Obama owned on Syria, folds like a Wet Noodle. Putin & Assad 1- USA 0

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't really care about what foolishness others have done. Again you won't find me supporting neocons, whether Republican or Democrat.

Well, no offense, but it's not really about whom you personally support or don't support. None of my comments were really aimed towards you.

"Good" is not defined as being someone other than one who did "bad" before. One is not contingent upon the other.

Sorry, but I don't agree. I think it's quite relevant that the people criticizing the current president and current actions are the same ones who supported the previous mess, and want us to repeat the same mistakes.

Further, in a "anything is possible" sense sure Obama could have displayed a mastery unseen before, eclipsing all others before him in being able to manipulate through so many variables and have only one outcome.

Once again, the sarcasm just indicates a reluctance to address the core points seriously. This is not pie-in-the-sky supposition, there's specific evidence behind it, and it was written up the WSJ -- not exactly a liberal rag.

It's possible this was skill, and it's possible this was luck, and it could even be a combination of the two. One way or the other, it's a lot better than what most of the critics in this thread seem to want, which is to get us involved in a war unnecessarily because of ego.

 

[Jaskalas]

That may or may not be true. My objection is with those who note that we dodged a bullet and now are doing a Marty McFly routine insisting that we load the gun and see if we can get the bullet to hit this time.

Neocons didn't get to stomp around in Syria and get Americans killed? Obama tried his best to oblige them.

 

[TechBoyJK]

If the end result of the US making it's threats of force is that Syria gives up it's chemical weapons, then it's a plus for the world.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Neocons didn't get to stomp around in Syria and get Americans killed? Obama tried his best to oblige them.

Maybe I missed something, but I have no idea what that means.

 

[woolfe9998]

Absolutely no credible source believes what you just typed. Let's run through this. People get gassed in Syria. Obama and Kerry know Assad did it, although they cannot provide any information, and in spite of other intel sources suggesting it may not have been Assad. So Obama seizes on Snowden and purposefully looks like the worlds bully and alienates Putin then says he plans bomb Syria, but then goes to Congress knowing that it won't go well. In the meantime the master stroke of Kerry saying something that Obama knows will be taken up by both Putin and Assad and the former being tricked by Obama into wanting to get even falls for the trap. Maybe he even let Snowden go for this purpose. I mean there's no beginning to alleged and previously unseen cleverness.

Well not only does Obama deserve the Nobel prize, but has proved himself the greatest master of foreign diplomacy in the history of mankind by far. Sorry Charles, people may hate Obama for stupid things, but I'm afraid you go too far in the opposite direction. You may have missed it but many in the Armed Forces were not impressed by GWB and his antics. In fact an associate of the Army War College sliced and diced "the plan" and was ignored. Tommy Franks wanted nothing more than to strangle Rumsfeld. As for me you'll never find me saying the equivalent of "If only Bush were here he'd do it right" or praising our attack on Iraq from either a standpoint of justification or Bush's cleverness of execution.

You had two sets of amateurs in place. Nothing that Obama does forgives Bush and vice versa. That Obama and Kerry get lucky does not mean that it will continue to offset a lack of wisdom.

No, this is a bullet dodged, not a masterful coup. We might manage to duck, but one can only escape serious damage for so long if foolishness persists.

This IS a bullet dodged rather than a masterful coup. However, the thing is, the outcome is what will be remembered here. It's all about perception. And on that score, no one but persistent Obama critics, mostly in the US, will continue to bash Obama over this, not in the long run.

And Shira is correct. It's obvious that people like the OP will criticize Obama no matter the decision or outcome, and will criticize for opposite reasons when the context changes. It's also obvious that Obama critics here are butthurt that this may work out well because they clearly weren't rooting for a positive outcome.

I think this administration has done reasonably well with foreign policy given a series of rather difficult decisions they had to make. In this particular case, they definitely made more than one error in the process leading up to this. However, in the real world outside P&N punditry it's outcome that matters, not process.

So keep on with the Obama bashing. It's won't make a darn bit of difference that people who have hated Obama for years are saying he was incompetent here. Only the outcome of this diplomatic process is going to matter. If it works, it's going to look like the admin's military saber rattling pressured Syria to give up its chemicals without us having fired a shot. The fact that the admin fumbled its way toward this outcome is a historical footnote at best.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9998]

Although he has no intention, clearly, of following through on it.

