President Obama PLANNED Russia-Syria Situation?

[josephpalazzo]

Sure, another instance of showing your racism.

Again, only a racist like you would propose such an insane scenario to blame the black guy in the oval office.  How low can you go with your racism in order to blame the black guy in the oval office?

That's kind of hypocritical on your part as nothing the black guy in the oval office can ever do will satify you...And then you are puzzled when someone like me calls out our blatant racism. Duh!

Your racism has to be pointed out and be denounced.

It's not an assumption: you talk like a racist GOP, you think like a racist GOP, and you voted for that racist party.

"It's not an assumption" followed by three erroneous assumptions.

but the black guy in the oval office is a no-good incompetent who by ignoring the polls doesn't care for the American people. Your racism has been duely noted.

Keep destroying what little credibility you may have ever had.  =D>    :rollin:

The fact that can't refute any of my accusations speak loudly of your racism.

[Shiranu]

I'm sorry, but you are making up baseless accusations that, because you disagree with him, it MUST be because he is black.

It's like if someone said they didn't like NPH as an actor because they don't like the characters he has played... so obviously they are homophobic, and if you disagree or give reasons as to why you don't like the characters then you are CLEARLY homophobic.

There is nothing clear, and there is nothing to refute; you are making accusations, sure, but they are baseless and therefor have zero reason to be refuted. The fact that you are the only one talking about race, and indeed are obsessively fretting over his race and completely derailing this thread into, "I disagree with you, ergo you are a racist!", makes me believe that you are the one who is projecting his racism on everyone else.

So I have to ask; why so racist?

[The Whit]

The fact that can't refute any of my accusations speak loudly of your racism.

Keep destroying what little credibility you may have ever had.  =D>    :rollin:

[Sargon The Grape]

The fact that can't refute any of my accusations speak loudly of your racism.

[youtube:389agc0k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZN1HowUV5Q[/youtube:389agc0k]

[josephpalazzo]

I'm sorry, but you are making up baseless accusations that, because you disagree with him, it MUST be because he is black.

It's like if someone said they didn't like NPH as an actor because they don't like the characters he has played... so obviously they are homophobic, and if you disagree or give reasons as to why you don't like the characters then you are CLEARLY homophobic.

There is nothing clear, and there is nothing to refute; you are making accusations, sure, but they are baseless and therefor have zero reason to be refuted. The fact that you are the only one talking about race, and indeed are obsessively fretting over his race and completely derailing this thread into, "I disagree with you, ergo you are a racist!", makes me believe that you are the one who is projecting his racism on everyone else.

So I have to ask; why so racist?

Let's look at a few facts:

(1) Obama came from a working single mother. READ: he's from the poor working class.
(2) When he entered politics, he didn't have the connections like George W. Bush had, and most previous policians. His family wasn't into politics, neither the people he grew up with.
(3) From nowhere to become POTUS is a great story in itself, that he is the first black president makes it even a more extraordinary one.
(4) He became president when the country was undergoing two wars and the worst economic turndown since the 1930's.
(5) Not only that, but the amount of opposition to his proposals is unprecedented. Most historians have said over and over: no other president in the history of the USA has faced so much opposition. Most of his proposals have been taken form previous GOP initiatives, but the moment Obama proposes them, the GOP automatically opposes them. Obamacare is one flagrant example. It was a proposal from Newt Gingrich, a GOP, was instituted in Massachussets by Romney, a GOP, but has been repealed by a GOP-controlled house of Representatives 47 times so far.
(6) In the past, when presidents, Democrats or Republicans, threw a party or had some social events, congressional members of both parties would show up. Not with this president. When Obama has a social events, NO REPUBLICANS show up. Again this is unprecedent in the history of the USA.
(7) Even after 4 years in power, the GOP was still questioning his birth certficate during the election in 2012. Again, this is unprecedent.
(8) Even after the economy had recovered, the GOP painted the economy as getting worse even though the numbers were indicating the opposite. And every proposal Obama presented to stimulate the economy was shot down by the GOP after 2010 when they gained control of the House of Representatives, the same type of stimulus that Bush had presented which the GOP had voted for then.

We're not talking about constructive criticism, which is legitimate in a democracy, but a visceral opposition that is not based on rational thinking, and you have to ask where does it come from if not at the bottom, hate and racism.

[Hydra009]

We're not talking about constructive criticism, which is legitimate in a democracy, but a visceral opposition that is not based on rational thinking, and you have to ask where does it come from if not at the bottom, hate and racism.

Not necessarily, though it is sadly true in some circumstances.  As the holder of high office, the sitting president always gets a ton of flak, deserved and undeserved.  And particularly those with a differing political agenda to sell are keen to demonize the guy (literally, in the case of the religious right) and paint every single one of his policies as dismal failures or malicious successes.  Politics as usual.

But it's reached such a fever pitch nowadays.  With Syria, I've read through articles that portray Obama as a vicious imperialist warmonger to a spineless, ineffective leader.  All in the course of a few weeks.  It seems that whatever happens or doesn't happen, Obama is a terrible leader.

