General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMagical thinking
I have to admit to being more than a little gobsmacked by some of the reactions to this latest Syria development, i.e. the Russia deal.
It doesn't make me an "Obama-hater" to believe, based on very basic powers of observation, that the initial stages of this episode were not well-handled by the administration. It's not a betrayal to see this for what it was. From Kerry trying to sell the idea that what we had planned for Syria wasn't really war, to Mr. Obama badly misjudging the reaction he would get from Congress, to the administration offering no clear vision of what the point of the exercise was supposed to be ("It's going to be unbelievably small!" said Kerry, so why do it at all? Etc.), to no boots on the ground to maybe boots on the ground but no boots on the ground, to this last act with Kerry going off-the-cuff and getting rebuffed by his own State Department before everyone took a breath and said, "Wait a minute, that might work," with a little help from the Kremlin.
The UK Telegraph called all this "the worst day in Western diplomatic history," which is frankly a friggin' hoot coming from the UK; I believe Neville Chamberlain still retains the world heavyweight title for Worst Diplomacy Of All Time. No, it wasn't that, but it wasn't great, or even good.
It is what it is. Plainly put, they screwed up repeatedly on the front end, and are getting it right on the back end, and for that they should be given a great deal of credit. The First Law of Holes says when you're in a hole, stop digging. There have been plenty of presidents who would have just kept shoveling until they were buried. That did not happen here, because of some quick thinking, good diplomacy, and the simple ability to know when a course-correction is required.
So good on them. Very, very, very good.
But trying to spin this as the endgame of some far-reaching master plan, they had it in the bag the whole time and I just can't see that because I am blinded by hatred or something (combined with a fair budget of neener neener neener you suck crap because the team-sports thing in politics is always awesome), frankly boggles me. It's as if there's a need to believe that Mr. Obama is some sort of pan-dimensional hybrid between Yoda and Muad'dib, all-seeing and all-knowing.
That level of hero-worship directed at any politician is frankly dangerous. Expecting/demanding that others buy into it is absurd.
They got it wrong, then they got it right, but no one in Washington is bending spoons with their mind or seeing through time. It is what it is, I'll be thrilled if the outcome avoids violence, and due credit will go where it is deserved.
That's it, and it should be enough.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"That level of hero-worship directed at any politician is frankly dangerous. Expecting/demanding that others buy into it is absurd."
...hyperbole. Just admit to being wrong.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)First response. And referencing the cult of personality part of the OP no less.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Not only was it the first response, it was posted ONE MINUTE after the OP. Hardly time to even read it, much less form an answer. But, that's to be expected with this one.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Raksha
(7,167 posts)and take it from where it comes.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Over 250 posts from yesterday through today. Advanced Search stops at 250. That would be pretty much a full time job.
Account status: Active
Member since: Tue Nov 6, 2012, 08:16 PM
Number of posts: 2,451
Number of posts, last 90 days: 2175
Basically an inactive account until very recently.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)A person sleeps for 8 hours and then ears 3 meals (call that 2 hours) and has to shit shower, pee, and whatnot, that leaves 13/hrs a day for posting 250 posts.
That comes down to about 20 posts per hour, or a post every 3 minutes all day.
Well, either they don't have a job, or more likely, it's a group of people with a shared persona in a think tank.
dflprincess
(28,078 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)In reality though, ProSense just has the habit of kicking he own posts. She does this a lot.
Plus, trying to drag people back to reality seems to be her hobby. (Though good luck with that.)
Many top posters have her kind of post count. About 1 per 10 minutes for 12 hours a day.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)laugh with the absurdity of your claims
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)She's already understood the OP, quoted the relevant passages, and formulated a clear (and frankly devastating) response before most have even the time to comprehend it.
