# Russia/US UNSC Deal Reached - what it it means for masterful US President and Sec of State legacy. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2013, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852 "2013-09-14T17:20:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/81 "2013-09-16T08:19:19Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > But the only punishment mentioned in the agreement for not meeting that timetable is -gasp!-(play scary music)—passing a resolution at the UN. > We’re talking about a ruthless dictator who is fighting for his life. He knows that the UN will never pass any serious resolution against him, because Russia has veto powers at the Securtiy Council. As Putin has claimed the whole inspection-instead-of-airstrikes is his idea, he will lose face if Assad drags his feet. I don’t think we need to be afraid of a USSR veto then. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/82 "2013-09-16T11:36:52Z")
> [@Werekoala](#): > > And yet you’ve made Russian fear of miniscule, tiny, barely acupuncture-style strikes against Assad somehow leading to a loss of their port a major plank of your defense of this mess as a “huge win” for Obama. > > So which is it? I have Never suggested the threat of pinprick strikes was what caused Putin to fear losing his port. Putin has long feared losing that port. The point is that Putin has everyhing to lose and Obama has nothing to lose in a Putin vs Obama sense because Putin’s camp in Syria is a minority sect dictatorship that now has a reputation for killing its own people with chemical weapons. I have said the missile attack Obama proposed are not intended to drive Russia out of their port. The intent was to punish Assad and degrade the ability to use CW and that is mist of it. Please go back and review my writing. You have incorrectly stated my position. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/83 "2013-09-16T12:39:46Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I’m confused as to why the OP of this thread has basically derailed it with a bunch of rhetoric from 2002-2003. Go back and read chronologically read the flow of the posting. I have careful to avoid bringing up anything to do with Bush 2003 and Iraq. But I do and will respond when others bring it up. And it is appropriate to respond when comparisons are made to inspections of 2003 to speculation about new inspections in Syria. Do you have comments on the OP. There are some very intelligent posts here. I’m quite pleased to see them. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/84 "2013-09-16T13:30:37Z")
> [@Maastricht](#): > > As Putin has claimed the whole inspection-instead-of-airstrikes is his idea, he will lose face if Assad drags his feet. I don’t think we need to be afraid of a USSR veto then. Putin’s proposal for inspections could have come years or months ago. Will the Putin-Spanked-Obama crowd ask themselves what Putin was waiting for? Why did he wait until the redline of gassing children was crossed before making this offer? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/85 "2013-09-16T13:31:33Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And Obama has not made the military actions/strike about regime change or Russia losing its war water port. > > This Republican is selling bull puckey to claim that Putin “won” something by keeping his warm water port. That port was not in any calculation of the US punitive strike Obama still has available to him. Was this a win for Putin? I don’t know- at least we are working with Russia rather than butting heads and threatening each other. That makes the world a better place. How important is Syria to Russia? I don’t know much about this relationship, so if anyone can flesh it out or provide a link, it’d be ignorance fought. But, if Syria matters at all to Russia, I think they’d rather we not bomb them. Can Russia stand on the world stage and defend the use of chemical weapons? No, they can only assert that we have it wrong, it was the rebels who set off the gas. Who knows for sure? But the US was either totally convinced or didn’t care- we were going to bomb. My whole view hinges on what we think happens after that. Personally, I don’t think the US can bomb a WMD-armed country and walk away. I don’t care how many times Obama says “we will not put boots on the ground”- once we commit acts of war we are at war, and I don’t think that can end until the WMDs are seized. Bomb #1 means we are going to basically destroy Syria to get the WMDs by military means. Will this cause tensions with Iran? Russia? Maybe. If it doesn’t, I don’t see how it can be in Russia’s interest to see their partner bombed into oblivion. If it does, well what? Does Russia want to fight WWIII against the US to defend Syria’s use of WMDs? I don’t think so. Clearly a dangerous global situation is defused by getting Assad to cough up his WMDs. I don’t know if that would happen due to US pressure alone, but with Russian pressure it looks like it will happen. If Assad screws around and causes the UN to pass a resolution, I think the US would take that as permission to bomb them, regardless of whether Russia blocks it. So how could this turn out better? The warm water port could only be worth so much in a ruined country. I don’t know what Russia’s arms sales to Syria are worth, but all sides avoid a nasty and potentially ruinous, world-destabilizing confrontation. I’ve seen some bitter comments about the civil war in Syria, but no suggestions on how we could fix that mess. What are we supposed to do about that? I dunno, but getting the WMDs out of there seems mandatory. With Russia’s help, we might achieve that peacefully. That’s great! ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/86 "2013-09-16T13:49:12Z")
