USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Leftwingers have such faith in Putin and Assad to live up to their agreement. How touching. I thought it was the neo-cons that were cheering for Putin.

    Obama started the mess by trying to get us involved in something that had no support. He was leading the charge and when he turned around there was no one there.

    When I see Obama supporting terrorists in Palestine, Egypt, Libya and now Syria, I see the same thing happening that led to Iran and Afghanistan turning into rougue states. I fail to see how that is good for us.

    Libya and Egypt are already on their way to becoming home to terrorists that want to attack us. Congratulations lefties!!

     

     

     




    To summarize:

     

     

     

    Obama and the US, according to the wingnuts, had no justification to launch a strike at Syria, despite the fact that Syria broke a long-standing worldwide UN ban on chemical weapons. Apparently Saddam breaking a UN resolution and gassing his own people a quarter of a century prior is enough justification to invade his country. lose 4000 American troops in the process and still not find those wmd's.

    Fine. Whatever...

    Putin in Russia and Assad in Syria admit that Syria has stockpiles of wmd (something Saddam constantly denied and was proven he wasn't lying) and the ability to manufacture more. They agree to an ultimatum which demands the unilateral disarming of these weapons overseen by international inspectors under a UN resolution. They also agree to go on record, signing the UN chemical weapons ban pledging not to use or manufacture these weapons in the future.... and did all this all because Kerry made a condescending, sarcastic remark. The US gets wmd out of the hands of a psychopath without firing a shot and the the wingnuts are apoplectic because we didn't lose 4000 more Americans in a futile war to do it.

    So, despite the fact that everything about the negotiation is in the US's favor, the whackjob wingnuts go beserk and plant their lips squarely on Putin's derier, proclaiming him a 'winner' for giving the US everything we wanted....all because they share a common hatred from Obama.

    The wingnuts are one seriously unhinged bunch of dipsticks.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

    Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

    ------------------------

    There is no such threat to the USA as a result of chemical weapons being used in Syria. It is obvious by Obama's actions that he does not have support of Congress to conduct a military strike on Syria.

    And I see the leftwingers here continue to have faith in Putin and Assad that they are going to go through all of the bureaucratic steps to verify that the weapons have been identified and destroyed in the MIDDLE OF A CIVIL WAR?!?!? Didn't Assad say he didn't have any? Oh he was lying?Shocker! But now the dull witted lefties believe him when he agrees to destroy all of his chemical weapons.

    This is all face-saving politics by the President at the expense of our security for we will certainly be threatened again to test the weaknes and incompetence displayed by Obama. That is the real threat here, not Syria's chemical weapons.

    Dull witted libruls - fighting for the islamic jihadists

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    UN weapon inspectors will verify that they have been destroyed - not Russia.

    Best case scenario, we never see chemical weapons used in Syria again, and the US takes weapons out of the hands of the Syrian government without firing a shot. 

    Worst case scenario, some chemical weapons are destroyed, Assad uses his remaining stock again, and we're back to where we were two weeks ago.  Except this time, the UN is far more invested, and if Russia vetos intervention, they look complicit.  

    Either result is a lot better than the result of any type of military action could hope to be.  I don't know how you can pretend you are the patriotic party, and be upset about this outcome.  

    A good move for the US would be to authorize military strikes now in the event that the agreement is breached, and the UN fails to act.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    To net it out - there is no threat to the USA from these weapons in Syria. 

    According to Barack Obama there is no justification for the use of force.

    With no threat to us, what are you going to say when we attack Syria without COngressional authorization and Iran strikes back in some manner?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    Leftwingers have such faith in Putin and Assad to live up to their agreement. How touching. I thought it was the neo-cons that were cheering for Putin.

    Obama started the mess by trying to get us involved in something that had no support. He was leading the charge and when he turned around there was no one there.

    When I see Obama supporting terrorists in Palestine, Egypt, Libya and now Syria, I see the same thing happening that led to Iran and Afghanistan turning into rougue states. I fail to see how that is good for us.

    Libya and Egypt are already on their way to becoming home to terrorists that want to attack us. Congratulations lefties!!