The most sadly hilarious part about this is that "Magical Thinking" is exactly what the anti-Obama, anti-Democratic party, blame-America-for-everything crowd engages in - every time facts directly contradict their bigotry. And due to this, I really don't think ProSense will ever make headway in this haters' cesspool. It's like trying to talk sense about "Obamacare" at a teabagger convention. But more power to her for trying anyway.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)hahahaha - that's truly funny. It's just more of the 'I know you are but what am I?' stuff I've come to expect from him or her. Something as witty and 'devastating' as that really can be typed up in less than a minute.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Maybe you could use a time-out.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)and felt that this thing was being mishandled from the beginning? At least mainstream Democrats and mainstream Americans. You do know that, don't you? And of course we are happy for the Russian diplomatic intervention and we are happy that both the Assad government and apparently the U.S. government have accepted their help. We are happy that the British Parliament reflecting the views of both the British people and the international community rejected the U.S. led bombing proposal. We rejoice that the U.S. Congress were preparing to do the same. If you are under the impression that your views on this subject reflect ordinary Democrats and ordinary Americans you really do need to move out of your mother's basement and go see the world.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)... to continue exploiting working people and bombing / coup-ing anyone or anything that gets in their way.
"Blame America for Everything" - Hmmm, errily similar to "Blame America First" ala Limbaugh and Hannity to deny history? You mean actually citing actual historical precedents - virtually open-secrets due to their complete absence from the Billionaire Owned and Run Tee Vee / Media and schoolbooks to spite full documentation - in order to See the Larger Picture?
IOW, versus "Ignorance/Jingoist-Based Reality?"
Let's examine the operative term and dissect it a bit. Starting with Wikipedia:
The source of the term (Reality Based Community) is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that realityjudiciously, as you willwe'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]
The "reality" your sentiments reveal, is far more akin to Rove's Manufactured Reality (to Manufacture Consent)- where the USA is the holy-saviour to the rest of the world. Sorry, but that's just not "reality based" at all. Read a bit more about American Foreign Policy - from Philippines (kill any man over 10), Latin America (death squads), and Taliban / Fundamentalist-Terrorist Support in the Middle East (for decades to Libya and Syria today); then research Reagan's "National Endowment for Democracy," (the Ford Foundation, Universities, and the Indonesian Massacre), and other CIA-affiliated Foundations and front-corporations as regards their very "selective" support of so-called "democracy" (Never mind all those coups of democracies). After that, feel free to get back to me on "what is reality" vis-a-vis American Foreign Policy.
Your Journey Starts Here and Here (below):
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=oeHzc1h8k7o
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Where is that? Could you please quote the relevant part?
And can I please see your Reality Based Community membership card? I'm certain it is expired.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Eko
(7,299 posts)read the whole thing and the post one min later.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)For he IS the Kwisatz Haderach!
I was trying an experiment to see if I could change the post times, I know I can change it for what I see I just wanted to see if it changed for everyone else.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)lark
(23,099 posts)right twice a day, but usually wrong. You are the picture by the phrase "cult of personality".
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)I was reading Will's piece, and thinking "yeah, this sounds about right. Way to distill it down, Will!" And then before I was finished, about the time that I read "That level of hero-worship directed at any politician is frankly dangerous..." I found myself thinking "how will ProSense respond to this?"
You're so predictable!
And in less than one minute!!
Why don't you stop now, and just be a human being, rather than a bot?
You might find us humans to be pretty nice much of the time. We're not perfect, and neither is Mr. Obama. And, there's nothing wrong with that...
Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #153)
Eko This message was self-deleted by its author.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)Eko
(7,299 posts)Eko
(7,299 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...predictable knee jerk bot-speak.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)There are some very witty sharp posters on DU who use irony as a very effective method of conveying absurdity. If this describes what you are trying to do with many of your posts, then all I can say is bravo! Well played!
If not, might I suggest a different line of work.
merrily
(45,251 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)was about chemical weapon deaths, that brought us to exactly right where we are.
the thing about these situations is, action/reaction and staying fluid and aware to make appropriate choices that allow us to get to an answer.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Obama needed two things: time, and a demonstration of resolve.
Going to Congress gave him the first, the massive opposition that he seemed to ignore gave him the second.
Putin blinked. As did Assad.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)plan? the reason a leader will let a country know what he is going to do, is so they know he is serious and better fuckin look for an answer.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--then we'd fucking stop selling the raw materials and equipment to countries like Syria.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it does not seem like balance is ever the aspiration.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Nor should it be.