[josephpalazzo]

We're not talking about constructive criticism, which is legitimate in a democracy, but a visceral opposition that is not based on rational thinking, and you have to ask where does it come from if not at the bottom, hate and racism.

Not necessarily, though it is sadly true in some circumstances.  As the holder of high office, the sitting president always gets a ton of flak, deserved and undeserved.  And particularly those with a differing political agenda to sell are keen to demonize the guy (literally, in the case of the religious right) and paint every single one of his policies as dismal failures or malicious successes.  Politics as usual.

True when the opposing parties have different visions for the country, this happens. But what do you say when the guy from the opposite party adopts your policies? Why the visceral opposition??

But it's reached such a fever pitch nowadays.  With Syria, I've read through articles that portray Obama as a vicious imperialist warmonger to a spineless, ineffective leader.  All in the course of a few weeks.  It seems that whatever happens or doesn't happen, Obama is a terrible leader.

This is exactly why I find so much racist attitude in the opposition to Obama. It is not based on rational arguments.

[The Whit]

Let's look at a few facts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic:

(1) Obama came from a working single mother. READ: he's from the poor working class.
(2) When he entered politics, he didn't have the connections like George W. Bush had, and most previous policians. His family wasn't into politics, neither the people he grew up with.
(3) From nowhere to become POTUS is a great story in itself, that he is the first black president makes it even a more extraordinary one.
(4) He became president when the country was undergoing two wars and the worst economic turndown since the 1930's.
(5) Not only that, but the amount of opposition to his proposals is unprecedented. Most historians have said over and over: no other president in the history of the USA has faced so much opposition. Most of his proposals have been taken form previous GOP initiatives, but the moment Obama proposes them, the GOP automatically opposes them. Obamacare is one flagrant example. It was a proposal from Newt Gingrich, a GOP, was instituted in Massachussets by Romney, a GOP, but has been repealed by a GOP-controlled house of Representatives 47 times so far.
(6) In the past, when presidents, Democrats or Republicans, threw a party or had some social events, congressional members of both parties would show up. Not with this president. When Obama has a social events, NO REPUBLICANS show up. Again this is unprecedent in the history of the USA.
(7) Even after 4 years in power, the GOP was still questioning his birth certficate during the election in 2012. Again, this is unprecedent.
(8) Even after the economy had recovered, the GOP painted the economy as getting worse even though the numbers were indicating the opposite. And every proposal Obama presented to stimulate the economy was shot down by the GOP after 2010 when they gained control of the House of Representatives, the same type of stimulus that Bush had presented which the GOP had voted for then.

Explain how those points have anything to do with Syria.

We're not talking about constructive criticism, which is legitimate in a democracy, but a visceral opposition that is not based on rational thinking, and you have to ask where does it come from if not at the bottom, hate and racism.

Maybe it's because I don't think you can take the moral high ground as a guardian of the people everywhere because you told Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons after sitting on your hands while he fire-bombed and shelled his people for 2 years.  Not to mention all of the drone strikes along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border that have killed numerous innocent children.  Maybe the criticism is rooted in an understanding that big government is detrimental to freedom and the bailouts only made the economic situation worse (this includes the bailout Bush signed).  Maybe it's because what has come out of his mouth has repeatedly been contradicted by facts.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/01 ... umber-one/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/0 ... 27404.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/16/what_if ... ied_to_us/
http://www.humanevents.com/2011/07/23/t ... bama-lies/

And then there's this one:

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/tim-brown/ ... orruption/

I haven't read the last one all the way through yet so I cannot say it's 100% accurate, but there are many legitimate examples.

Maybe the criticism comes from the fact that I hold all presidents to the same level of scrutiny.  MAYBE (hint: it is).

[josephpalazzo]

Maybe it's because I don't think you can take the moral high ground as a guardian of the people everywhere because you told Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons after sitting on your hands while he fire-bombed and shelled his people for 2 years.

 I've answered that, and I'll repeat: the US position has nothing to do with the civil war, and it has nothing to do with supposedly high moral ground but everything to do with the use of chemical weapons and the threat that poses to national security. Which part of my answer don't you understand?

[Shiranu]

Maybe it's because I don't think you can take the moral high ground as a guardian of the people everywhere because you told Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons after sitting on your hands while he fire-bombed and shelled his people for 2 years.

 I've answered that, and I'll repeat: the US position has nothing to do with the civil war, and it has nothing to do with supposedly high moral ground but everything to do with the use of chemical weapons and the threat that poses to national security. Which part of my answer don't you understand?

Why has the use of chemical weapons on his own people increased the risk to national security of Americans? Was it not more of a risk when he was actually able to wage war on other countries? He cant even wage a winning war on his own people anymore, much less attack Europe, and its absurd to think he could reach the Americas.

