President Obama PLANNED Russia-Syria Situation?

[billhilly]

The end result is that Russia offered to destroy Syra's chemical arsenal. Now it's up to Putin to step up the plate.

You've got to be one of the few people who actually thinks Putin needs to "step up to the plate".  He already did.  Now the issue will be slowly debated to death by the international community.  Obama knows this as he is an intelligent guy.

I don't believe that Putin see Obama as a bluffing buffoon, and neither does Assad. Obama wasn't bluffing in Lybia, wasn't bluffing in pulling troops in Iraq, wasn't bluffing in using drones in Pakistan, and neither in pursuing bin Laden.

Assad and Putin can read polls just as well as Obama.  They know as well as he does that the US congress won't authorize strikes and any unilateral strike by the administration will result wall to wall adds of Senator Obama's admonitions about the president not having that authority being played during the mid term elections.

Why the military option is not off the table. The generals at the Pentagone will make sure that Obama won't put this whole issue on the backburner.

Do you really thing senior military officers are going to barge in to the oval office to set the president straight on his agenda?  Besides, why would they petition to get involved in yet another middle eastern conflict?

I don't see that as an error. Quite the contrary. Putin has a lot more to lose. Obama has all its options open. Who says that gunboat diplomacy doesn't work?

Just about anybody who has been paying attention to US foreign policy in the last 50 years.

[josephpalazzo]

The end result is that Russia offered to destroy Syra's chemical arsenal. Now it's up to Putin to step up the plate.

You've got to be one of the few people who actually thinks Putin needs to "step up to the plate".  He already did.  Now the issue will be slowly debated to death by the international community.  Obama knows this as he is an intelligent guy.

If everyone in the Obama administration would be reacting as you do, maybe that will come out as you suggest. I don't think this is the case. A lot depends on how this will unfold: does Assad use CW's again? Does he obstruct the work of the UN inspectors? Do the Russians succeed in getting CW's destroyed or removed from Syria? So yeah, Putin has to make sure this harduous process gets going and keeps up the pace.  

I don't believe that Putin see Obama as a bluffing buffoon, and neither does Assad. Obama wasn't bluffing in Lybia, wasn't bluffing in pulling troops in Iraq, wasn't bluffing in using drones in Pakistan, and neither in pursuing bin Laden.

Assad and Putin can read polls just as well as Obama.  They know as well as he does that the US congress won't authorize strikes and any unilateral strike by the administration will result wall to wall adds of Senator Obama's admonitions about the president not having that authority being played during the mid term elections.

As I said, polls don't matter. If you go back to 2003, when Bush got approval from Congress to attack Iraq, there were protests across the country, and the polls were decidedly against that war, but that didn't stop Bush, and he still got re-elected in 2004.

Why the military option is not off the table. The generals at the Pentagone will make sure that Obama won't put this whole issue on the backburner.

Do you really thing senior military officers are going to barge in to the oval office to set the president straight on his agenda?  Besides, why would they petition to get involved in yet another middle eastern conflict?

They don't barge into his office, but Obama like any other president is in continuous contact with his generals, and I'm sure he listens to their concerns. I'm quite sure that the use of CW's as a national threat comes directly from the Pentagon concerns.

I don't see that as an error. Quite the contrary. Putin has a lot more to lose. Obama has all its options open. Who says that gunboat diplomacy doesn't work?

Just about anybody who has been paying attention to US foreign policy in the last 50 years.

Good, then they know that when we mean business, we really mean business.

[billhilly]

Assad and Putin can read polls just as well as Obama. They know as well as he does that the US congress won't authorize strikes and any unilateral strike by the administration will result wall to wall adds of Senator Obama's admonitions about the president not having that authority being played during the mid term elections.

As I said, polls don't matter. If you go back to 2003, when Bush got approval from Congress to attack Iraq, there were protests across the country, and the polls were decidedly against that war, but that didn't stop Bush, and he still got re-elected in 2004.

The whip count was in. Obama wasn't going to get approval from congress.  That's when the deal with Putin came up.