Getting to the truth is what matters.
The truth is never 'balanced'. It always says, "this is true; that is not."
'Balanced' is what the mighty steno-pool of the fourth estate calls its non-reporting.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)am talking about.
there are people on both side that do not work toward truth, even though they claim. and the whole reason, is they are unwilling to have any kinda balance in a given issue. your truth is only your perspective. and it works that way on both sides. when so much of the actual truth is hidden, unknown to us, there is NO WAY, either side can claim any kinda truth what so ever.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)What we need is evidence.
If someone claims to have evidence, we all need to examine that claim.
BUT...
If any conclusion is reached, someone will claim it's not balanced and therefore not valid.
If no conclusion can be reached based on evidence, then there's no chance of finding out the truth.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)knows the full reality of what is happening? i mean, it seems like people are going around think they know what is going on, have the answer, and insist they have the truth of all.
wrong.
so much is not known and people are unwilling to understand they might not know fuck all.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)Re The truth is never 'balanced'. It always says, "this is true; that is not."
I'm in kind of a running debate with someone on another forum on the subject of "balance." My position is that balance isn't necessarily a good thing, because as you say "The truth is never 'balanced.'"
I just never put it that well.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, that's NOT true.
But on this subject.... here's some more info at least:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023640803
Not so "messed up" from the beginning, huh?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)CANDO
(2,068 posts)But of course, there's the stockholders of Dow/Monsanto/BigChemical to look out for.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so signing a piece of paper and handing over some chemical weapons is all Assad has to do to stop us from bombing him?
Interesting
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)That bombing Assad was to punish him for using chemical weapons, oh and what about the school children that Assad used incendiaries on? Don't they count too?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i know you think it does. but, for me, no, it does not make sense.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)my point is that a week ago that's what we were being told, seems one side of this moves the goalposts every time a new announcement is made while the side that against the idea no matter what has remained quite steadfast
I find the near hero worship of any leader somewhat creepy, IMO this is a victory for Americans that are against another pointless ME war
Also there are the midterm elections coming up next year and Congress critters from both parties were flummoxed at which way to turn once the polls came pout that showed how very against bombing Syria the American people are, I suspect keeping their jobs carried a bit more weight than party loyalties
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)infatically with anything he says. regardless of new info. regardless of a situation shifting. he said this, so he must follow thru or he fails. even if it is doing something we do not want him to do.
because the situation changed, he read it and was able to approach it in another manner, you are pissed. that makes NO fucking sense at all.
that is what bush did. he would make a statement. things would change. and he would hold to that statement. that is a FAIL in leadership. regardless of ones position, if they adopt that approach, running a business, a country or parenting, you. will. fail.
why are you demanding that obama do something that only dumbasses do?
i literally do not get this?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)no I'm not pissed I'm amused oh and in need of Dramamine from all the spin about Obama's grand plan I'm reading here
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)not spin. i do not get why you see it as spin unless all this time you were not listening to the people that you call "worshipers". and finding a cutsey little term to box them in, i am sure you were not listening.
before you put me in the box, which you already have btw, i did not participate over the last couple weeks because i thought the threads lack the ability to discuss. and i find that a waste of time. so no, i would not be one of your worshipers.
that being said. the issue was, chemical weapons killed kids.
some said a war or strike would do nothing.
some said it is none of our business.
some said, we cannot ignore the use of chemical weapons.
no one said, i am a blood thirsty obama worshiper hawk that want to nuke all the innocent dead. the question was, how do you have a repercussion to a leader using chemical weapons? this is a solution that works. we should be thrilled that obama and others were able to get to this position.
i really do not get the outright animosity. maybe it is because i refused to participate in earlier threads because they were so ugly, without people willing to respectfully listen, discuss even in disagreement. to try to understand.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)"I find hero worship of any leader creepy" and the rest is just stuff you made up, I said nothing of that sort
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)creepy, in judging them as hero worshipping. but what you do accomplish is dismiss EVERYTHING anyone has to say.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I find hero worship of any leader creepy, and keep in mind there also have been accusations of Putin worship here too
and you completely ignore my observation about Congress not knowing which way to go or why do you think the Teapers whined about Obama putting this up for a Congressional vote?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it is a dismissal. you know it is a dismissal. everyone that is called it knows it is a dismissal. and we all know each other knows.... this is no grand secret.
