Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Today's Posts Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 09-12-2013, 03:06 PM   #1
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
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.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 09-12-2013, 04:01 PM   #2
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
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
spence is offline  
Old 09-12-2013, 08:59 PM   #3
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
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
Nebe is offline  
Old 09-13-2013, 08:10 AM   #4
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
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?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 09-14-2013, 08:05 AM   #5
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
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
spence is offline  
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com