our own was all based on bogus intelligence?

Or, maybe we could have simply have funneled weapons to the Islamist rebels on the sly through South American dictators in exchange for giving them access to the American cocaine market?

Spare us the lecture about "ineptitude".

Mike, how is it that a Republican can be so glaringly inept, incompetent and/or downright corrupt and you refuse to see it? Is it all the sappy, pseudo-religious patriotic bullshit, the always vapid promise of tax cuts....or what? Or is it just that the only other choice you have is the Dems. Because I really don't see anything to like about the lousy bastards.

Dave

[Charles]

Hate to say it, but the only one who appears not to be running around in circles with his head up his ass is Vlad.

He not only has managed to further Russia's national interests, but has positioned the Obama Administration to assist him by allowing them the means to escape from the hole which they have dug for themselves...all in one fell swoop.

The KGB vs the community organizer...any doubt who would win?

Chas

[whell]

As for Kerry (or Hillary before him), at least neither has allowed him or herself to be completely rolled by the SecDef, as Powell & Rice did with Rumsfeld.

Far worse to be rolled by Putin and a petty thug like Assad, me thinks. Particularly what this will cost the US in the long run.

[whell]

In "The Art of War", Sun Tzu wrote that the sweetest victories are won without spilling a single drop of blood.


What did we win? Nothing. What did Putin win? What did Assad win?

I don' think Obama will be quoting from Sun Tzu about Syria.

[finnbow]

Far worse to be rolled by Putin and a petty thug like Assad, me thinks. Particularly what this will cost the US in the long run.

Says the man who voted for the man who looked through Putin's eyes into his heart like a smitten schoolboy.

Better to stumble into peace, than lie yourself into war, methinks. Meanwhile, as clumsy and clueless as Obama appears, I'm willing to wait a while to allow this sordid affair to play itself out before rendering a verdict. Meanwhile, my wife and I still hold plane tickets to Israel (with a likely side visit to Jordan) in November.

[bobabode]

Boy, oh boy. The neocons are pissed. No millstone to hang around the Dems necks and no massive profits for the MIC.:rolleyes:

What's the matter Mike? You don't get to sing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"? Boo fuckin' hoo.:p

[finnbow]

Boy, oh boy. The neocons are pissed. No millstone to hang around the Dems necks and no massive profits for the MIC.:rolleyes:

What's the matter Mike? You don't get to sing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"? Boo fuckin' hoo.:p

Yeh, the MIC may rescind the stock options they've gifted to McCain, Graham and Ayotte.

[Charles]

What did we win? Nothing. What did Putin win? What did Assad win?

I don' think Obama will be quoting from Sun Tzu about Syria.

Point well taken.

Seems like Sun Tzu also said something about always leaving your opponent an avenue to escape.

Isn't that what has Putin has just done for the Obama Administration?

Chas

[finnbow]

Point well taken.

Seems like Sun Tzu also said something about always leaving your opponent an avenue to escape.

Isn't that what has Putin has just done for the Obama Administration?

Chas

Perhaps, but he's as spooked as we are about Assad losing control of Sarin gas as he doesn't wan't it to fall into the hands of the Chechen rebels. He's using us just as we are using him. He wouldn't do this if there were nothing in it for him. Similarly, he knows we won't either. This just might work out, despite our apparent bumbling (though nobody really knows what's being going on behind the scenes).

Interesting article from David Ignatius, a leading foreign policy writer. There's more here than meets the eye.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-in-syria-russia-plays-an-important-role/2013/09/10/2e5eff98-1a45-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html

[JBS...]

So, was Kerry against Syria turning over their chem weapons before he was for it? First, his remarks were characterized as "a goof" here: http://www.kvia.com/news/elections/URGENT-Syria-Kerry-Goof/-/390782/21849848/-/2vv941/-/index.html

Then, the remarks apparently were hijacked by Russia to become the basis for an "out" for Assad to avoid US military action, as described by WaPo here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/john-kerry-in-london-campaigns-for-world-to-support-military-strike-against-syria/2013/09/09/e8ad7a72-193d-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html

And now, Kerry is poised to back this, and potentially take credit for it? Interesting.