i have been consistent saying either side that resorts to this. as a matter of fact there was an OP about obama knowing more. my post... i derided the OP using insult in that OP. it is not hard to see how people shut down communication. and anytime we shut down communication, it is a fail.
when i know you have shut down communication and resort to absurd namecalling, why would i go further in discussion. you have already made it clear that anything i may say is a waste of time.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it seems you wish to hide in that maybe because your taking it personally for some reason
Nitram
(22,801 posts)for trying to reason with the unreasoning. I didn't try because I don't think I could have remained as level-headed as you have in the face of such a torrent of abuse.
polichick
(37,152 posts)He must've had a master plan all along. Weird. Why can't it be enough that it might all work out?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)of More children killed by OUR chemicals in Syria like they have been killed in Fallujah - let the hawks pretend they were dove's all along, let them stroke their "ego's" with that absurdity rather than stroke them with blood.
We did not avoid the death carnival of choice that was Iraq quite so easily, if all it took to avoid all those people dying was to stroke Bush's ego with claims of his brilliance by his sycophants and the reluctant silence of myself concerning his lack of cloth's I could have spent my wife's last two years of life simply loving and being loved by her rather than spending it with the two of us opposing an absurd war that our conscience demanded we oppose and hopefully stop.
Perhaps another couple will have a chance at a few more months of love together now, without the horrors of war driving then to waste that time trying to stop mad men from killing.
Will's assessment is absolutely correct, but the part of his post that matters the most is we have avoided some bloodshed, at least for now.
blm
(113,061 posts)based on what they've learned over the last decade.
Truth and Context matter.
http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-lavrov-kerry-geneva/25071543.html
freshwest
(53,661 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)I hope we don't have to go through this crap with the Admin again. Wow they saved us from a catastrophe of their own making. Where do I send my Hallmark thank you card?
Number23
(24,544 posts)Or are we supposed to pretend that the OPs 48th thread on this topic is not him trying save face for the things he said in the previous 47?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)I was wondering why everyone was laughing....
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)And now the same rec'ers are swarming here.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I wonder why?
Maybe busy thinking he should be more careful about where he dangles those things next time.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The headlines all read "Russia bailout" because few outside the BOG were fooled as to what happened.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And no, I'm not doing your research for you.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)and this thing isn't over.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Especially when you don't even have to lift a finger militarily. Obama's objective all along was to make sure Syria could never use chemical weapons again.
Will this latest Syria development mean the Syria will never use chemical weapons?
Yes?
Then it's a diplomatic victory for Obama and that's the bottom line no matter how much the hair-on-fire crowd tries to twist it.
Now even Putin is saying this plan was discussed at the G20 so it's not something Kerry just pulled out of his ass. It was a genuine proposal and one that meant Syria would give up their chemical weapons and the United States wouldn't even have to lift a fucking finger.
Bottom. Fucking. Line.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Cha
(297,240 posts)But, "balls will be dangled" in a vain attempt to make sure the President and
Kerry don't get any of the credit for the diplomacy.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)... "But he had a plan all along to put down the gun, in the event he was surrounded by police and could not get away with the (oil) theft - so he is really a swell guy."
Not that I think TPTB have actually put the gun down, so much as tried to create a new way to fenagle an "armed force" contingency through the Security Council - like they did with the Libyan "no fly zone", which became the Libyan "free fire / bombing by NATO zone." THAT is what the Russians and Chinese (the only powers that can meaningfully stand up to the Western Transnationals) aren't willing to repeat.
If the goalposts are actually met, and there is no US Bombing, I will be very, very, pleasantly surprised. If the Iran-Iraq-Syrian pipeline goes through, I will be shocked. If Golan-heights oil is returned to Syria, I will be dumbfounded.
