Putins Letter to the US

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Where's the outrage?

-spence

Everywhere. Which Americans are saying that Putin is a swell guy? No one is denying that Assad and Putin are a pair of unsavory characters. The fact is, those 2 unsavory characters, on this issue, are opening up a big can of whoop-ass on Obama.

You say you don't like what Putin is doing, particularly near the anniversary of 09/11, and I agree with you. Just because I think Putin is a maniac, doesn't mean that I cannot recognize that he is beating Obama on this one issue.

Putin is despicable. He is a despicable man who out-smarted Obama in this case, and any somewhat-rational person can see that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Putin is despicable. He is a despicable man who out-smarted Obama in this case, and any somewhat-rational person can see that.

I'm not seeing much outrage.

As for outsmarting, just because they're getting the Admin to react doesn't mean they're winning.

Obama has some breathing room which he needed. Syria has fessed up about even owning chem weapons and already agreed in principal to give them up.

If Russia tries to play this as they'll only support a UN Mandate if there's no condition for force I think this will only galvanize International support. The genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in...

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not seeing much outrage.

As for outsmarting, just because they're getting the Admin to react doesn't mean they're winning.

Obama has some breathing room which he needed. Syria has fessed up about even owning chem weapons and already agreed in principal to give them up.

If Russia tries to play this as they'll only support a UN Mandate if there's no condition for force I think this will only galvanize International support. The genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in...

-spence

You believe in genie's too??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not seeing much outrage.

Pointless sarcasm.

As for outsmarting, just because they're getting the Admin to react doesn't mean they're winning.

Debating on whether Obama or Putin is winning is about as meaningless as debating on whether Assad or the "rebels" should win. Or, for that matter, whether Democrats or progressive Republicans should win. One, in each case, is a lighter version of the other.

Obama has some breathing room which he needed. Syria has fessed up about even owning chem weapons and already agreed in principal to give them up.

It seems that he is in constant need of breathing room. To do what?

Does Syria "fessing up" to what everyone already knew give Obama "breathing room"? Is Assad's denying he had chem weapons a whole lot different than him agreeing "in principal" to give them up? What is stopping Assad and the despised Putin from some trickery to pretend he has given them up? Oh, that's right, the "International community" will see to it that all is done correctly.

Right.

If Russia tries to play this as they'll only support a UN Mandate if there's no condition for force I think this will only galvanize International support. The genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in...

-spence

How does the "International Community" overcome a Russian veto? And does this "International Community," after what it considers an Iraq fiasco which it supported, really want to back a mandate with force?

Yeah, the genie of supposedly disastrous military intervention in Middle East squabbles is out of the bottle. Maybe Obama, the genius genie can stuff it back in.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How does the "International Community" overcome a Russian veto? And does this "International Community," after what it considers an Iraq fiasco which it supported, really want to back a mandate with force?

I think Russia have painted themselves into a corner. What good is a resolution to enforce disarmament that doesn't have repercussions if Syria fails to comply? There may be some concessions but I think Russia will ultimately comply while declaring a diplomatic victory.

As for Iraq, there was no UN mandate for force. The fiasco started when Bush warned the inspectors off and went in anyway.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

As for Iraq, there was no UN mandate for force. The fiasco started when Bush warned the inspectors off and went in anyway.

-spence

You need to re-think where you get your information. Iraq repeatedly kicked out the weapons inspectors, in blatant violation of the UN treaty ending the first war.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You need to re-think where you get your information. Iraq repeatedly kicked out the weapons inspectors, in blatant violation of the UN treaty ending the first war.

But did the UN ever legally allow for the use of force? I don't think the no fly zones were explicitly stated, nor was Operation Desert Fox, nor was the 2003 war.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

But did the UN ever legally allow for the use of force? I don't think the no fly zones were explicitly stated, nor was Operation Desert Fox, nor was the 2003 war.

-spence

You are right, the UN never legally "allowed" for the use of force against Iraq. And Jim in CT didn't say it did either. So you dodged his post about who actually thwarted the UN inspectors by questioning something that you think I said.