Lol, I would like to add this.....

“You know, Senator Chuck Hagel, when he was senator, Senator Chuck Hagel, now secretary of defense, and when I was a senator, we opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq, but we know full well how that evidence was used to persuade all of us that authority ought to be given.”

Jackass voted for the 2002 resolution that supported military action against Iraq. :eek:

[whell]

Perhaps, but he's as spooked as we are about Assad losing control of Sarin gas as he doesn't wan't it to fall into the hands of the Chechen rebels. He's using us just as we are using him. He wouldn't do this if there were nothing in it for him. Similarly, he knows we won't either. This just might work out, despite our apparent bumbling (though nobody really knows what's being going on behind the scenes).

Interesting article from David Ignatius, a leading foreign policy writer. There's more here than meets the eye.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-in-syria-russia-plays-an-important-role/2013/09/10/2e5eff98-1a45-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html

Yes, I saw Ignatius' article earlier today...and about fell out of my chair. His article must have been written from a point of view that only becomes clear from Mars. Here's the part that got me:

"Obama’s tough line paid off. The Russians endorsed international control of Syria’s chemical weapons only after Obama threatened to attack and didn’t flinch in St. Petersburg or on Capitol Hill. He may be a weakened president in foreign affairs, but this show of strength regained him some precious credibility."

WHAT tough line? What attack? The one that Kerry said was going to be "incredibly small"? The attack that Obama said he was going to launch, then spent the better part of this month backing away from via Congressional debate?

Unbelievable.

Then Ignatius suggests the Russians are behind a plan to kick Assad to the curb? You suggest above that Assad has control of chemical weapons, the Germans are floating evidence that Assad never gave permission to use them. There's no smoking gun that points the use of chem weapons to Assad, and the Russians are going to make Assad go away? And Ignatius also suggests Iran could help?

Mars must be very nice this time of year.

[bobabode]

I suspect you vacation on Venus, Mike.:rolleyes:

[whell]

I suspect you vacation on Venus, Mike.:rolleyes:

I guess that leaves you to enjoy Uranus. :p

[bobabode]

I guess that leaves you to enjoy Uranus. :p

You're so cute when you get mad.:rolleyes:

[finnbow]

Yes, I saw Ignatius' article earlier today...and about fell out of my chair. His article must have been written from a point of view that only becomes clear from Mars. Here's the part that got me:

"Obama’s tough line paid off. The Russians endorsed international control of Syria’s chemical weapons only after Obama threatened to attack and didn’t flinch in St. Petersburg or on Capitol Hill. He may be a weakened president in foreign affairs, but this show of strength regained him some precious credibility."

WHAT tough line? What attack? The one that Kerry said was going to be "incredibly small"? The attack that Obama said he was going to launch, then spent the better part of this month backing away from via Congressional debate?

Unbelievable.

Then Ignatius suggests the Russians are behind a plan to kick Assad to the curb? You suggest above that Assad has control of chemical weapons, the Germans are floating evidence that Assad never gave permission to use them. There's no smoking gun that points the use of chem weapons to Assad, and the Russians are going to make Assad go away? And Ignatius also suggests Iran could help?

Mars must be very nice this time of year.

I trust Ignatius' viewpoint far more than yours. I think there's little doubt that Obama's tough talk helped push Russia and Assad to their offer. We'll have to wait and see where it goes. All I know is that as flaky as Obama seems in this affair, I'd still far prefer to seem him and Kerry doing what they're doing than Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Boy Wonder having a go at it. You seem to prefer the "Ready, Fire, Aim" approach common among GOP foreign policy practitioners.