At that point, I will advocate that Syrian citizens should be given equal shares of their oil to trade into the market, pending an international-individualization system of equal-apportionment of the world's mineral resources to every person on Earth - to be traded by each person in a "really free-trade" commodities market. Dang, we have a long way to go.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)President Obama was executing a strategy, and the threat of bombing was part of that strategy. Should have offered to send them cupcakes instead? Do you think that would have turned the tide?
President Obama treated a bully like a bully deserves to be treated. And the bully backed down. Yet as soon as you heard "we might bomb" you and the rest of the naysayers starting running around like your hair was on fire. But the cooler heads in the Administration knew exactly what they were doing all along. And they're winning.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)...so he'll deflect with OPs like this one.
tridim
(45,358 posts)He's wrong and he knows it.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)It's why they're all so spitting mad today, insisting that there was no strategy. They got played like a fiddle, and they know it.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Starfury
(812 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Russia blinked. And got their proxy Syria to get in line.
Starfury
(812 posts)"Putin: U.S. should drop force threat"
"Syria agrees to 'Russian initiative'"
"5 questions Obama needs to address"
"A stunning turn -- if it works"
"Obama's challenge | CNN poll"
"Opinion: It started with a Kerry slip"
Most other news organizations around the world are reporting this in a similar light.
We come out of this looking like fools, like we've played the heavy so many times we don't know how to do anything else. I mean, I know diplomacy isn't simple, but we're so inept at this, Putin can now cast himself as the peacemaker. Putin, ffs!
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Really???? You're developing your opinion based on what CNN says? President Obama is playing a long game, not a short game. Lets see what the historians are writing in 5, 10 and 50 years. Not what a bunch of hacks are writing 5 minutes after the event.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Did Obama's "long game" include the first vote in UK Parliament since 1782 against a prime minister seeking military action against a foreign power?
CANDO
(2,068 posts)eom
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Skraxx
(2,977 posts)His aim was to stop the proliferation and use of WMD. He accomplished that. Period. Results matter to him. It's why he's President and why he continues to rack up accomplisment after accomplishment. While you, you worry about supposed appearances.
And I got news for you, just watch as everyone else except the dead enders give Obama and his team the credit they deserve.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)...and non-promotion of the stimulus and ACA, and consequent handing over of the Congress to the tea-baggers, were all part of his plan to institute single-payer heath care, revive the WPA, move the Supreme Court decisively to the left, and win the South back for the Democratic Party, all by 2016!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)joshcryer
(62,270 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)as you think it might be.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)So let's stop looking for either the presence or absence of one.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It's a sad statement on the level of corruption in our politics that that brazen, lying propaganda and rewriting of history appear to be the status quo now in political messaging in the United States of America.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Corporatist, war monger, oligarch, elitist, authoritarian, Orwellian, blah, blah, fucking, blah.
God damn, get a new dictionary, your repetitive overuse of political ivory tower clichés is about as tired as it gets.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)This shit is funny!
Number23
(24,544 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Your name doesn't ring a bell in the least but anyone who feels compelled to announce that they are putting people on ignore is very likely not anyone whose comments I will miss in the least.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)from that poster in another thread.
Maybe it's a classic GBCW post - being delivered to each DUer individually.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)that still make you only vaguely memorable, you should have put me on ignore a loooong time ago. But better late than never. Thanks for jumping up to chime in with your pointless "ciao baby" as if anyone gives a shit who you put on ignore.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Believe me it is real easy to ignore them since they NEVER have anything original or positive to say.
Number23
(24,544 posts)are ignoring me is something I will never understand. You need to look up what ignore means because it certainly doesn't mean "high fiving everyone who says something to a person that has read my ass on many different occasions and that I don't have the fortitude to personally address myself."
God only knows what I did to draw your attention but if I knew, I'd Control X that shit in a half a heartbeat. And the irony of you of all posters here lamenting that someone here doesn't have anything "original" to say is thick enough to smother this forum for the rest of its existence.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)RAWR AND STUFF
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)When you have to lie to make yourself look better...you failed.
jsr
(7,712 posts)Faster than the fact checkers can fact check.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)It's getting worse and worse.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)and don't want to give him his credit
You are not of the body!