[Obama’s ‘new’ red line](http://nypost.com/2013/09/16/obamas-new-red-line-iran/) > [@](#): > > President Obama drew another “red line” Sunday, now on Iranian nukes — and insisted that this time, he really means it, despite infamously wavering on his red-line pledge about Syria using chemical weapons. No, this time he really means it. He really _really_ means it. How the Iranians must be trembling. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/87 "2013-09-16T14:25:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Mitt Romney Calls What’s Happening In Syria ‘A Ray Of Sunshine’ > > [Mitt Romney Calls What’s Happening In Syria ‘A Ray Of Sunshine’](http://www.mediaite.com/online/mitt-romney-calls-whats-happening-in-syria-a-ray-of-sunshine/) I just stumbled upon Romney’s comment on Syria from June 2012. Perhaps the victims of the CW attacks should have been wearing sun screen. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/88 "2013-09-16T14:46:47Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Was this a win for Putin? I don’t know- at least we are working with Russia rather than butting heads and threatening each other. That makes the world a better place. > > How important is Syria to Russia? I don’t know much about this relationship, so if anyone can flesh it out or provide a link, it’d be ignorance fought. > > But, if Syria matters at all to Russia, I think they’d rather we not bomb them. Can Russia stand on the world stage and defend the use of chemical weapons? No, they can only assert that we have it wrong, it was the rebels who set off the gas. Who knows for sure? > > But the US was either totally convinced or didn’t care- we were going to bomb. My whole view hinges on what we think happens after that. Personally, I don’t think the US can bomb a WMD-armed country and walk away. I don’t care how many times Obama says “we will not put boots on the ground”- once we commit acts of war we are at war, and I don’t think that can end until the WMDs are seized. Bomb #1 means we are going to basically destroy Syria to get the WMDs by military means. > > Will this cause tensions with Iran? Russia? Maybe. If it doesn’t, I don’t see how it can be in Russia’s interest to see their partner bombed into oblivion. If it does, well what? Does Russia want to fight WWIII against the US to defend Syria’s use of WMDs? I don’t think so. > > Clearly a dangerous global situation is defused by getting Assad to cough up his WMDs. I don’t know if that would happen due to US pressure alone, but with Russian pressure it looks like it will happen. If Assad screws around and causes the UN to pass a resolution, I think the US would take that as permission to bomb them, regardless of whether Russia blocks it. > > So how could this turn out better? The warm water port could only be worth so much in a ruined country. I don’t know what Russia’s arms sales to Syria are worth, but all sides avoid a nasty and potentially ruinous, world-destabilizing confrontation. > > I’ve seen some bitter comments about the civil war in Syria, but no suggestions on how we could fix that mess. What are we supposed to do about that? I dunno, but getting the WMDs out of there seems mandatory. With Russia’s help, we might achieve that peacefully. That’s great! A good source on the importance of the port to Putin. > [@](#): > > How does Tartus serve Russia’s strategic and geopolitical interests? > > Even a semipermanent base at Tartus allows the Russian Navy to expand its presence in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. > > Russia’s largest and most important military base in a foreign country is the Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol, Ukraine. > > To deploy beyond the Black Sea, Russian warships based at Sevastopol must pass through the Bosporus Strait, which has been militarized by NATO-member Turkey. > > Under the 1936 Montreux Convention, the Bosporus was deemed an international shipping lane with military restrictions. Under a 1982 amendment, Turkey now retains the right to close the Strait at its discretion in peacetime as well as during wartime. > > As Russia’s only Mediterranean base, that makes Tartus a vital strategic asset beyond the Bosporus. > > As a deep water port, it can dock nuclear submarines. > > Moscow is reportedly planning to expand the facilities so it can accommodate the Russian Navy’s flagship – the “Admiral Kuznetsov” aircraft carrier – after 2012. > > Tartus also strengthens Russia’s great-power aspirations and increases its influence in regional diplomacy. > > [Explainer: Why Is Access To Syria's Port At Tartus So Important To Moscow?](http://www.rferl.mobi/a/24619441.html) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/89 "2013-09-16T14:52:03Z")
See my preceding post: > [@](#): > > To deploy beyond the Black Sea, Russian warships based at Sevastopol must pass through the Bosporus Strait, which has been militarized by NATO-member Turkey. Turkey is a member of NATO. Ruusia’s Navy is boxed in by a NATO member. An attack on one is an attack on all. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/90 "2013-09-16T15:08:35Z")