You're like Obama's version of Baghdad Bob or something.

[josephpalazzo]

Assad and Putin can read polls just as well as Obama. They know as well as he does that the US congress won't authorize strikes and any unilateral strike by the administration will result wall to wall adds of Senator Obama's admonitions about the president not having that authority being played during the mid term elections.

As I said, polls don't matter. If you go back to 2003, when Bush got approval from Congress to attack Iraq, there were protests across the country, and the polls were decidedly against that war, but that didn't stop Bush, and he still got re-elected in 2004.

The whip count was in. Obama wasn't going to get approval from congress.  That's when the deal with Putin came up.

You're like Obama's version of Baghdad Bob or something.

The difference with Bush and the Iraqi War is that Obama is not declaring war, and does not intend to put boots on the ground. As such, he can order a military attack even if Congress votes against it. If that takes place, which is a real possibility in lieu of the GOP obstructionism, then the only recourse for Congress would be to defund the military budget -- a highly unsavory situation for the GOP. But it would be a very interesting situation. Somehow, I do hope that it unfolds that way.  

[billhilly]

The difference with Bush and the Iraqi War is that Obama is not declaring war, and does not intend to put boots on the ground. As such, he can order a military attack even if Congress votes against it. If that takes place, which is a real possibility in lieu of the GOP obstructionism, then the only recourse for Congress would be to defund the military budget -- a highly unsavory situation for the GOP. But it would be a very interesting situation. Somehow, I do hope that it unfolds that way.

Senator Obama and candidate Obama certainly had a different opinion about military strikes without congressional approval and President Obama didn't do it when congress balked.  There was no declaration of war in the case of Iraq by the way.  Either time.

By republican obstructionists I guess you mean all those old neo-cons like Graham and McCain who were all for authorizing the strike?  There were quite a few Democrats who were against such strikes when Bush was doing them and still are now that their guy is rattling the saber.

Good on the democrats (and a few libertarians) who are consistent in their opposition to military intervention.  According to the whip counts, there were a whole lot more than anyone had anticipated and it wouldn't have got 50 votes even with the neo-cons voting for it.  Not exactly party line or partisan obstructionism.
Your little fantasy about this deal making the republicans look bad along with your "racist" tirade just outs you as a partisan hack.

[josephpalazzo]

The difference with Bush and the Iraqi War is that Obama is not declaring war, and does not intend to put boots on the ground. As such, he can order a military attack even if Congress votes against it. If that takes place, which is a real possibility in lieu of the GOP obstructionism, then the only recourse for Congress would be to defund the military budget -- a highly unsavory situation for the GOP. But it would be a very interesting situation. Somehow, I do hope that it unfolds that way.

Senator Obama and candidate Obama certainly had a different opinion about military strikes without congressional approval and President Obama didn't do it when congress balked.  

If you would sift through the records, most presidents, who were at one time a senator or a member of the House of Representative, were often doing the opposite once in the oval office. Why are you singling Obama?

There was no declaration of war in the case of Iraq by the way.

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)

By republican obstructionists I guess you mean all those old neo-cons like Graham and McCain who were all for authorizing the strike?  There were quite a few Democrats who were against such strikes when Bush was doing them and still are now that their guy is rattling the saber.

Nevertheless the Graham and McCain crowd could not overcome the GOP obstructionism, not even in this case. Which proves my point, as going to war or military strikes have been the favorites of the GOP in the past, but should Obama be in favor that the GOP turns around and is against it.  That has been, still is, the GOP doctrine of Obstructionism.

Good on the democrats (and a few libertarians) who are consistent in their opposition to military intervention.  According to the whip counts, there were a whole lot more than anyone had anticipated and it wouldn't have got 50 votes even with the neo-cons voting for it.  Not exactly party line or partisan obstructionism.

The democrats being against is consistent with tradition, the GOP being against isn't, proving my point again about their doctrine of Obstructionism.

Your little fantasy about this deal making the republicans look bad along with your "racist" tirade just outs you as a partisan hack.