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm nearly through all the 'good' episodes. Soon I'll be forced to watch the bad ones again! God help me!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)And everything will be OK.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)"Soon, I'll get to see WoK and The Voyage Home again."
warrior1
(12,325 posts)he got the republicans to give up their war stance.
I have always trusted Obama, is that hero worship? No, it's trust.
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)except from some bellicose supporters of the MIC and the global oil and gas industry. Also Putin realized how much Russia stood to lose if we did provoke a war with Syria.
If Britain had joined France in support and if even half of Americans and Congress had been on board those bombs would be dropping now as I type this.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)... along with many other unsavory ones. But, yes, Russia didn't want another US-Puppet-state in that region - given we are approaching the point where our military bases cover every single one.
meegbear
(25,438 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Seems to me that this incident is analogous to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Each time Kennedy and XCOM came up with a potential solution, the situation either changed, or was perceived to have changed to such a degree that the administration was compelled to revise and/or update the plan until the events, the players dramatis, and the plan coincided with each other.
That being said, I can easily imagine Obama telling the American people that "the spice must flow..."
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)I lived through that time, and I don't recall Kennedy beating the war drums like Obama is. Also President Kennedy did not base his case on highly questionable data as Obama has. President Kennedy presented the nation with photographs clearly showing sites for medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles (MRBMs and IRBMs) under construction. We haven't seen anything comparable regarding Syria's chemical weapons. During the Cuban missile crisis our nation was not against a military or even nuclear response to Russia. Whereas today over six national polls show a strong majority of Americans opposed to the US bombing Syria. Syria does not pose a real threat to the US, while Cuba is geographically in our backyard. So Cuba having missiles pointed at the US represented a distinct and immediate threat to the security of the American people.
So I think you analogy is apples and oranges imo.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"and I don't recall Kennedy beating the war drums like Obama is...
Not publicly (however, there was the address to the nation he gave which was startlingly militaristic in tone and tenor), however both he and XCOM were resigned that it would in fact, end in war.
" presented the nation with photographs clearly showing sites for medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles ..."
My analogy is clearly not focused on PR, format, presentation or direct response, but simply on the *mechanisms* (underline, italicize and bold) of communications used during the crisis, and the responses to those mechanisms-- the threat of military action, back-channel diplomatic communiques (use of John Scali, the reporter for NY Times who sat down with an aide to Khrushchev), attempting to interpret Diplo-State speak into reality (the wires from Moscow were so odd that XCOM initially thought a coup had happened and they were no longer communicating with Khrushchev), and the behind-the-scenes deal-making (US removing our Tridents from Turkey, et. al.) that the public had zero knowledge of.
See: An Unfinished Life by Robert Dallek and the rather new (yet very insightful) Fourteenth Day by Dave Coleman.
Baitball Blogger
(46,709 posts)and we walked away with a win.
From my perspective, this is how a true democracy works. Obama, as the leader of this country, responded swiftly to a world event. We responded in kind, and he listened. He didn't have to listen. If he was a Republican he would have gone balls to the walls and dropped bombs over Syria and started World War III. Our grand children's futures would have been chatteled to the military.
So credit should also go to the progressives who spoke up against the war and bought us time to gather better intel and to come up with a better alternative.
Now, to make this a clean win, let's all be safe tomorrow so that no one steals our thunder.
calimary
(81,267 posts)Sometimes I feel as though that particular thought just doesn't even merit consideration around here.
Baitball Blogger
(46,709 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Ironic.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)lyonn
(6,064 posts)especially when it comes to politicians. Obama is smart, has the ability to calculate all the alternatives to a situation. There is not another Democrat that I would say had a better grip on the job of President of the U.S.. Elizabeth Warren comes close to being a hero when it comes to getting to the bottom line of a critical situation. We have many smart Dems out there, Biden, Howard Dean, to mention a few, but, Obama appears to me to be a critical thinker, not selfish, not a problem with ego. Bottom line, just because I don't want to drop bombs on Syria doesn't mean that Obama doesn't know what he is doing and I still feel safer with him than anyone else at this point. Just had to rant. Politics is rough and most of us don't have a clue what political strings will produce a good outcome for our country at this critical time........