     

     

     

     




    To summarize:

     

     

     

     

    Obama and the US, according to the wingnuts, had no justification to launch a strike at Syria, despite the fact that Syria broke a long-standing worldwide UN ban on chemical weapons. Apparently Saddam breaking a UN resolution and gassing his own people a quarter of a century prior is enough justification to invade his country. lose 4000 American troops in the process and still not find those wmd's.

    Fine. Whatever...

    Putin in Russia and Assad in Syria admit that Syria has stockpiles of wmd (something Saddam constantly denied and was proven he wasn't lying) and the ability to manufacture more. They agree to an ultimatum which demands the unilateral disarming of these weapons overseen by international inspectors under a UN resolution. They also agree to go on record, signing the UN chemical weapons ban pledging not to use or manufacture these weapons in the future.... and did all this all because Kerry made a condescending, sarcastic remark. The US gets wmd out of the hands of a psychopath without firing a shot and the the wingnuts are apoplectic because we didn't lose 4000 more Americans in a futile war to do it.

    So, despite the fact that everything about the negotiation is in the US's favor, the whackjob wingnuts go beserk and plant their lips squarely on Putin's derier, proclaiming him a 'winner' for giving the US everything we wanted....all because they share a common hatred from Obama.

    The wingnuts are one seriously unhinged bunch of dipsticks.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

     

    As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

    Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

    ------------------------

    There is no such threat to the USA as a result of chemical weapons being used in Syria. It is obvious by Obama's actions that he does not have support of Congress to conduct a military strike on Syria.

    And I see the leftwingers here continue to have faith in Putin and Assad that they are going to go through all of the bureaucratic steps to verify that the weapons have been identified and destroyed in the MIDDLE OF A CIVIL WAR?!?!? Didn't Assad say he didn't have any? Oh he was lying?Shocker! But now the dull witted lefties believe him when he agrees to destroy all of his chemical weapons.

    This is all face-saving politics by the President at the expense of our security for we will certainly be threatened again to test the weaknes and incompetence displayed by Obama. That is the real threat here, not Syria's chemical weapons.

    Dull witted libruls - fighting for the islamic jihadists

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    UN weapon inspectors will verify that they have been destroyed - not Russia.

    Best case scenario, we never see chemical weapons used in Syria again, and the US takes weapons out of the hands of the Syrian government without firing a shot. 

    Worst case scenario, some chemical weapons are destroyed, Assad uses his remaining stock again, and we're back to where we were two weeks ago.  Except this time, the UN is far more invested, and if Russia vetos intervention, they look complicit.  

    Either result is a lot better than the result of any type of military action could hope to be.  I don't know how you can pretend you are the patriotic party, and be upset about this outcome.  

    A good move for the US would be to authorize military strikes now in the event that the agreement is breached, and the UN fails to act.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    To net it out - there is no threat to the USA from these weapons in Syria. 

     

    According to Barack Obama there is no justification for the use of force.

    With no threat to us, what are you going to say when we attack Syria without COngressional authorization and Iran strikes back in some manner?

    [/QUOTE]

    Obama had the authority under the war powers act to strike first and ask permission later, but he didn't.  Now the likelihood that it comes to that seems slight.  If Assad uses chemical weapons again, Congress and the UN will back Obama's play.  Hassan Rouhani is the new President of Iran; he is a political moderate, former diplomat, running on the platform of improving relations with the West.  Your doomsday scenario is not realistic.

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    skeeter I'm not going to do your work ...... write out your comment .... so I can read it ... if not just go about your day and live in peace and freedom that Obama supplys for you




    How's the wether in LaLa land?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Leftwingers have such faith in Putin and Assad to live up to their agreement. How touching. I thought it was the neo-cons that were cheering for Putin.

    Obama started the mess by trying to get us involved in something that had no support. He was leading the charge and when he turned around there was no one there.

    When I see Obama supporting terrorists in Palestine, Egypt, Libya and now Syria, I see the same thing happening that led to Iran and Afghanistan turning into rougue states. I fail to see how that is good for us.

    Libya and Egypt are already on their way to becoming home to terrorists that want to attack us. Congratulations lefties!!

