[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

Except the problem with your timeline is that the Russians reacted to Kerry's statement and not the other way around.

It seems rather bizarre to say that Kerry and Obama are the one's who are playing amateur hour when the Russians and Syrians (who were denying they even had chemical weapons and threatening retaliation just a day before) t suddenly backpedal.

You seem determined to downplay how big of an about face this is by the Russians and Syrians to twist it to make Obama and Kerry look bad.

 

Yes, Kerry's words did come first. That is clear now. And they were also apparently just off-the-cuff remarks never intended to be taken seriously. Please review the links I posted above.

Obama and Kerry should look bad. They nearly stumbled into a goddamned war that was completely and utterly unnecessary.

The Russians aren't "backpedaling", they are being proactive here. They are seizing an opportunity presented by POTUS's ineptitude and Kerry's rhetorical remarks.

Really, the spin here is amazing.

 

Nobody want to **** with us. I said Obama made a damn good decision and now looks even better. Them Russians and Chinese don't want none.

 

Yes I've seen your links and they don't support your contention. Of course Kerry is going to say he wasn't making a serious proposal and that he didn't think they would take it. This is a standard negotiating ploy. You threaten and to maintain credibility you offer an out through other channels. For example if I am negotiating a contract and I say I will settle for nothing less than a 10% of the construction fee. The other side says that is unacceptable. I leak to someone else I would take 7% as long as that was paid upfront but I doubt the other guy would take that. What I am doing is making a counter proposal through other means that allows me to keep face by publicly holding onto my previous claim but allowing the other side a chance to compromise.

Yes I have said they have handled this issue poorly. You though seem determined to not give any credit at all. You criticize them for threatening to attack and now you criticize them for considering a diplomatic solution. Your bias isn't just transparent it is glowing.

What you keep on ignoring is the magnitude of this offer when given previous rhetoric from Russia and Syria. You tell me why was Russia and Syria threatening consequences just a couple of days before? Why was Bashar Assad denying he even had chemical weapons a couple of days before? Now they suddenly not only admit to those weapons but to offer to turn them over on the strength of one comment by Kerry.

I agree.

 

Truly amazing gamesmanship by the Obama Administration; Russia and Syria with a major policy reversal... or in other words: Putin blinked.

 

Er... what? How does "Kerry tells Russia his Syria comments were not meant as a proposal" not support my contention that his Syria comments were not meant as a proposal?

Oh, really? Well then why is he running around today saying this it was his idea all along?

Administration Changes Russian Proposal’s Origin Story

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/administration-changes-russian-proposals-origin-story

Look, I know you're a lib and tend to believe anything coming out of the administration, but this is really just preposterous. Yesterday the man said he wasn't serious about it, and he even told the Russians that. Today he is pretending that this was his plan all along. It amazes me that anyone would be dumb enough to fall for this.

At least we can agree on that.

Er, no, I am not criticizing him for considering a diplomatic solution. I have said several times that I am GLAD that they are considering a diplomatic solution. I am merely pointing out that the spin today that this was planned all along is complete BS.

If the Russian plan comes to fruition then I will give Obama credit for accepting it over military action. He seemed hell-bent on military action, and if he actually changes course then he gets props for that.Kerry, on the other hand, is an idiot, and he gets credit for nothing more than making an off-the-cuff remark that turned out to be useful.

Er, because Syria is one of their biggest clients? I thought we'd already gone over this. At least twice.

Because that's what dictators do. Does anyone believe them? Ask Saddam about that.

Perhaps in order to avert a strike that might just be "unbelievably small" or might be rather large with a couple of carrier groups sitting within striking distance? I am not denying that the threat of force has been credible - it has - just the wisdom of pursuing that strategy in the first place.

you are pretending that this was all planned. It wasn't. Accept that POTUS nearly stumbled into a war and that he got bailed out at the last minute. It is painfully obvious that this is what has happened. You have to be delusional to believe otherwise.

 

If you are going to critique the guy at least use facts and not your opinions as evidence.

What is more believable, Putin stepping in to embarrass the US or Putin stepping in to protect his last major port to the Mediterranean? Do I think the WH knew how Putin would react? No, but they knew he values Syria and probably wouldn't allow potential overturn of his guy Assad. Strong evidence of this is Putin asking for a guarantee of no attack. I'm not crediting Obama for the exact position we are in. Do I think it was the only plan? Of course not, but it is not terribly hard to believe this was plan 1a.