1. Tartus is not Russia’s only warm water port. It has warm water ports in the far East, Murmansk on the Kola peninsula, and on the Black Sea. 2. Turkey does not block Russian warships from using the Bosporus Strait. 3. The naval base at Tartus is mostly a refueling depot, it is not important because of being a warm water port, but important because it lets Russian ships refuel without having to sail all the way up through the Bosporus and into a Russian Black Sea port. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/91 "2013-09-16T15:09:50Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Go back and read chronologically read the flow of the posting. I have careful to avoid bringing up anything to do with Bush 2003 and Iraq. > > But I do and will respond when others bring it up. And it is appropriate to respond when comparisons are made to inspections of 2003 to speculation about new inspections in Syria. > > Do you have comments on the OP. There are some very intelligent posts here. I’m quite pleased to see them. I’ve already commented before I made my post about your side track. I did not say you started the discussion about the 2003 Iraq War, but you’re the one who obviously expanded it into a lengthy non sequitur about inspections and a bunch of other stuff that hasn’t been relevant in 10 years. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/92 "2013-09-16T15:58:43Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > My analogy for Obama’s performance would be that over four quarters he fumbled the football multiple times and things looked bleak. Then near the end his quarterback (Kerry) without really coordinating it with him, threw the ball up in the air out of frustration with no real intent anything come of it, and it ended up being a touch down. > > I think the current outcome is **good** and is definitely better than we would have gotten if we had pursued the limited military strikes against Assad. However, I see no evidence it was part of any master plan by Kerry and Obama. Maybe it was, but I don’t see that. It’ll be interesting in the years that come (if this ends up being a success) when the insider books and such get written and we’ll get an idea as to whether Kerry and Obama had really planned this chemical weapons surrender as a viable strategy and then had Kerry float it, or if it was what it appeared to be: Kerry just saying something rhetorically during a press conference. > > So my verdict is: good job President Obama and Secretary Kerry, but it looks like a lot of luck and incompetence got you to where you are today. Now, it does seem like Kerry has down a very competent job in negotiating the particulars with his counterpart in Russia, and for that he deserves unreserved praised as that is exactly the sort of thing a Secretary of State needs to do well. > > Long term I see two paths this could take: > > 1. Syria genuinely gives up all of its chemical weapons, because it basically “buys” it protection from Western interference and Assad believes he can beat the rebels in a conventional war (he mostly already is.) > > 2. Syria gives up some, but not all, of its chemical weapons. Because Assad believes he _can_ beat the rebels, but he still might desire those weapons in a dire situation. Further, he is distrustful of the West, and if the West becomes more interventionist he wants to have those chemical weapons as a card up his sleeve. > > Where this second path can get ugly, is if a few years down the road we discover he’s still got chemical weapons, and maybe he uses them in a few small battles–where does that leave us? The Russians will argue that the chemical weapons could not be Assad’s, because they **personally** oversaw, with international verification, their destruction. Since there was no enforcement mechanism built into this deal, if we wanted UN Support we’d have to go back to the Security Council. Any attempt there would be derailed by Russia, who would repeatedly be pasting evidence of chemical weapons disposal all over the place to influence world opinion. > > Here in the States, many will reference the Iraq War, when international inspectors oversaw WMD destruction but the Administration still claimed some were left. In Syria, if that were **true** it’d be very difficult for the Obama Administration to convince anyone Assad still had them, and he’d probably have even less political support for strikes against Assad than he does now. My reply to your first paragraph is that it brought to mind the great fumblerooski play. > [@](#): > > Fumblerooski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > [Fumblerooski - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumblerooski) > In American football, the fumblerooski is a trick play, famously used by the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers against the University of Miami Hurricanes in the 1984 … That is why I see your football analogy as not fair. In the diplomacy world the whole game is not played in the open and where we spectators can’t see all that goes on in secret. There are no secrets during a football game. I’m speculating that Obama had a good deal of certainty beforehand that Putin’s response was the one we got after Obama decided to get Congress to Ok the strikes. That might be dirty politics getting Republicans on record agsinst, but it was no fumble. It was a fumble-rooskie. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/93 "2013-09-16T16:12:05Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I just stumbled upon Romney’s comment on Syria from June 2012. > > Perhaps the victims of the CW attacks should have been wearing sun screen. This would have something to do with the issue if Mitt Romney’s opinions mattered, which they do not. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/94 "2013-09-16T16:38:40Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > This would have something to do with the issue if Mitt Romney’s opinions mattered, which they do not. Why doesn’t Mitt Romney’s opinion matter? I have heard Romney’s name mentioned by his supporters according to the right wing narrative going around that ‘Putin spanked Obama’ means that Romney is vindicated for calling Russia our greatest geopolitical foe, I also believe Rommney’s comments are a significant way to expose Republican hypocrisy for berating Obama’s handling of the CW situation in Syria. I can see why Republicans don’t want things Romney said brought up now. Like this one: > [@](#): > > Mitt Romney: Syria could see U.S. troops under my watch … > [www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80128.html](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80128.html) > COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Friday that he would send U.S. troops to Syria if needed to prevent the spread of chemical … ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/95 "2013-09-16T17:52:55Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Why doesn’t Mitt Romney’s opinion matter? Because he has nothing to do with setting policy and has absolutely no influence over this matter. Does he even have a job? His opinions mattered a year ago. Now they don’t. IF your standard for the Administration’s “masterly” performance on this file is comparing them to a retired election loser who people are already forgetting, your standard is damned low. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/96 "2013-09-16T18:17:26Z")
It was actually a cleverly laid plan - Romney wanted Kerry to notify Putin to push Obama to pressure Assad to stop resisting something he used to not want to prevent anyone from doing. And it worked. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/97 "2013-09-16T18:21:12Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Because he has nothing to do with setting policy and has absolutely no influence over this matter. Does he even have a job? > > His opinions mattered a year ago. Now they don’t. IF your standard for the Administration’s “masterly” performance on this file is comparing them to a retired election loser who people are already forgetting, your standard is damned low. I am not comparing Obama to Romney. I am taking what Romney said on the topic to expose right winger hypocrisy. Their standard bearer last election would put troops on the ground in Syria to stop the spread and threat of CW. Magiver says candidates should not say such a thing if they don’t know it will be supported. If what you say is true there should be no reference to Obama’s Red Line comment during the campaign but there is. It is relevant that the Republican candidate about the same time would put US boots on the ground in Syria. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/98 "2013-09-16T18:30:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Oh my god. You mean, there’s a possibility that Russia might take Syria’s chemical weapons, under international verification, and destroy those weapons (again under international verification)? Oh the humanity! If they are implying that Russia will seize the chemicals and hored them for possibly using against us or any other country, I might point out that chemicals are _easy_ to make … as long as you have a modern infrastructure to do it with [which oddly enough the US seems to have…] so the “threat” of Russia having a bunch of random dangerous chemicals is pretty nominal. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/99 "2013-09-16T19:48:17Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. Tartus is not Russia’s only warm water port. It has warm water ports in the far East, Murmansk on the Kola peninsula, and on the Black Sea. . . . Is Murmansk a “warm water” port? I thought the term was created specifically to discount Murmansk and St. Petersberg. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/100 "2013-09-16T21:01:08Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I am not comparing Obama to Romney. I am taking what Romney said on the topic to expose right winger hypocrisy. Their standard bearer last election would put troops on the ground in Syria to stop the spread and threat of CW. Maybe Barry Goldwater would have, too! > [@](#): > > If what you say is true there should be no reference to Obama’s Red Line comment during the campaign but there is. Barack Obama is the President of the United States of America. His opinions matter. His track record matters. What he has said in the past, to varying degrees depending on relevance, matters. The consistency of his policies and positions matter. Mitt Romney does not matter, and trotting him out in an effort to make Obama look okay in comparison is pathetic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852.md?page=6)