Wrong word: The Republicans with their doctrine of Obstructionism are not bad but evil.

As to your racist attitude, it flows in every of your post.

[billhilly]

If you would sift through the records, most presidents, who were at one time a senator or a member of the House of Representative, were often doing the opposite once in the oval office. Why are you singling Obama?

Um, maybe because it is germane to this particular issue?  "The president doesn't have the power to do that without congressional approval > I'm the president now and I do have the power."  He didn't though because unlike you, he understands the political ramifications of such blatant contradictions

Nevertheless the Graham and McCain crowd could not overcome the GOP obstructionism, not even in this case. Which proves my point, as going to war or military strikes have been the favorites of the GOP in the past, but should Obama be in favor that the GOP turns around and is against it. That has been, still is, the GOP doctrine of Obstructionism.

Some republicans switched to being against military strikes and Some democrats switched to being for them.  Thankfully though, enough democrats remained against it to slow the train.  Tell me again how it's the republicans fault the majority party couldn't get to 50 in the senate even with several republicans supporting it.

The democrats being against is consistent with tradition, the GOP being against isn't, proving my point again about their doctrine of Obstructionism.

No, the republicans have traditionally trended isolationist.  It is only recently that the neo-con, warmongers have gained prominence and that can't end quick enough.  We had a large discussion on this on another thread or you could maybe read a fuckin book.

As to your racist attitude, it flows in every of your post.

You don't seem to understand that being called a racist by some idiot who doesn't understand the difference between a congressional authorization of force (what Obama was asking for too) and a declaration of war, or doesn't know that the republicans were traditionally isolationist till the neo-con era, is not insulting.  It's sad, like when a little retarded kid pisses his pants.  So go ahead and scream racist all ya want there chief.  Just try not to get drool on yer shirt.

[josephpalazzo]

If you would sift through the records, most presidents, who were at one time a senator or a member of the House of Representative, were often doing the opposite once in the oval office. Why are you singling Obama?

Um, maybe because it is germane to this particular issue?  "The president doesn't have the power to do that without congressional approval > I'm the president now and I do have the power."  

It has more to do that as a congressman you can critize the government and have the luxury of being an ideologue. You're not running the country. As a president, you are, and you have to more flexible and more pragmatic.

He didn't though because unlike you, he understands the political ramifications of such blatant contradictions

 The seeking of approval from Congress was to put the GOP in a quandary. The situation changed with Putin's offer opening up another brilliant move on his part: let Putin have is own Iraq war.

Nevertheless the Graham and McCain crowd could not overcome the GOP obstructionism, not even in this case. Which proves my point, as going to war or military strikes have been the favorites of the GOP in the past, but should Obama be in favor that the GOP turns around and is against it. That has been, still is, the GOP doctrine of Obstructionism.

Some republicans switched to being against military strikes and Some democrats switched to being for them.  Thankfully though, enough democrats remained against it to slow the train.  Tell me again how it's the republicans fault the majority party couldn't get to 50 in the senate even with several republicans supporting it.

Wrong. The vote was never taken. We have only the intended votes, and more were undecided than the yes' or the no's.

Yes - 25
No- 32
Undecided -43

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/ ... index.html

The democrats being against is consistent with tradition, the GOP being against isn't, proving my point again about their doctrine of Obstructionism.

No, the republicans have traditionally trended isolationist.  It is only recently that the neo-con, warmongers have gained prominence and that can't end quick enough.  We had a large discussion on this on another thread or you could maybe read a fuckin book.

The isolationist wing of the GOP was always a small minority since WW2. So bringing that up is really disingenuous.

As to your racist attitude, it flows in every of your post.

You don't seem to understand that being called a racist by some idiot who doesn't understand the difference between a congressional authorization of force (what Obama was asking for too) and a declaration of war, or doesn't know that the republicans were traditionally isolationist till the neo-con era, is not insulting.  It's sad, like when a little retarded kid pisses his pants.  So go ahead and scream racist all ya want there chief.  Just try not to get drool on yer shirt.