[whell]

I trust Ignatius' viewpoint far more than yours. I think there's little doubt that Obama's tough talk helped push Russia and Assad to their offer. We'll have to wait and see where it goes. All I know is that as flaky as Obama seems in this affair, I'd still far prefer to seem him and Kerry doing what they're doing than Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Boy Wonder having a go at it. You seem to prefer the "Ready, Fire, Aim" approach common among GOP foreign policy practitioners.

Fine, Finn. Let's be sure to chat again about this in a month or two and you can wax poetic about how you and Ignatius were prophetic about Russia, with support from Iran, engineering Assad's departure from power. Or maybe we'll talk about how an "incredibly small" display of force from Obama convinced Assad of the need to turn over his chem weapons.

Of course, Ignatius last line in his piece was about how the credible threat of force prevents wars. Beyond the absolute irony of that line being written by a liberal, a credible threat of force has been successfully curbed this week by Moscow.

Incidentally, how much "Ready, Fire, Aim" colored into Obama's original red line speech? Enough to challenge Congess and our allies last week by suggesting that HIS credibility wasn't on the line, but everyone else's was if they didn't stand with him in supporting the use of force, I suspect.

[finnbow]

There isn't now, nor has their been in the past 2 years, an elegant and easy solution to the mess that is Syria. However, in a perverted sort of way, the interests of the US, Russian and Israel are best served with a weakened Assad in place (for the short term anyway) and the chemical weapons secured in some fashion. Justice for Assad will have to come later (as it will), whether compelled by Russia, the US, or the rebels.

We'll have to see where this goes. There isn't a rulebook on how to successfully intervene in messy Mideastern/Muslim countries. Libya and Kosovo are probably the models of (quasi)successful interventions and the approach to Syria has more in common with them than Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm skeptical of the whole mess, but hopeful that something other than some face-saving missile lobbing occurs and some sort of negotiated settlement with Syria/Russia is better than lobbing a few Tomahawks.

[bobabode]

But he did say Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! in a speech. :p


Carl

Ronnie Rayguns stole that last line from the Jefferson Airplane.;)

[bobabode]

I trust Ignatius' viewpoint far more than yours. I think there's little doubt that Obama's tough talk helped push Russia and Assad to their offer. We'll have to wait and see where it goes. All I know is that as flaky as Obama seems in this affair, I'd still far prefer to seem him and Kerry doing what they're doing than Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Boy Wonder having a go at it. You seem to prefer the "Ready, Fire, Aim" approach common among GOP foreign policy practitioners.

Ain't that the truth!

[bobabode]

Fine, Finn. Let's be sure to chat again about this in a month or two and you can wax poetic about how you and Ignatius were prophetic about Russia, with support from Iran, engineering Assad's departure from power. Or maybe we'll talk about how an "incredibly small" display of force from Obama convinced Assad of the need to turn over his chem weapons.

Of course, Ignatius last line in his piece was about how the credible threat of force prevents wars. Beyond the absolute irony of that line being written by a liberal, a credible threat of force has been successfully curbed this week by Moscow.

Incidentally, how much "Ready, Fire, Aim" colored into Obama's original red line speech? Enough to challenge Congess and our allies last week by suggesting that HIS credibility wasn't on the line, but everyone else's was if they didn't stand with him in supporting the use of force, I suspect.

Gawd damn, your guys get so whiney when it comes right down to brass tacks, Mike. They just can't get past the fact that President Obama had Osama bin Laden shot and buried in the depths of the deep blue sea and Gee Dubya couldn't/wouldn't/whatever.:rolleyes:

A simple question here. Why do you think the Russian's floated the idea of Syria giving up their chemical weapons?

[whell]

A simple question here. Why do you think the Russian's floated the idea of Syria giving up their chemical weapons?