I also did not say that the UN did such a thing. I spoke of the fictional "International Community" to which you like to invoke as some force to "galvanize"--even into a mandate which is backed by military force. And weren't the 30 nations who participated in the coalition of the willing against Saddam, plus 15 others who allowed air space and other assistance, a sizable portion of the "International Community" (which included the U.S. Congress and the UK), and didn't most, if not all, eventually regret it. How is that "International Community" plus the others who were not willing going to be galvanized into mandating the use of force? Saddam was every bit the tyrant as Assad, and even more so. And how will it override vetoes in the UN security council against such a mandate?

You, as often, pick on a small piece of a post, often erroneously, disregarding the rest.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not seeing much outrage.

As for outsmarting, just because they're getting the Admin to react doesn't mean they're winning.

Obama has some breathing room which he needed. Syria has fessed up about even owning chem weapons and already agreed in principal to give them up.

If Russia tries to play this as they'll only support a UN Mandate if there's no condition for force I think this will only galvanize International support. The genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in...

-spence

"just because they're getting the Admin to react doesn't mean they're winning."

Spence, I agree...just because Putin is getting a reaction does not mean he's winning. What does mean he is winning, is that Putin is getting the outcome he wanted (Assad stays put with no price to pay), and Obama has egg on his face, since no one was supporting Obama's plan, whatever that was.

"Obama has some breathing room which he needed"

And why did he need it? Because there was no support for his plan.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I agree...just because Putin is getting a reaction does not mean he's winning. What does mean he is winning, is that Putin is getting the outcome he wanted (Assad stays put with no price to pay), and Obama has egg on his face, since no one was supporting Obama's plan, whatever that was.

If Assad gives up his WMD he becomes more vulnerable which means Russia's interests are more at risk even if they buy more conventional weapons.

It could be a calculation, perhaps they think intervention could stall the civil war and radicalization of rebels is a bigger risk.

-spence

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

If Assad gives up his WMD he becomes more vulnerable which means Russia's interests are more at risk even if they buy more conventional weapons.

It could be a calculation, perhaps they think intervention could stall the civil war and radicalization of rebels is a bigger risk.

-spence

I think the powers that be want this civil war to drag on a long long time. It's brilliant really. Give all the extremists a place to go and play with other extremists.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Spence, you keep talking about the benefits of a UN coalition. SOmeone asked you a very pertinent question, and you didn't respond, meaning either you didn't see it, or you chose not to answer it. Here it is again, and this should end any discussion of the value of getting any buy-in from the UN...

Russia is a charter member of the UN, and as such, they can single-handedly veto any resolution to use force. So, on this specific issue Spence, how is the UN going to overcome the certain Russian veto of any threat of using force against Putin's friend Assad?

When then-Senator Obama was asked what he would do about Russia's invasion of Osessia (or whatever that province was called), Obama said he'd ask the UN for sanctions. Obama's plan presumes that he, Obama, is so charismatic, that he would be able to convince the Russians to agree to impose sanctions against themselves.

Amateur hour. Unbelievable.

So Spence, one last time, how can the UN be expected to do anything, when Russia can unilaterally veto?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you keep talking about the benefits of a UN coalition. SOmeone asked you a very pertinent question, and you didn't respond, meaning either you didn't see it, or you chose not to answer it. Here it is again, and this should end any discussion of the value of getting any buy-in from the UN...

Russia is a charter member of the UN, and as such, they can single-handedly veto any resolution to use force. So, on this specific issue Spence, how is the UN going to overcome the certain Russian veto of any threat of using force against Putin's friend Assad?

When then-Senator Obama was asked what he would do about Russia's invasion of Osessia (or whatever that province was called), Obama said he'd ask the UN for sanctions. Obama's plan presumes that he, Obama, is so charismatic, that he would be able to convince the Russians to agree to impose sanctions against themselves.

Amateur hour. Unbelievable.

So Spence, one last time, how can the UN be expected to do anything, when Russia can unilaterally veto?

It's called negotiation.

-spence