The difference is I see Obama as a brilliant man. You see him as the black guy who can't do anything right. Perhaps you're not a racist, you just have a generally bad judgement in regards to people.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

billhilly may see Obama as someone who can't do anything right, but that doesn't mean he sees that as a result of Obama being black.  You're the one focusing on race, again.  I see Obama as an extension of Bush, making all the same mistakes Bush made.  I wonder what that means with regards to race.

Now, as to whether or not the US should have gone to Syria like neocon hawks like josephpalazzo want, there's a point that needs to be made.

Foreign intervention is generally for some purpose.  The US has something it needs for the interest of the US, and the only way to do it is by military activity, so therefore there is military activity.  But unfortunately there comes a time with interventionist countries where intervention becomes its own reason.  Instead of saying "what you are doing is harming our country" the reason becomes "we don't want to appear weak."

When you reach that point you know absolutely that there actually isn't any reason for the intervention.  And "we don't want to appear weak" is the reason josephpalazzo has given for action in Syria.

Sure, he says it will be "air strike without boots on the ground" which to him means it isn't some sort of act of aggression.  Just like Pearl Harbor.

[The Whit]

Sure, he says it will be "air strike without boots on the ground" which to him means it isn't some sort of act of aggression.  Just like Pearl Harbor.

Which, I'd like to point out, resulted in a declaration of war.

[Smartmarzipan]

Are you that much of a racist?

Another racist comment:

So according to your racist logic....

Your racism is  beyond salvation.

There might be some truth into that, but you wrote that just to demean the black guy in the oval office.

Bullshit.  Go find a statement from me anywhere in this forum where I ever demeaned a person because he was black.

I don't have to. I know a racist when I see one. And you are.

Well, I'm done taking anything you have to say seriously.

We disagree on a lot of stuff, sure, but you seemed like a pretty intelligent guy and I tend read what you write and take it into account. And now here you are just calling people racist because they don't like Obama's policies and/or question political propaganda.

You need to chill the fuck out.

[The Whit]

I stopped taking him seriously two and a half pages ago.

[josephpalazzo]

We disagree on a lot of stuff, sure, but you seemed like a pretty intelligent guy and I tend read what you write and take it into account. And now here you are just calling people racist because they don't like Obama's policies and/or question political propaganda.

Not really. When posters can't even point one good thing about Obama, you need to question their motivation. You can criticize any politician, that's fine, but when it's all negative from a poster, and that poster can't even give Obama one credit, come one, wake up. If you think that the election of Obama has wiped out racism in the US, think again. It's worse than ever. 50 years ago people were blatantly racist. They didn't hide it, in fact, often they were proud of it. Today, the same racists hide their racism, which in my opinion, makes it worse, not better. They use code-words so that when they speak to the choir, they understand each other, without publicly showing their racism. And their subtle attacks are more vicious and more devious.

You need to chill the fuck out.

Sorry, but racism needs to be pointed out, and be categorically denounced.

BTW, I'm still waiting for any of these posters to say: Hey, I might not agree with everything Obama does but I'm with you. Racism has to be denounced. Funny, none of them so far came out to say that.

[Shiranu]

Guys, he is right;  the reason Obama is Bush 2.0 is because he is black. It's the only thing the two have in common.

Thank you for making me realize how much I hate black people.  Fuck
that wannabe gangster Bush and his pot dealing hommie Obama. They both deserved to be criticized because they are black.

[The Whit]

Sorry, but racism needs to be pointed out, and be categorically denounced.

BTW, I'm still waiting for any of these posters to say: Hey, I might not agree with everything Obama does but I'm with you. Racism has to be denounced. Funny, none of them so far came out to say that.

Yes, racism needs to be denounced.  I don't think any person on this forum is arguing that we need to reinstate the Jim Crow laws.  Literally NO ONE brought up the race of ANY individual until you hit the bottom of your shallow buckets of logical fallacies and had to resort to ad hominem attacks.  So now that race has been set aside, can we get back to pointing out how you have no argument?