I agree that, in the absence of something not publicly released at this point, the US has been played hard over this.

We've gone from possibility of imminent attack to "you have a year to disarm, and if you don't, well we're not even sure we'll attack then."

I think the flaw in your logic is that if Assad doesn't comply with this agreement, there is another argument to be presented first to the UN, and failing that, to Congress, for an attack. First its the use of the chemicals, then a violation of an agreement to disarm. Assad knows this. Assad's motive isn't about keeping his sarin because it doesn't have all that much military significance. He just wants to stay in power and he knows that a US military strike can undermine that goal substantially. Color me naive, but I actually think there's a reasonable chance of compliance here because it's a pragmatic course of action for Assad. It really doesn't make that much sense for him to fail to comply here. Compliance is the smart play. I don't trust Assad to do anything but act in his own interests, but right now, compliance is in his interests.

 

[hardhat]

I don't get it.
1. Syria loses their chemical weapons. Humanitarian mission accomplished.
2. US doesn't have yet another conflict in the middle east. Will of people accomplished.
Where is the outrage coming from? Only warmongers feel a need to maintain our "standing" in the world as the ultimate bully, a position that will only drag us down both economically and in world politics. By going with this route, we get what we want, don't waste resources, and still can go into Syria if it gets so bad that the American people feel compelled to do so.

As for the idea of Obama losing credibility, it looks like he accomplished what he set out to do without another war. He'll be gone in another three years and won't leave more American soldiers dead due to ridiculous politics. I'd say getting called on a bluff is a small price to pay, especially for the good of the country. A president humble enough to listen to the people.

 

[waggy]

I don't get it.
1. Syria loses their chemical weapons. Humanitarian mission accomplished.
2. US doesn't have yet another conflict in the middle east. Will of people accomplished.
Where is the outrage coming from? Only warmongers feel a need to maintain our "standing" in the world as the ultimate bully, a position that will only drag us down both economically and in world politics. By going with this route, we get what we want, don't waste resources, and still can go into Syria if it gets so bad that the American people feel compelled to do so.

As for the idea of Obama losing credibility, it looks like he accomplished what he set out to do without another war. He'll be gone in another three years and won't leave more American soldiers dead due to ridiculous politics. I'd say getting called on a bluff is a small price to pay, especially for the good of the country. A president humble enough to listen to the people.

agreed

I don't care that this is how it ended up. In fact im gratefull that Putin stepped in when he did.
End results are syria does not have the weapons and NO US soldiers died.

seems like a win to me.


only thing i have is those saying this is what Obama ment to do all along. sorry no he didn't. he drew the line and was going to attack. for what? not to destroy the chemicals, but because if he didn't he would look weak? fuck that.

I would rather look weak and accomplish my objective while keeping soldiers alive.

fuck people that think the US is weak. frankly what they think does not matter.

 

[Matt1970]

As for the idea of Obama losing credibility, it looks like he accomplished what he set out to do without another war. He'll be gone in another three years and won't leave more American soldiers dead due to ridiculous politics. I'd say getting called on a bluff is a small price to pay, especially for the good of the country. A president humble enough to listen to the people.

More like others stepped in to pull his ass out of the fire.

 

[Incorruptible]

It looks like a deal has been reached which is good news but obama didn't do anything to help the situation and he kept flip-flopping. If congress can stop obama from attacking Syria then that is good. Putin and Assad owned obama numerous times though and they exposed what a complete moron he is.

 

[Gintaras]

This is.... terrible?

It is...many people have waited for a war in Syria to start - they wanted to watch it on their large screen TV's...Don't forget, how much money lost TV channels for advertisement during live televised war....

People's hopes to see war live on TV were down to drain...
So many $$$ lost as advertisement fees by TV channels...

Isn't it terrible?

 

[blankslate]

I'll just leave this here....

it's the appropriate response to the OP

http://secondcitynetwork.com/help-kickstart-world-war-iii/

 

[Angry Irishman]

I feel grateful that our nation is headed by a man who, after he messes up by making a statement bolder than it should have been, is willing to walk it back rather than dig his heels in.

I feel grateful that we have a president who cares more about obtaining a smart solution than about himself getting credit for it.

I feel grateful that the commander of our armed forces values the lives of our young men and women, and those of civilians, more than his ego or the bloodlust of his critics.

I hope someday all of you who hate Obama so passionately can find peace.