 

So here is some entertaining late-afternoon reading:

President Obama’s 9 Key Blunders Of The Syria Conflict So Far

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/president-obamas-key-blunders-of-the-syria-conflict-so-far

This is good news:

Syria said it will sign the CWC

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/358131/syria-says-it-will-sign-chemical-weapons-ban-open-storage-sites-alec-torres

And for a more serious take on Russia's proposal:

Russia's absurd proposal on Syria's weapons

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/09/kerrys-unserious-proposal/

Like I said, keep the cork in, it's not over yet.

 

So I have a question.

If the Russian deal falls through, and we are back to military action, do POTUS and Kerry go back to being bumbling fools, or are they still geniuses? It's a bit confusing. Because yesterday most people here, including most libs, were operating under the "bumbling fools" banner, but today they switched to "geniuses who had this planned all along". So if it falls through, are they still "geniuses who had this planned all along"?

Just curious.

 

This episode proves that no matter how big of a goof Obama and Kerry make, they will have blind followers supporting them trying to spin things in their favor.

THINK, people, THINK

 

LOL. No idea what he was doing at all. It just happen that Russian all of a sudden realize, oh fk, we better change direction. And they are genius for doing so. Yes, it could be luck, but I doubt it's either extreme (pure luck or great foresight).

Again, you love to paint a bad picture of this Admin. You know nothing of what actually happen. I don't either. I'm open to see what actually will happen and how we got there. You already made up your mind... it's all bad policy from this Admin, whatever the outcomes.

What all of you probably haven't even consider is... what if Obama did this for the reason to have shared blame or victory. If Congress vote no and the admin said fine, we do nothing... months, years later, CW is in terrorist hand (very possible right) and an attack is carried out against US or our allies with it - what do you think the reaction would be? Politic.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-syria-crisis-russia-usa-idUSBRE9890I020130910

I mean, it's actually the Russians who are saying Obama and Putin had already discussed LAST WEEK. Seems that they were anxious to move on this. Maybe Obama wasn't until things started going poorly in congress and so Russians jumped on Kerry words and Obama capitulated. Who knows, but one thing is clear, this has been an option that both the U.S. and Russia knew about long before Kerry brought it up.

 

"Zero" American and ally casualties
"Zero" innocent Syrian civilian casualties
"Zero" money invested against the war against Syria and or Russia

Yet people still find faults and cannot simply look at this as a victory for everybody. :-(

 

It may have been something that they discussed - that's entirely possible. But the idea that it was planned or that it was part of some master plan all along is ridiculous. Kerry himself said yesterday such a thing was unworkable and impossible (paraphrasing here, I posted the actual quote a page or two ago), and as reported he told the Russian foreign minister that it was not an actual proposal, and that he was merely speaking rhetorically.

This was always an option. It if it in fact doable one has to wonder why it wasn't the first option brought up. I don;t remember anyone telling Assad "give up your CBW or we will hit you", it was just "we're going to hit you" from the beginning.

I hope the deal materializes and is actually workable and verifiable. As is the administration, apparently, I am still doubtful that whatever Russia produces will actually be a valid plan. It's entirely possible that whatever Russia comes up with will allow Assad to keep some of his weapons or delay until the civil war is over. Trusting Putin is, generally speaking, a bad idea. For a reason.

We'll see.

 

Assuming it actually happens, great.

[/quote]"Zero" innocent Syrian civilian casualties[/quote]

Except for those who will continue to be killed in the civil war, right? I mean, no one actually cares about them unless they are killed with CW, apparently.

Er, we were never going to go to war with Russia, don;t know where that came from. But as for Syria - assuming this deal actually happens, great.

If the deal actually happens then it will be a victory for everyone. It is simply disingenuous to pretend that this was all some master plan, or that Putin didn't bail everyone out. The incompetence on our side cannot be ignored and is simply further evidence that the people in charge don;t have a clue what they're doing. They nearly got us into a war because of it.

 

it looks like obama is playing checkers while putin is playing chess

 

I think it's more like Obama is playing Connect 4 and Putin is playing backgammon.

 

Your bias looks for failure. You want it so bad.

There is no predetermined game plan for this stuff. You stake out the moral high ground, you negotiate from strength (our military's ability to make good on a strike) and you let your opponent save face if you get enough of what you want, in this case the confirmation of chemical weapons as a prohibited weapon.

If this works Obama should spike a football out on the South Lawn.