Putins Letter to the US

[spence]

So it looks like diplomacy wins in the short term. Syria has to comply on a very accelerated pace with UN oversight and Russia isn't faced with an immediate veto dilemma unless their little friend decides to cheat in which case it goes before the security council.

Very good chance we'll be able to rid the world of a huge WMD stockpile. Israel must be loving this...

-spence

[scottw]

go easy solocirclejerk.....

"The agreement will be backed by a U.N. Security Council resolution (we know how well these work) that could allow for sanctions (oh no, not the dreaded and ineffective "could sanctions") or other consequences (baaaaa haaa haaa) if Syria fails to comply, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said (need to consider the source).

Kerry said that the first international inspection of Syrian chemical weapons will take place by November (oh good, that gives them lots of time), with destruction to begin next year (like the Keystone Pipeline).

Senior administration officials had said Friday the Obama administration would not press for U.N. authorization to use force against Syria if it reneges on any agreement to give up its chemical weapons.

The Russians had made clear in talks here between Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Kerry that the negotiations could not proceed under the threat of a U.N. resolution authorizing a military strike. Russia also wanted assurances that a resolution would not refer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the International Criminal Court for possible war-crimes prosecution. (but isn't he guilty?)

President Obama has said that the unilateral U.S. use of force against Syria for a chemical attack last month remains on the table. (he says a lot of things) But consideration of that action, already under challenge by a skeptical Congress, has been put on hold pending the outcome of the Geneva talks. (oh, boo...(you know he wanted to pick some targets over lunch and blow some #^&#^&#^&#^& up)

The discussions here began this week following a Russian proposal Monday, quickly agreed to by Assad, to place Syria’s chemical arsenal under international control and eventually destroy it.

Kerry and Lavrov, negotiating behind closed doors with teams of disarmament experts, have said little about the talks that began Thursday. But administration officials in Washington provided some details on the condition that they not be identified or quoted directly. (yeah, I'd like a second opinion)

The officials insisted that any agreement must be verifiable and include consequences for non-compliance. Short of a threatened use of force, it is not clear what those consequences would be. (tickle torture with an ostrich feather most likely)



good grief.....

hey Spence, you do know that Putin announced he's sending missiles and building a reactor in Iran....that the US and Israel vehemently opposed a couple of years ago...Israel must be thrilled!

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

go easy solocirclejerk.....

Wow, that's pathetic.

-spence

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw

go easy solocirclejerk.....

Originally Posted by spence

Wow, that's perfect.

-spence

fixed it for you, I agree that your constant use of the term is a little childish but I was inspired after reading over the little orgasm post you were having and the crazy conclusions that you were coming to based on very little....

[spence]

You're conflating a lot of mumble here.

The threat perceived from Iraq wasn't that he had defied his obligations, it was that he would give WMD to alQaeda.

-spence

[buckman]

Btw I just gave you a way to save face Spence. I would take the cue from your dear leader and run with it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Btw I just gave you a way to save face Spence. I would take the cue from your dear leader and run with it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just like it when you post. Seeing Reagan and knowing that you don't agree with so much that he stood for makes me happy.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I just like it when you post. Seeing Reagan and knowing that you don't agree with so much that he stood for makes me happy.

-spence

Really ? Coming from somebody with an abstruse view of reality, that's funny
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I just like it when you post. Seeing Reagan and knowing that you don't agree with so much that he stood for makes me happy.

-spence

Ok you peaked my curiosity ! What did Reagan stand for that you think I oppose? A strong military, tax cuts to promote growth , against socialized health care, that people were better off with investing there own $$ instead of SS, pro life, capital punishment , against the dept of education , pro free market ????
Help me out here.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

Help me out here.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

been through this..the usual revisionist tripe....you are enabling him to change the subject, spout even more bs and sound like an even bigger dope...oooooh...on third thought...go right ahead

pretty good article on the toothlessness of this agreement...