How /who floated the idea appears to be subject to conjecture. However, the plan favors Russia / Syria because ir makes Russia a larger player in Middle Eastern affairs - a role they've long coveted. It allows Assad time, space and creates some distraction from the civil war of his own creation. Russia helped Assad build his chem weapons program in the first place. Russia can, if it needs to, probably give those weapons a nice temporary home until the weapons can find their way back to Syria at some later time. These are but a few reasons that Russia like what this deal does for them.

[bobabode]

How /who floated the idea appears to be subject to conjecture. However, the plan favors Russia / Syria because ir makes Russia a larger player in Middle Eastern affairs - a role they've long coveted. It allows Assad time, space and creates some distraction from the civil war of his own creation. Russia helped Assad build his chem weapons program in the first place. Russia can, if it needs to, probably give those weapons a nice temporary home until the weapons can find their way back to Syria at some later time. These are but a few reasons that Russia like what this deal does for them.

Wow! That takes some mental gyrations to fathom, really Mike.

[Dondilion]

How /who floated the idea appears to be subject to conjecture. However, the plan favors Russia / Syria because ir makes Russia a larger player in Middle Eastern affairs - a role they've long coveted. It allows Assad time, space and creates some distraction from the civil war of his own creation. Russia helped Assad build his chem weapons program in the first place. Russia can, if it needs to, probably give those weapons a nice temporary home until the weapons can find their way back to Syria at some later time. These are but a few reasons that Russia like what this deal does for them.

Vlad during the time he has lead Russia has not shown himself to be
an adventurer. He has not exhibit any desire to expand Russian
ideology/influence to the far corners of the world.

His major concern is regime change (especially in the Muslim world).
He has said it over and over again.

His close connection with Syria is necessary one. Russia for sometime
has a base there. It is not a base that was derived due to some adventure
of Vlad.

Syria got it chemical program going when USSR broke up and rogue
elements of the former Soviets were hustling. Later Syria maintained
improved and bolstered its program with help of greedy business
people from the west, notably USA and the Netherlands.

My reading of Vlad is that he is glad to have a good reason to pressure
Assad to give up his chemical stuff. It is in a region teeming with
jihadists. God forbid Jihadists get a hold of this weaponry then Russia,
a country with Muslim hot spots could be a target.

[BlueStreak]

What did we win? Nothing. What did Putin win? What did Assad win?

I don' think Obama will be quoting from Sun Tzu about Syria.


Nobody has won, or lost, anything yet. The ball is still in play.
If Assad does puke up the weapons, it is a victory for the administration whether they intended to go this route to get there or not. The objective, at that point, will have been achieved regardless. And, if it can be done without triggering WW3.....all the better.

You just can't stand it, because no dumbass GOP president will get to strut around in a cod piece and wave his blood soaked hands at the cheering crowd of brainwashed sycophants this time. Sorry, Brother. No Two Minutes Hate for you today.:p

Dave

[piece-itpete]

A lack of credibility leads to greater problems for us down the road, no question. It is very important.

"Ready, Fire, Aim" has been Obama this time, sorry libs. I realize you have to deflect from Obama's clumsy handling ;)

His speech was good, perhaps the best so far. I enjoyed the chiding given to both sides, and his discussion on the US being important in the longstanding and bipartisan enforcement of international standards. To a point I'd add.

The chemical handover is still a myth, a ghost, at this point. It would be great if it happened but Obama is (rightly) not counting on it.

Already Russia's saying a military backup in the resolution would be too strong, and how'd you like to bet there'd be a guarantee for Assad in there? Smoke and mirrors.

I can't help but compare Obamas' actions to his campaign rhetoric. Bush got UN resolutions and permission from Congress, and a much larger coalition than it appears Obama has. So if the proof is in the pudding our Fearless Leader was indeed FOS all along :p


The KGB vs the community organizer...any doubt who would win?

Chas

LOL!