Good Lord, I hope you're being sarcastic with that chant. Did you blow out the candles before you stepped off that altar?

For the record, I think current events of backing down are better than going to war although this outcome is still going to be a cluster fuck and the POTUS is still in way over his head. There will be plenty of folks who don't really recognize the big picture and will continue the idol worship despite the obvious failures.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This IS a bullet dodged rather than a masterful coup. However, the thing is, the outcome is what will be remembered here. It's all about perception. And on that score, no one but persistent Obama critics, mostly in the US, will continue to bash Obama over this, not in the long run.

And Shira is correct. It's obvious that people like the OP will criticize Obama no matter the decision or outcome, and will criticize for opposite reasons when the context changes. It's also obvious that Obama critics here are butthurt that this may work out well because they clearly weren't rooting for a positive outcome.

I think this administration has done reasonably well with foreign policy given a series of rather difficult decisions they had to make. In this particular case, they definitely made more than one error in the process leading up to this. However, in the real world outside P&N punditry it's outcome that matters, not process.

So keep on with the Obama bashing. It's won't make a darn bit of difference that people who have hated Obama for years are saying he was incompetent here. Only the outcome of this diplomatic process is going to matter. If it works, it's going to look like the admin's military saber rattling pressured Syria to give up its chemicals without us having fired a shot. The fact that the admin fumbled its way toward this outcome is a historical footnote at best.

- wolf

Like it's been said it's better to be lucky than good. If that's OK with you then fine. Certainly feel free to praise him for that. As I was against the strike anyway it works for me, however that's not the same as skill as I understand the meaning of the word. Let's hope his luck holds.

 

[Engineer]

Neocons didn't get to stomp around in Syria and get Americans killed? Obama tried his best to oblige them.

Sad but true. We can only hope that the deal stands. I don't give a shit who was "owned"...the American people won with this decision by Russia/Syria. We need to stay the heck out of these damn wars, period.

Oh, and poor ole McCain and Graham are about to die over this right now....poor war hawking neocons...

 

[michal1980]

Sad but true. We can only hope that the deal stands. I don't give a shit who was "owned"...the American people won with this decision by Russia/Syria. We need to stay the heck out of these damn wars, period.

Oh, and poor ole McCain and Graham are about to die over this right now....poor war hawking neocons...

Short term the American people might have one. Long term we have lost big time.

This past weekend it came out that Assad is moving his chemical weapons around, and trying to hide them.

If he's so willing to give them up, why so much work to hide them?

Also, and even more importantly. North Korea restarted they're nuclear program. Most likely in hopes of buying more free goodies from the push over Obama.

 

[railer]

I don't get it.
1. Syria loses their chemical weapons. Humanitarian mission accomplished.
2. US doesn't have yet another conflict in the middle east. Will of people accomplished.
Where is the outrage coming from? Only warmongers feel a need to maintain our "standing" in the world as the ultimate bully, a position that will only drag us down both economically and in world politics. By going with this route, we get what we want, don't waste resources, and still can go into Syria if it gets so bad that the American people feel compelled to do so.

As for the idea of Obama losing credibility, it looks like he accomplished what he set out to do without another war. He'll be gone in another three years and won't leave more American soldiers dead due to ridiculous politics. I'd say getting called on a bluff is a small price to pay, especially for the good of the country. A president humble enough to listen to the people.

What you "don't get" is that we were supposed to bomb them so we don't "look weak".
Anyone who doesn't think that we should indiscriminately bomb everyone is obviously an Obama-worshipping lib-tard.

 

[michal1980]

What you "don't get" is that we were supposed to bomb them so we don't "look weak".
Anyone who doesn't think that we should indiscriminately bomb everyone is obviously an Obama-worshipping lib-tard.

Ahh another lefty rewriting history.

Obama promised consequences for a chemical attack. The only consequences are a dog and pony show.

And you on the left are so quick to come to the defense of your dear messiah.

 

[michal1980]

I don't get it.
1. Syria loses their chemical weapons. Humanitarian mission accomplished.
2. US doesn't have yet another conflict in the middle east. Will of people accomplished.
Where is the outrage coming from? Only warmongers feel a need to maintain our "standing" in the world as the ultimate bully, a position that will only drag us down both economically and in world politics. By going with this route, we get what we want, don't waste resources, and still can go into Syria if it gets so bad that the American people feel compelled to do so.