"Odds are that in agreeing to sign the CWC, Assad knew he was enrolling in a treaty that is cumbersome to apply and easy to manipulate. Indeed, U.S. authorities believe that Russia, now proposing to help rid Assad of his chemical weapons, has itself been cheating on the chemical-weapons treaty. According to the State Department’s 2013 report to Congress on compliance with the CWC, “the United States assesses that Russia’s CWC declaration is incomplete with respect to chemical agent and stockpiles.”



http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...claudia-rosett

[sburnsey931]

I'm not sure about the Gas itself. I keep reading it's not the first attack but the 3rd or 4th by both sides.
There is no doubt in my mind that the rush Kerry and Obama were in to bomb, which completely contradicted there previous stances on war, makes me question the motivation. It was worse though to watch those 2 paint themselves right into a corner and Putin shut the door.




http://www.infowars.com/us-military-...tack-in-syria/

[Jim in CT]

This presidency has been an epic failure, for the same reasons that I would be a failure if I was hired to be chief engineer at a nuclear reactor. Obama does not understand this country, its history, how it works, or most importantly, why it does what it does. And to be fair, how can he? Examine his associations. Everything he thinks he knows about America he "learned" at the feet of Marxist gasbags at Harvard or in the faculty lounge at the University of Chicago (infested by other Marxist gasbags who were educated at Harvard) or by his political cronies in the Democrat establishment (who are all Marxist gasbags who were educated at Harvard).

[Jim in CT]

Here is what our president said in his Syrian speech...

"With modest risk and effort, we can [resolve the crisis, in essence]. That is what makes America exceptional. That is what makes us unique."

Obama is saying that what makes America exceptional, is our willingness to undertake "modest risk and effort" on behalf of those who are suffering. MODEST risk and effort?

Those teenagers who stormed the beaches of Normandy, were only taking a modest risk? The hundreds of thousands of union soldiers who died during the Civil War...only took a "modest" risk to try to free the slaves? The kids who stormed the beaches at Tarawa and Iwo Jima, only were asked to make a "modest" effort? The firemen and cops who ran INTO the burning buildings on 09/11, their sacrifices were merely "modest".

This is what you get from a guy who spends his life (1) in academia, and then (2) engaging in racial, divisive politics.

I cannot imagine the last time a president said something so stupid, inaccurate, offensive, and demonstrably false. To Obama, "real" effort is what kids do at Harvard, while the teenager on Seal Team 6 kicking down doors in Fallujah is only making a "modest" effort.

He's such a jerk.

.

[scottw]

"modest risk" is lobbing missiles into a country to punish a dictator whom you and many of your closest progressives were only recently enabling and licking the toes of, but who has fallen out of favor with you because he's embarrassed you in some way and so now you assume the even more "modest risk" of arming the rebels opposing the dictator with the tasty toes despite the fact that they are increasingly proven to be radical islamists/jihadists...

the enemy of my friend turned enemy is my friend/enemy

it's quite a pickle

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...es-report.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

"modest risk" is lobbing missiles into a country to punish a dictator whom you and many of your closest progressives were only recently enabling and licking the toes of, but who has fallen out of favor with you because he's embarrassed you in some way and so now you assume the even more "modest risk" of arming the rebels opposing the dictator with the tasty toes despite the fact that they are increasingly proven to be radical islamists/jihadists...

the enemy of my friend turned enemy is my friend/enemy

it's quite a pickle

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...es-report.html

"Significant" effort and risk is what is asked of people who teach law school, I suppose.

Pat Tillman, NFL all-star who quit the NFL and joined the Army Rangers after 09/11 and was killed, only made a "modest" sacrifice.

And the former Seals who worked security in Benghazi, who ran to the annex to help and paid for it with their lives? According to the SecState at the time, the woman who will likely be our next president, their sacrifice was so modest, that it "doesn't matter" to inquire as to the circumstances of their deaths.

This is what you get from Ivy League, elitist gasbags, who never, ever have to ante up themselves. They just sit back, drinking apple-tinis, disparaging those who roll up their sleeves and accomplish the actual good in the world.

It's repugnant.