I guess that leaves you to enjoy Uranus. :p

BAM! :p

I trust Ignatius' viewpoint far more than yours. I think there's little doubt that Obama's tough talk helped push Russia and Assad to their offer. We'll have to wait and see where it goes. All I know is that as flaky as Obama seems in this affair, I'd still far prefer to seem him and Kerry doing what they're doing than Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Boy Wonder having a go at it. You seem to prefer the "Ready, Fire, Aim" approach common among GOP foreign policy practitioners.

How do you like "The first CIA-trained commandos are now heading into the field, in units of 30 or 40. Step up that flow!"?

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Oh and Reagan still said it better :p :D

Pete

[Rex E.]

Oh and Reagan still said it better :p :D

Pete

I wonder if Obama has Michelle consult her psychics before he makes his decisions. :rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

Nah, she just checks with Wright ;)

Pete

[Rex E.]

Nah, she just checks with Wright ;)

Pete

at least he's a christian, eh........having psychic's run the country for eight years sure seams to go against a good christian, conservative patriots beliefs......;)

[piece-itpete]

Lincoln too. No accounting for brains :p

Pete

[whell]

His major concern is regime change (especially in the Muslim world).
He has said it over and over again.



Putin speaks with a forked tongue on the subject of regime change.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/28/us-syria-russia-un-idUSTRE80R08B20120128

I wouldn't believe much of what Putin says, but watch what he does. His current actions would seem to support a maintenance of the status quo in Syria.

[merrylander]

Assad will be gone soon, if the German paper was right that some army type ordered the gas attack and not Assad then why has he not hauled the perp up on the carpet. He could have saved all threat of a punitive attack. Unless he is afraid of his own military. Since the military is Russia's big customer Putin really does not need Assad.

[BlueStreak]

A lack of credibility leads to greater problems for us down the road, no question. It is very important.



Pete

What "lack of credibility"?

If Assad is forced to give up the goods, the objective has been achieved.

There is no "lack of credibility" to be found in that. What, because Obama didn't just go off half cocked and start shooting he has no "credibility"?

If that is preferable to you, then I'll take the president that allegedly has "no credibility" any and every day over the sort of gun happy idiot you guys seem to prefer.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Agreed, if a) he gives up the weapons, or b) Obama does something. At this point I'm guessing it'll be 'b' but hope for 'a'. And right now it's still 'if'.

I mentioned lack of credibility because it was mentioned it would be better than doing something. I strongly disagree.

As far as gun happy idiots, Obama has been on point for a strike from the get go and if I recall from the last 5 years the one you prefer :p

As a matter of fact I've been defending his position on this, more strongly than many in his own party. At least deferring to him. Although also vastly enjoying mentioning his break from campaigning rhetoric :)

Pete

[BlueStreak]

And, I have been against military action from day one. Still am.

Also; Only if one can be considered ones own predecessor. I don't think so. I also believe if we were to compare the death toll due to direct action between GWB and BHO................

I'm just sayin'.

Dave

P.s. Campaign rhetoric is always, well............rhetorical. Is it not? Did Hoover actually put a ".....chicken in every pot."?:rolleyes:

[Dondilion]

Putin speaks with a forked tongue on the subject of regime change.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/28/us-syria-russia-un-idUSTRE80R08B20120128

I wouldn't believe much of what Putin says, but watch what he does. His current actions would seem to support a maintenance of the status quo in Syria.

The link confirms that he is against regime change - consistent with
what I have been posting.

Putin has more credibility that a lot of western leaders.

We seem to have our fingers in everybody's business. We have reached
a point where nobody trust us. Please check the latest expose by the
traitor, Snowden.

[merrylander]

The link confirms that he is against regime change - consistent with
what I have been posting.

Putin has more credibility that a lot of western leaders.

We seem to have our fingers in everybody's business. We have reached
a point where nobody trust us. Please check the latest expose by the
traitor, Snowden.

Having the Syrian army depose Assad is not really a regime change.

[bobabode]

Peace in our time? I wish the President all the best in his endeavors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-russian-talks-extend-without-a-deal/2013/09/13/a203b068-1cb3-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html