As for the idea of Obama losing credibility, it looks like he accomplished what he set out to do without another war. He'll be gone in another three years and won't leave more American soldiers dead due to ridiculous politics. I'd say getting called on a bluff is a small price to pay, especially for the good of the country. A president humble enough to listen to the people.

Only idiots believe that Syria really losses its chemical weapons. They are hiding them all over as we speak. The longer they delay the more they can hide. And then to verify all this happens we have to trust the Russians? You on the left claim to be soo much smarter then everyone else, yet you swallow this shit as if it was Kool-Aid.

A smarter president wouldn't have made such a stupid statement to being with. But we were all told Obama is the smartest man on the planet. If he's so smart, why did he paint himself into a stupid corner?

 

[railer]

Ahh another lefty rewriting history.

Obama promised consequences for a chemical attack. The only consequences are a dog and pony show.

And you on the left are so quick to come to the defense of your dear messiah.

I have a feeling that anyone who doesn't share your dopey, unsophisticated view of the world is a "lefty".

If we did bomb Syria, we would:
1) Kill a bunch of civilians (not on purpose, but the nature of bombings is that civilians will die).
2) Have no effect on their existing chemical weapons (we're certainly not going to target them).
3) Assist Al Qaeda and all of the other heart-eating nuts that are aligned with the rebels.
4) Put the lives of US service men and women at risk, as well as wasting god knows how many tens of millions of dollars on bombs, planes, and missiles.

There's just no compelling reason to bomb Syria. Nothing good comes of it. The fact is, the threat of the US bombing Syria is what drove this chemical arms deal with Russia. So the threat of force accomplished something that bombing never could have

 

[Doppel]

I think the flaw in your logic is that if Assad doesn't comply with this agreement, there is another argument to be presented first to the UN, and failing that, to Congress, for an attack. First its the use of the chemicals, then a violation of an agreement to disarm. Assad knows this. Assad's motive isn't about keeping his sarin because it doesn't have all that much military significance. He just wants to stay in power and he knows that a US military strike can undermine that goal substantially. Color me naive, but I actually think there's a reasonable chance of compliance here because it's a pragmatic course of action for Assad. It really doesn't make that much sense for him to fail to comply here. Compliance is the smart play. I don't trust Assad to do anything but act in his own interests, but right now, compliance is in his interests.

I think the flaw in your logic is thinking there is any chance Congress will approve an attack under such a condition. Congress wouldn't approve an attack last week. You think they will a year from now? Attack a country over WMD without UN authorization because the country didn't properly comply to UN guidelines on disarmament?

Sound eerily familiar to, oh, Iraq.

War monger mccain is right with this paragraph:

“Assad will use the months and months afforded to him to delay and deceive the world using every trick in Saddam Hussein's playbook,” the Republican senators said in a statement. “It requires a willful suspension of disbelief to see this agreement as anything other than the start of a diplomatic blind alley, and the Obama administration is being led into it by Bashar Assad and [Russian President] Vladimir Putin.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/14/mccain-graham-call-us-russia-agreement-meaningless/

 

[compuwiz1]

Putin has made Obama look like a toothless hillbilly.

 

[shortylickens]

Putin has made Obama look like a toothless hillbilly.

Not even close.

He made him look like a cowardly, spoiled, ivy-league brat, which he is.

 

[Nintendesert]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...uire-us-troops.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1


I really hope that even through this no-attack agreement we don't see US troops trying to disarm Assad. Leave that shit sandwich to the Russians and anyone else. This nation needs a damn break from the constant wars.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Good Lord, I hope you're being sarcastic with that chant. Did you blow out the candles before you stepped off that altar?

I think it's a pretty strong -- and sad -- statement about this place, that someone gets flamed repeatedly simply for trying to express something positive, even towards those he disagrees with.

Pretty typical of American society as well, unfortunately.

Only idiots believe that Syria really losses its chemical weapons.

Okay, and what's the intelligence level of someone who thinks us lobbing some cruise missiles over there will cause Syria to lose its chemical weapons?

If he's so smart, why did he paint himself into a stupid corner?

Being smart doesn't mean being infallible -- that's a straw character created by members of the Obama hate brigade like yourself. He's human and he screws up just like others screw up.

The difference is that so far his screwup has led to a bunch of bellyaching by underinformed armchair quarterbacks, whereas his predecessor's screwup led to this: