Where? When?
On preview, I see you are pretending not to be able to read on other subjects, but, as long as I already made the post…
Regards,
Shodan
Personally, I think the traditional all-caps approach to obnoxiously aggressive posts is to be preferred.
I hate to burst your bubble here, but Obama was all about bombing until Putin got Assad on board with the CW elimination plan. And when Obama caved on his desire for automatic use of force in the resolution, per our Russian and Chinese friends’ demands, then it was pretty easy to get the others to go along.
What’s not to love about this resolution: Syria gets rid of CWs (maybe, but they will at least have fewer than they have now, worst case), and the US gets told: No, Mommy is not going to give you permission to bomb the sandbox just because you think the other boys aren’t playing fair.
Still, despite his abject obedience and craven pandering to Vlad the Impaler, perhaps “treason” is too strong a word. Perhaps.
But what/whom threatened Putin that forced Putin to change course in order to remove the threat to his power and money-making scheme?
I did a search in this thread, and the only hits for “treason” or “traitor” were in your posts (2 hits for the former term). Was someone making that argument here?
:rolleyes: It’s a rhetorical technique I’m surprised is so difficult to recognize.
He’s taking the weak and counterevidentiary argument that the Administration bumbled and fumbled their way through this Syrian drama, and responding to its more overtly cartoonish relative. (One which absolutely exists in the real life political context.) The only fundamental difference between the pov’s, as political analysis goes, is that the actual argument is observation so disrupted by biases its conclusion becomes stupid while the reactionary caricature rationalizes an assumption so blatantly paranoid it starts off stupid right out of the gate.
A strawman by any other name…
Well, John, got my name right there in the upper left, if it all gets to be too much for you, I will understand. For my part, if I ever get a hankering for a good non-partisan scolding, you will be the first I will turn to. I doubt that i would ever be disappointed, or turned away.
And by the way, might I remind you of the title of this thread, the question of whether it was even possible to defend Obama’s efforts in Syria? Can anyone do that? Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it is possible. Quite possible.
Recall your first post herein:
Couldn’t one easily have the impression that you were largely in agreement? You just didn’t think it was well phrased. If you are going offer support and comfort…however mild…to such an extreme proposition, I fail to understand how you can chaff me for “strawman” argument.
I exaggerate to make a point, often for the sake of humor. I rely on the intelligence of my reader, that they will know that. Just about dead sure you do, if not everybody else. But if I’m wrong about that, well, you are forgiven, you need not trouble yourself to read more.
Somehow, I will find the strength to go on. I don’t come here to be loved, or approved of, I come here to argue and crack wise.
Nope, that’s never a problem. But thanks for your concern!
Oh, and just to be clear, that wasn’t my first post. That was the first sentence in my first post. And if you read the rest of the post it would have been clear that I was not agreeing.
Of course Obama was all about bombing. It’s what forced Putin and Assad to meet the objective of military strikes.
That Putin caved rather than see if Obama was bluffing has still not made into your wanna-smack Obama mind yet - I see.
As soon as this dismantling process succeeds as it is off to a great start, you will be forced to accept Obama turned Putin, not the other way around. Objective minds already understand this. Soon you will be forced to join us John or just keep rattling off right wing talking points like Terr and Magiver most likely will do.
Not all questions are answered. Was Obama bluffing? I think so, wisely, as it turns out. But that will never be known. Not really sure if he knows himself, for certain. Was Hitler bluffing at Munich? I think that likely, but how do we judge? How do we gauge the rationality of a man who exhibits much cunning and shrewd analysis but operates in support of insane ideas and lurid racial fantasy?
I am convinced that we must evolve some form of global civilization. Otherwise, we are but squabbling children with weapons more lethal than we can comprehend, and our doom virtually assured.
Choosing to make war somehow civilized appears to be the most absurd oxymoron, but there it is. True enough, it doesn’t make that much sense to think of a bullet as more “organic” and acceptable than a chemical gas. A universe that seems to delight in denying us any absolutes is generous with that one, dead is dead, no two ways about it.
So, not even a victory, but only a baby step. No glory, but the tiniest bit of hope glowing a wee bit brighter. And even a good man, proud of what he has done, is haunted by the thought that he could have done more, if he had more courage, if he were more eloquent and persuasive. Is he a giant among men, for simply trying to do the right thing, to be a decent man and a worthy leader? I don’t know, that is over my pay grade. Way, way over.
But it is rare enough that I can say, without snark…bless his heart, he means well. Is that enough, no. Is it something, yes. Yes it is. And so it goes.
I don’t think Obama was bluffing. (see *a)
Perhaps it may not have been that much of a bluff if it was indeed a bluff. That is because I doubt very much that he and Putin have limited their communication on Syria to the two “G” Summits. What didn’t get discussed much during all the* Putin-bested-Obama *hoopla and right wing driven hysteria in the news and pundit land is the reports that Putin put the U.S. into contact with the Assad regime whenever Syria was moving Chemical Weapons around. It was that movement that stirred talk about the red lines… in August 2012. Putin assured the White House that Assad’s regime had the CW under control and would not be used.