Also, if the disarming process doesn't work and the rebels win, who many factions are sponsored by groups like Al-Qaeda and other radical groups, doesn't that further increase the risk of both attacks on our allies in the region and on us ourselves (if you don't recall, Al-Qaeda once committed a terrorist action in our homeland)? Why is this an acceptable proposition to you?

[josephpalazzo]

Maybe it's because I don't think you can take the moral high ground as a guardian of the people everywhere because you told Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons after sitting on your hands while he fire-bombed and shelled his people for 2 years.

 I've answered that, and I'll repeat: the US position has nothing to do with the civil war, and it has nothing to do with supposedly high moral ground but everything to do with the use of chemical weapons and the threat that poses to national security. Which part of my answer don't you understand?

Why has the use of chemical weapons on his own people increased the risk to national security of Americans? Was it not more of a risk when he was actually able to wage war on other countries? He cant even wage a winning war on his own people anymore, much less attack Europe, and its absurd to think he could reach theAmericas.

It's not a question of Assad using the CW's on US troops, it's a question that if Assad goes unpunished, then every dictator on the globe will use them. There would no reasons not to use them. Now, you might not agree that the US should police the world -- which is another issue -- but the US IS POLICING THE WORLD, that is a fact,  and having a dozen or so of dictators with their hands on CW's will put our troops in danger.

Also, if the disarming process doesn't work and the rebels win, who many factions are sponsored by groups like Al-Qaeda and other radical groups, doesn't that further increase the risk of both attacks on our allies in the region and on us ourselves (if you don't recall, Al-Qaeda once committed a terrorist action in our homeland)? Why is this an acceptable proposition to you?

Of course, the US has to consider the possibility that the CW's might fall into the hands of the radicals in the rebel factions. It's a scenario no one in the US would want. But we're not there yet. And Assad is still in charge. The deterrence has to be towards Assad, to make sure he doesn't use them again, and the deterrence has to come from either a military action, or as it is right now, Obama has decided to exploit the diplomacy channel for now, and see where this will go. If that puts an end to the use of CW's, then that's fine. If not, then the use of military will become the only option. That's why the US has to say publicly, that the military option is NOT off the table, just in case diplomacy fails, and at the same time, keep the pressure on so that both Syria and Russia do not dilly-dally.

[billhilly]

If you insist on believing that the whole scenario was due to some master strategy developed by Obama, knock yourself out.  Most people realize that the 'red line' bravado ran smack into the congress and public's opposition to any further intervention in the Middle East.  Putin saw an opportunity to keep his client state along with the Mediterranean port and took it.  There is no credible threat of violence from the US to keep Assad or Putin from "dilly dallying".  Putin will insist that Assad kill his people with bombs instead of gas, they'll pretend to do a "thorough" inspection while delaying the process at every turn, and the whole think will slip off the news radar and out of the public mind.

All in all, a decent outcome given the circumstances and players in the game but an unforced error for the political hit taken by the US.

[LikelyToBreak]

josephpalazzo wrote in part:

Of course, the US has to consider the possibility that the CW's might fall into the hands of the radicals in the rebel factions. It's a scenario no one in the US would want. But we're not there yet.

Actually we are there.  The rebels are known to have sarin gas and are known to have used it.

//http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57592880/russia-syrian-rebels-made-used-sarin-nerve-gas/

//http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

//http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

//http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/30/syrian-rebels-use-sarin-obama-silent/
And I still don't see how my pointing this out, makes me a racist.  Even it some or even most of the opposition to Obama's policies are basically racist, it doesn't mean all of it is.  Some of it is "just politics as usual."  You are not doing race relations any favors by making false accusations, which some of these accusations are.

[josephpalazzo]

If you insist on believing that the whole scenario was due to some master strategy developed by Obama, knock yourself out.Most people realize that the 'red line' bravado ran smack into the congress and public's opposition to any further intervention in the Middle East.  Putin saw an opportunity to keep his client state along with the Mediterranean port and took it.

"Master strategy" is the language of Conspiracy Theorists, which I don't belong to. Do you? Geopolitics is more like playing cards, in which you try to play the best you can with the cards you're given. I believe that Obama must have stressed to Putin that it was not only in the US interest to see the non-proliferation of CW's. Afterall, Russia has to deal with the Chechnyan rebels, and Russia has seen its share of terrorists bombings. Was Kerry's suggestions an accident or by design? It doesn't really matter. The end result is that Russia offered to destroy Syra's chemical arsenal. Now it's up to Putin to step up the plate.  

There is no credible threat of violence from the US to keep Assad or Putin from "dilly dallying".

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.  

Putin will insist that Assad kill his people with bombs instead of gas, they'll pretend to do a "thorough" inspection while delaying the process at every turn, and the whole think will slip off the news radar and out of the public mind.

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.

All in all, a decent outcome given the circumstances and players in the game but an unforced error for the political hit taken by the US.

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?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Who says that gunboat diplomacy doesn't work?

Everyone who knows what the term "blowback" means.