No they didn’t. They buckled too soon under the threat of military force being used against Assad’s military infrastructure. They could have waited until Obama was perceived to be weakened by a no vote in Congress. And if Congress did authorize use of force, then the same offer could be put out there.
Now as it is setting up the language in the AUMF can refer to the now public agreement by Syria to give up the banned weapons and Putin’s credibility is now on the line.
You’re wrong, and I’m not going to argue with you. Don’t expect any responses from me to you in this thread.
No I didn’t, because it was a Terr cite, which means it automatically does not say what you want it to say. However, I’ll humor you and spend the 30 seconds it takes to figure out your “75000” cite.
See, I knew it would be pointless, that’s why I didn’t read it. The paragraph where you got the 75000 troops cite was talking about:
…how much troops it would take the US to secure the sites should Assad lose control of them.
…was made last year and doesn’t take into account what we’ve learned since.
…dealt with neutralizing those sites using American military power and certainly NOT talking about a scenario in which Assad voluntarily turns over his stockpile to the UN.
Based on this, I’m not going to read your next 5 cites on the basis that they will again be pointless diversions and misrepresentations :rolleyes:
Actually yeah. If its secured by the people who control and used them, it should be a lot quicker and easier. And it gives us the added bonus of the US not needing to expend any blood or treasure on it! Again, its a win-win for the US and a brilliant bit of diplomacy by Obama
Again, we don’t have to do anything. With the Assad regime in control of the sites now, all they have to do is turn them over to the UN. You’re simply not allowing the plan to happen before you shit all over it.
The agreed-upon deal is better than any option available before that. He gets tremendous credit for negotiating this deal and making it happen. His job is done, now its up to the players on the ground to do the physical task of getting the weapons. A diplomatic breakthrough is not nothing. You might as well be shitting on Grant for getting Lee to surrender at Appomattox because “nothing’s happened yet! Who’s to say the South couldn’t turn around and attack the next day!”
And you admitted to making shit up
If this is about Assad, then you should be excoriating him instead, not Obama. What would you have our president do? “Well because we don’t trust Assad, we’re not going to take his offer of surrendering his weapons. In fact, we’re going to go ahead with bombings until Assad is deposed”. Really, you’ve left exactly no recourse for Obama to take, if he makes the deal then he’s tricked, if he doesn’t then he has to go to war. You simply don’t understand that this is the best recourse for everyone. If Assad delays and goes back on his word, sure, go ahead and attack him, but until he does so there’s no reason your prediction is anything except another way to attack Obama for something.
Your problem is that you don’t see the diplomacy as something to cheer about when everyone else does. Before the breakthrough, we were going to war. Now, we’re averting it, possibly delaying it but the point is we’re not going to war right now and there is a way out. That’s diplomacy, and Obama should rightly get credit for even opening that path. With your way, there is no path except war, or we don’t bomb and Assad keeps all his CWs. That’s a lose-lose proposition. Obama’s turned that around completely
Whatever our predictions, it doesn’t change the fact that Obama saw a way through this that is a win-win for us. No war, no bombings, and no Assad regime armed with CWs. Only a delusional partisan cannot give him credit for that
The “I hope Obama fails” rhetoric is nothing short of obsessive. The president can’t wake up in the morning without someone being angry about it.
The man negotiated an alternative to attacking Syria all while going through congressional approval process (precedent suggests he didn’t have to). Attacking Syria is something presumably most people didn’t want in the first place, and he did so elegantly and diplomatically with the help of Russia/Putin - despite the relatively cool relationship with that country/leader. I realize the devil will be in the details of how the whole CW hand-over will be handled and how long it will take. No one is under the illusion that it will either simple or quick or not fraught with various pitfalls. And strikes on Syria may still be in the cards if things turn pear shaped.
But to sit here and criticize the man while not a single voice from the Republican brain trust even suggested this kind of solution… well, you gotta wonder if there’s a special category for butthurt that’s being created right before our eyes.
Could you also not respond to me? I’m sick of hyperpartisan people trying to blame Obama for everything, no matter how small. This diplomatic agreement can be seen as nothing less than a victory. Future events may change that, but as for right now, we all should be celebrating that our president isn’t as gung-ho about going to war as some previous administrations. I’d just as well not have to talk to you anymore and your “Blame Obama” mentality, thanks
To me it’s a win/win (for the US) regardless of how this plays out. If Assad honors the agreement then chemical weapons don’t get used. The threat of our use of military strikes are what brought him to this agreement, yet we held back to give peace a chance. If he doesn’t, he’s probably going to piss off the Russians who will look bad, and Obama will get his authorization for strikes anyway, while The World™ will have to shut the fuck up about it, since Obama has obviously bent over backwards to give peace a chance and Assad fucked it up. Either way it’s a win for the US (and Obama IMHO). It’s a win for Putin and Russia only if Assad honors the agreement. As for Assad, he’s still got his civil war to deal with, and even if he manages to win it he’s probably fucked. If he loses, well, we’ll have to burn that bridge when we get to it I guess, but that will be just another day in the Middle East.
Oh yeah it’s brilliant all right. Let’s have the chemical weapons controlled and secured by Assad’s troops, and pretend that that’s an improvement on when they were controlled and secured by Assad’s troops. Hilarious.
Um…you do realize that they aren’t currently being observed or overseen by either Russia or the UN, right? One of these things doesn’t look like the other…
You first. But I’ll be glad to when you start posting correctly. 
Well, it’s a good thing I don’t do that! But please feel free to open a pit thread if you think I’m one of those types.
It might be a victory for the American people. Assuming we end up not bombing anyone. I’ll be happy if it turns out Obama stumbled himself into a face-saving scenario.
Then don’t read my posts or don’t respond to them. Makes no difference to me. Otherwise, the Pit is wide open!
LOL. I can only lead the horse to water. I cannot make it drink.
But you are seemingly great at beating it to death half way across while looking at it’s teeth to see if it’s a good gift I guess. 
My problem is I can lead the horse to water, but obviously it’s impossible for me to make the partisan think. Sad really.
Here, maybe Noonan will explain it better to you: http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2013/09/10/making-sense-of-syria/
Dude, I understood the position already. Doing a drive by link to the same argument is not likely to change my mind at this date since, you know, I THINK IT’S FREAKING WRONG. I don’t give a shit who is making the same, tired, horse beat argument since I don’t agree with the analysis OR the conclusion. Got anything else?
So, anyway, Obama is a blood-thirsty militarist, except when he’s a Milquetoast wussie quailing in the face of our enemies. The Two Joes, Stalin and Chamberlain.
Some advice: it helps if you cover your ears, close your eyes and hum loudly.
I’m sure that’s working well for you, but frankly it’s not my style. But go with what works for you man. Keep on keeping on and all that jazz.
This was the most riveting part for me:
What?
Even the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn’t the Cuban Missile Crisis. This was certainly no Cuban Missile Crisis. Who exactly were we eyeballing? Assad? Peggy sure can write some fiction.
This explains a lot about your posts in this thread.
I guess it was a whoosh.
Well, now, just a second there, hoss. You are talking about Peggy Nooner, here, Michelle Malkin on Valium. She is not one of those shrieking violets who is bombastically and thunderously wrong every time she opens her martini-hole, but a calmly reasonable correspondent who knows who writes her checks, and kisses accordingly.