That cooperation certainly must have bothered Putin for Obama to be talking about using force… But I’m sure Obama felt some frustration too that Putin kept and still blames it on the rebels and had continued to refuse to solve this at the UNSC by not putting aside his veto there.
The next part is on a higher long term strategic level. Putin is interested in a transition government but strategically the CW arsenal presents a problem. Those CW could not fall into a terrorists hands and the best way to guarantee that would be to keep Assad’s regime in control of them until they are accounted for and destroyed.
I suspect the transition program has been boosted by the events of the past two weeks. That can only be played out as the CW arsenal is verifiably destroyed.
So patience must prevail before making kneejerk judgments as Obama dissers are so apt to make, and thus far all the kneejerk predictions of stalling and delay and UN and CWC buffoonery are being debunked at a very rapid pace.
I recall when the UN inspectors were setting up in Iraq around January 2003 and Rush Limbaugh kept up a bit about UN inspectors driving around in their little Toyotas on a wild goose chase looking for Iraq’s WMD. Man he laughed a lot about that. Just like a few here are badmouthing/laughing at the civilized and peaceful disarming of Syria’s CW arsenal. Not one of them can make the case that Obama prefers missile strikes over this kind of diplomacy that we all are watching play out.
It will be a while before we find out why or how the CW was used, but it surely must have really pissed Putin off when it was. So I think this ‘surprise’ acceptance of the so-called Kerry gaff was not really a surprise between Russia and the US. Putin really needed to get something done about it and Obama pressing the use of force affected the speed at which a sketch of a deal could be worked out.
*a(*Obama has already pissed off the anti-war folks who support him domestically but not so much on military matters, when he tripled the troops in Afghanistan and when he joined in the toppling of Gadhafi and any time he used using military force against their will, and the drones…etc *).
It is not toothless because when or if a nine member or more majority on the UNSC are in agreement that Assad’s regime has committed a violation of the Resolution demanding x y and z then a member state or coalition of member states could enforce that resolution outside the UN Security Council. Obama has never taken the option to use force off the table and he would have a much better case if Assad uses them again to kill civilians or obstructs in some flagrant way the dismantling of his CW arsenal.
Putin’s veto in the face of some ‘flagrant’ act or blatant obstruction of the CWC work would prevent specific UNSC authorization to use force, but it would also show that Putin will ignore his criminal partner’s transgressions and cannot be the sole interference any longer at saving lives from CW use in the Syrian civil war. Obama and more member states are likely to act outside the UNSC.
Bush did. Clinton did. It is nothing new.
Seriously? Can you point out where that rule is written down?
And the Grinche’s heart grew 3 sizes that day?
He needed a soundbite to toughen up his act after Benghazi and his “red line” line just popped out. It was clearly an accident since he tried to spin it with the followup “it’s not my red line” line.
From the text:
This is ‘teeth’ - sorry if you think its nothing.
Had Senator Rand Paul had his way we’d be exactly where we were two weeks ago. Who would be satisfied with that knowing what we just seen transpire yesterday at the UNSC.
and
and
and
and
and here’s the big one:
It’s big because **non-compliance is determined by OPCW **under Article VIII of the Chemical Weapons Convention and then this matter becomes enforceable under Chapter 7. Putin cannot veto the non-compliance determination. He most likely can veto the measures to be taken. But if Syria does not comply or gets caught shipping CW to a third party Putin will be making the Russian Federation an accessory to what has been determined non-compliance if he vetoes any measures taken.
Syria joining the CWC is huge and Putin is on a hook that he put himself on by somewhat guaranteeing that Syria will get to full compliance by mid-2014 and be CW free. .
Its in the infamous Magiver cite that says 1441 had no automaticity or hidden triggers to use force … the part after that he cites that 1441 does **not constrain **member states to enforce UNSC resolutions.
Before using a veto one a permanent member would wait to see if a nine member majority would vote yes to a resolution that it does not want to pass.
Bush attempted to get what amounted to UNSC authorization to invade Iraq in March 2003 but he could not find at least nine members of the fifteen member council that pledged support if the Bush Blair draft proposal of March 7/8 were to come to a vote. That’s because most members on that council supported the continuation of inspections.
What I’m saying in the case of Iraq, is that had more members sided with Bush and Blair, then a vote would have gone forward and France would have vetoed it. But then Bush could have seen that as a vote that determined the UNSC was incapable of using force because one permanent member state vetoed it and then invade Iraq as his choice and as a unilateral action apart from the UNSC.
I do not think Obama would be as arrogant or stupid as Bush to go against the majority of the UNSC but if the violation by Assad was so flagrant and the majority on the council voted to use force but Putin vetoed it - I’d think Obama would act and he’d probably get more support at home.
Remember that poll posted that shows only a four point deficit if Assad violated the deal to disarm for those who then would support military action.
If Assad uses CW again and kills more an more civilians - Obama gets I’m sure support at home to do something using deadly force.
But its thankfully looking like we will never have to witness these scenarious… because your "Terr-ibble predictions about what’s going to happen are falling apart every day that passes.