Wow. What are you going to name the child?
Lots of comedians here but few debaters. You don’t have a counter argument to mine I see.
That’s not an argument, it’s a stream of loosely related … thoughts, some in unconventional word order.
But the right wing anti-Obama driven narrative is a solid argument is it that we must power down our minds and accept as reality. I still see no supporting reasoning or substance behind the right wing narrative that is mostly noise and little thought.
In the absence of a counter argument from two so far, I’m quite confident that my argument here runs circles around anything Obama haters want us to believe
You have not countered one single point that I and others have made.
That tells me your position is weak on merit but high on talking point column.
For someone who complains about peoples’ arguments lacking substance, you sure did use a lot of words to say nothing.
What exactly is the “right wing narrative”? And why are you so keen in turning this into a partisan battle? Is it because the familiar right vs left party lines are easier for you to understand? Do you think that might be why Obama specifically reference “the right” and “the left” in his speech?
edit: And your assertion that “Putin caved” or that this was some calculated victory for Obama is flat out false. But hey, repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth, right?
Obama seemed to follow Roger Ailes’ playbook, yet is not being criticised by the Right.
One of those thoughts that contradicts the RW narrative is that Putin has much to lose if Assad falls. The US and Obama lose nothing if Assad falls or stays.
Do you have any thoughts that contradict mine?
My assertion is based upon a substantial fact that Putin /Russia loses a significant military and strategic base on the Mediterranean Sea if their client mass myrderer should fall. Putin surely caved because he can’t take a chance that Assad’s military could be degraded such that opposition forces can reverse momentum and Assad falls.
Putin’s other big problem is the moral one in the eyes of the world since he is propping the only dictator to gas his own people since Saddam Hussein did it against the Kurds.
Backing a pariah who used CW is not a good position for Putin to be strapped to. No wonder he gave Obama what Obama wanted even though it didnt look like Obama could get significant backing for a strike from his public.
To all those on the right criticizing Obama’s diplomatic actions please respond with what you would do instead. I will agree that there is a good chance that the whole chemical weapons inspections thing will go kablooey, and in 6 months Terr will come back thrilled that the deaths of tens of thousands more innocent civilians means that he has another chance for schadenfreude at Obama’s expense, but I have yet to hear from any of the critics a plan that won’t in all likelihood do the same.
Terr will say that he shouldn’t have put the red line down in the first place. Of course if he hadn’t Terr would be complaining that Assad’s use of chemical weapons was due to Obama not coming out firmly against them. Its a bad situation and there are no good answers, but the current diplomatic solutions seems to be the best option we have. I you have a better alternative I would be interested in hearing it. If you don’t have a better alternative than sit down and shut up.
When you’re served a shit sandwich, and you eat it and smack your lips and exclaim how great it tastes, don’t be surprised when someone points out that it’s shit you’re eating.
The correct answer of course would be to wait to see what Obama does and then do the exact opposite
Who’s been served a shit sandwhich? Putin offered to give Obama exactly what his objective is to avoid having his pariah partner from having his military infrastructure from being degraded by the might of the US Military alone.
That is backing down by Putin in anyone’s book.
Obama continues to say he has the authority to use military force and he has not backed down from it.
Putin injected his reputation on the world stage as the one who can manage Assad’s CW arsenal. The UN investgatiins are not going Assad’s way so if more Syran women and children are gassed anytime in the future, Putin will have declared himself incompetent and an accessory to a war crime that Obama bravely and strongly sought to punish those responsible and prevent.
In other words, no you don’t have any better ideas, and nothing to offer other than schadenfreude.
Why in the world would you think Putin would be afraid of a very small, surgical, hardly-anyone-notice (paraphrasing Kerry and Obama himself) strike by a President with no political backing for his attack - who might have not even attacked at all, the way things were going?
Seriously, Putin would gain plenty by letting Obama fire off a few missiles that would solve nothing at all and earn him scorn and even-harder feelings in the Muslim. There is NO chance that the type of military action we were contemplating would have cost Russia their port, or anything else.
Putin gave Obama nothing - Putin is doing this for Putin. Russia is now the “peacemaker” by putting this deal on the table. If we do anything but accept it, we’re the warmongers, and there’s no way our Nobel Peace Prize Pres will take that route.
I doubt he ever intended to at all, and just dumped the decision in Congress’ lap so when he was denied he could blame the Republicans for it.
Putin gets to strut around on the world stage and get the recognition he has craved. But primarily, he wants to make sure Assad stays in power so he gets to keep his Mediterranean Base. He doesn’t care if Syria loses its CWs, as long it doesn’t lose Assad. And with a UN inspection regime happening, there will have to be a cease fire. Or, rather, the rebels will have to cease fire-- Assad’s military will be needed to make sure the inspection sites are “safe”.
Now, if the US supplies weapons to the rebels while UN inspectors are in there, we will be fanning the flames of the civil war and putting those inspectors’ lives at risk.
This is all about keeping Assad in power. Definitely from the Russian’s side, and maybe even from our side.
Look, Assad is already making noises that Obama has to stop arming the rebels and pledge no attack on Syria before any CW inspections/removal happen. And that’s just the beginning.
It was obvious what happened - to anyone except the most devoted of Obamabots. Obama got in too deep and stood to be humiliated by the no vote in Congress (hell, even Senate started leaning “no”). Putin offered him a straw, a barely face-saving out. Obama grabbed at it with both hands. Now Obama is neutralized (if there was no hope for a “yes” vote from Congress before, that has only solidified more now), and Assad/Putin can play games with Obama for the rest of his term while Kerry and Obama ineffectually huff and puff.
Putin has hugely boosted his prestige. Obama and his spokesmen keep saying that Putin is putting his prestige on the line - that’s because they have no idea what Russia’s concept of international prestige is. Hint: it has nothing to do with doing what Obama wants.
I’m not so sure that Congress would vote no in 2 months if the talks fail. I think a lot of people will feel like Putin and Assad pulled one over on us, and will want to retaliate. It will be more of an emotional response that a ration one (IMO), but I do think support for a strike will increase if the talks fail.
Whether support will increase enough for a “yes” vote, I don’t know. But I have a strong feeling we will find out.
More like Putin prefers to be feared than liked or trusted.
(1) Precedent. - Obama bombed Ghadafi into the pits of hell without the backing of Congress or the public including Democrats who were opposed. So there is precedent for Putin to fail to consider that Obama would do it.
(2) Symbolism - Size of strike does not matter to Putin. A relatively small strike puts the power of the US military symbolically on the side of Assad’s opposition.
(3) Risk- Putin cannot know what a limited US strike would accomplish to degrade Assad’s capability to defend against the opposition.
There’s a few, but in the back of Putin’s mind there is also the rational recognition that he is in partnership with a mass murderer who did it with chemical weapons. So whatever happens it is universal that Obama has the moral high ground. That translates into a strong desire for Putin to take chemical weapons out of the civil war. That is why Putin gave Obama wants to achieve through military strikes.
It’s more the symbolic aspect of the USA bombing Russia’s strategic partner on the Mediteranean Sea. Not the size.
What makes you think UN inspectors will be doing an Iraq 2003? - going in looking all over for these weapons in rebel dominated areas? This is about transferring possession of 1000 tons of CW into international arms control hands. There are reports that Syria’s CW are stored in a couple of safe locations, with one being a seaport city.
I agree Putin wants to get all the CW out of Syria ASAP. That is why Putin had offered to give Obama what he wants.