     

     

     




    To summarize:

     

     

     

    Obama and the US, according to the wingnuts, had no justification to launch a strike at Syria, despite the fact that Syria broke a long-standing worldwide UN ban on chemical weapons. Apparently Saddam breaking a UN resolution and gassing his own people a quarter of a century prior is enough justification to invade his country. lose 4000 American troops in the process and still not find those wmd's.

    Fine. Whatever...

    Putin in Russia and Assad in Syria admit that Syria has stockpiles of wmd (something Saddam constantly denied and was proven he wasn't lying) and the ability to manufacture more. They agree to an ultimatum which demands the unilateral disarming of these weapons overseen by international inspectors under a UN resolution. They also agree to go on record, signing the UN chemical weapons ban pledging not to use or manufacture these weapons in the future.... and did all this all because Kerry made a condescending, sarcastic remark. The US gets wmd out of the hands of a psychopath without firing a shot and the the wingnuts are apoplectic because we didn't lose 4000 more Americans in a futile war to do it.

    So, despite the fact that everything about the negotiation is in the US's favor, the whackjob wingnuts go beserk and plant their lips squarely on Putin's derier, proclaiming him a 'winner' for giving the US everything we wanted....all because they share a common hatred from Obama.

    The wingnuts are one seriously unhinged bunch of dipsticks.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

    Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

    ------------------------

    There is no such threat to the USA as a result of chemical weapons being used in Syria. It is obvious by Obama's actions that he does not have support of Congress to conduct a military strike on Syria.

    And I see the leftwingers here continue to have faith in Putin and Assad that they are going to go through all of the bureaucratic steps to verify that the weapons have been identified and destroyed in the MIDDLE OF A CIVIL WAR?!?!? Didn't Assad say he didn't have any? Oh he was lying?Shocker! But now the dull witted lefties believe him when he agrees to destroy all of his chemical weapons.

    This is all face-saving politics by the President at the expense of our security for we will certainly be threatened again to test the weaknes and incompetence displayed by Obama. That is the real threat here, not Syria's chemical weapons.

    Dull witted libruls - fighting for the islamic jihadists

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    UN weapon inspectors will verify that they have been destroyed - not Russia.

    Best case scenario, we never see chemical weapons used in Syria again, and the US takes weapons out of the hands of the Syrian government without firing a shot. 

    Worst case scenario, some chemical weapons are destroyed, Assad uses his remaining stock again, and we're back to where we were two weeks ago.  Except this time, the UN is far more invested, and if Russia vetos intervention, they look complicit.  

    Either result is a lot better than the result of any type of military action could hope to be.  I don't know how you can pretend you are the patriotic party, and be upset about this outcome.  

    A good move for the US would be to authorize military strikes now in the event that the agreement is breached, and the UN fails to act.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    and, you trust the U.N.?

    The U.S. is in a corner, and just needs to do whatever Putin says on this issue. 

    That's the long and short of it.  Let's just move on.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    skeeter I'm not going to do your work ...... write out your comment .... so I can read it ... if not just go about your day and live in peace and freedom that Obama supplys for you

     




    How's the wether in LaLa land?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    skeeter ... I expected more from you ...... you should have said something like ... " How's the weather in Colorado" and I would have something like " Now that's another example of Climate Change" and then you could have said something lame like .... " Well there's no hurricanes in the Altantic" ....

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    "Putin and USA reach deal" should be more like "Putin creates political deal to stop us from acting on Syria"

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    Man, I can see nothing has changed here in fantasyland while I`ve been gone.  The "Keystone Cops" of Washington bumble and stumble handing Putin a win, making America look like geeks and the Libs here think it was some type of brilliant strategy by an incompetent president and a bumbling Sec of State.

    Now Putin is off to Iran for "nuclear talks".  What a disaster.




    They dont really think that way. They will just protect the brand (DNC) at all cost to the USA!!

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    What have we learned from this debacle that appears to result in a good end for the world, if you're POTUS.

    1) Don't draw a redline line you won't enforce or write a check for the country you can't cash

    2) Don't be so quick to decide that military action is required, remember diplomacy first

    3) Don't ask if you can use military power if you believe you can...lead for cryin out loud

    4) Don't hasitate to use your military power unless you're goal is to give enough time for the targets to move

    5) Don't cut some private deal with the ex-head of the KGB and expect to come out clean

    6) Don't try to take credit for something in a way that makes you look more weak

    7) Don't forget to show up at Vlad's accptance of his Profile in Courage Award in the Spring.

     

    ...the man who really counts in the world is the doer,...  TR 1891

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    For the love of....

     

    This was neither a brilliant Obama strategy nor some embarassing screw up.

     

     

    Obama made a mistake in setting a "red line" he didn't have the resolve to enforce on his own. But, Obama played the GOP by bringing the vote to congress as they asked. Then, Kerry fortuitously stumbled into a suggestion that avoids a strike. Russia pushed Obama's hand by taking Kerry up on it, despite Kerry's attempts to backpedal away.

    This landed us in a good outcome for all.

    A strike would have been pointless. An extremely limited itsy bitsy tiny strike is necessarily not a deterrent to someone who is willing to gas their own civilians: what do they care if a few soldiers die, too? It is also potentially disruptive.

    Syria is Russia's friend, so of course Russia gains by this. And of course, Syria gains because they may have hidden any number of the weapons and may be able to make new ones right away.

     

     

     

    It's basically a careful walkback of an initial mistake.

     

     



    Fair  analysis up to the walkback.  On that particular point, not completely sure.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    For the love of....

     

    This was neither a brilliant Obama strategy nor some embarassing screw up.

     

     

    Obama made a mistake in setting a "red line" he didn't have the resolve to enforce on his own. But, Obama played the GOP by bringing the vote to congress as they asked. Then, Kerry fortuitously stumbled into a suggestion that avoids a strike. Russia pushed Obama's hand by taking Kerry up on it, despite Kerry's attempts to backpedal away.

    This landed us in a good outcome for all.

    A strike would have been pointless. An extremely limited itsy bitsy tiny strike is necessarily not a deterrent to someone who is willing to gas their own civilians: what do they care if a few soldiers die, too? It is also potentially disruptive.

    Syria is Russia's friend, so of course Russia gains by this. And of course, Syria gains because they may have hidden any number of the weapons and may be able to make new ones right away.

     

     

     

    It's basically a careful walkback of an initial mistake.

     

     



    I agree but there is an element of embarassing screw up, some degree of weakened power of the Presidency and I'm not sure how bringing it to Congress was playing the GOP, as the GOP is at cross paths with itself just like the Dems.

    Leadership means you act; later adjust and possible ask for forgiveness if it all goes wrong.  That's what he did with OBL.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    No, people consider that the GOP playing with themselves.

    And that will have to be reported to your medical professional.

    Don't you know...

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE]I'm not sure how bringing it to Congress was playing the GOP



    Because they were whipping themselves into a frenzy over Obama's supposed imminent overreach in ordering a strike without consulting congress (all the while silently hoping he would order it without consulting congress).

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ah...of course...crystal balls are ok when used by libs. Got it...

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE]I'm not sure how bringing it to Congress was playing the GOP



    Because they were whipping themselves into a frenzy over Obama's supposed imminent overreach in ordering a strike without consulting congress (all the while silently hoping he would order it without consulting congress).

     

    Well when you consider the GOP leadership was in support of approving the strike I'm not sure what you're getting at.  

    There where many on the Dem side who were voting against leadrship also because House re-election is in 13 months and the populace was against a strike by 3:1.  In fact this caused McConnell to swing to a no vote because he's up for re-election next year.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: USA and Russia reach deal on Syria

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE]I'm not sure how bringing it to Congress was playing the GOP



    Because they were whipping themselves into a frenzy over Obama's supposed imminent overreach in ordering a strike without consulting congress (all the while silently hoping he would order it without consulting congress).

     

     That cuts both ways with congress.  It can be viewed that Obama was trying to get congress to call for a strike to prevent the political fgallout from a unilateral strike if it had gone bad.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share