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Respecting a guy like Obama because he is smart like anything and isn't ego driven is not hero worship, it is having trust in his abilities. And he's got those.
lyonn
(6,064 posts)Sitting here watching msnbc and drinking bloody beers and smoking my e cigs and just needed to defend Obama. I don't always agree with him but there is a feeling of trust when he speaks. sheesh, blind faith is dangerous. Joke around my house is that we are taking a poll of Democrats that we know here in Okla, and we have come up with about 6 or so, one is our cpa, haha- who my husband reminded me he (cpa) was originally from New Jersey, ended up here due to being stationed here after serving time in the military, I think.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)We have similar views.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Especially when the OP was calling for a show of solidarity for their own viewpoint the other day. Seems there's selective acceptance for certain shows of loyalty.
lyonn
(6,064 posts)I usually get ignored on here - and usually for good reason, just chatter a lot........
calimary
(81,267 posts)You'd rather have President romney? Would THAT work out better for you? Or President mcsame? Or how 'bout when "president" dubya and his Lone Ranger/YEEHAW Cowboy Diplomacy was busy thinking with his dick (so to speak!!!) than with anything that passed for brains?
I, too, still feel VASTLY safer with President Obama at the helm than with anyone else there, at this point.
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)I've been burnt by enough politicians that I've believed in previously that I take them all with a grain of salt. I think it was a slam at maybe the mentality of folks who saw things differently from him? Perhaps that others are just hopeful little gits who accidentally got something right because they were so adoring?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)screeds popping up everywhere. One was so painfully worded I could feel that jaw-clenched, wild-eyed fervor right through the screen.
The best index of rationality continues to be that nothing is all about Obama or anyone else.
It wasn't him alone embarking on the hideous task of trying to convince America once again that we can kill our way to a micro-managed Middle East, and it wasn't him alone backpeddling from unilateral action to Congressional approval to a Russian-brokered negotiation.
Let's be clear: Getting slapped down by Congress and the American people on a war proposal leaves a mark.
But getting out of that political killbox with a deftly timed compromise IS a victory, should it actually come to pass.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)The current twist is just another opportunity for the Icon worshippers to tout their infallible leader. Revisionism is the word of the day, week, month, year. It isn't enough to be glad that Obama worked out an opportunity to get out of the corner that he had painted himself into without bombing, no, he must be properly worshipped as the infallible, hyperintelligent one. And everyone who ever had doubts along the way, or noted inconvenient truths, must be insulted. Why this is seen as a positive thing for the Democratic Party is beyond me, since Obama will not be running for office again. But it seems to be the present state of discourse.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)whether there is an election or not.
2naSalit
(86,617 posts)xfundy
(5,105 posts)Obama knew that whatever he suggested, Congress would deny.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am starting to have serious doubts we are a working democracy any longer.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I'm actually kind of surprised to see you write that, Nadin.
It seems to me it's been evident for quite some time. And I don't think a former President of the United States of America goes out on a limb and says so publicly until it is pretty damned clear.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)to start the talk.
Anyhoo, what we have seen over the last ten years point to inverted totalitarianism on steroids
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Even when he's been proved right time and time and time again?
Syria is well on its way to be being disarmed of its chemical stockpile. Without firing a shot. When a week ago no one could see a way out. And you still think its luck?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that is a cult of personality, thanks for the textbook example.
Like any other leader around the world, he wakes up every morning and puts his pants the same way you do. If he cuts himself, he bleeds red blood, like you do. And like the rest of us, he makes mistakes.
When the history of this little episode is actually written, my lord, it will be like many diplomatic events before it, and many to come after it, a collection of serendipidy, good luck, misstatements (that be Kerry), and people running with it.
Those of us who actually study history know that national leaders, yes even Barack Hussein Obama, are human, not kings or worst, gods, and like every other human, they are fallible and they make mistakes.
frylock
(34,825 posts)this shit was just floated yesterday and now Syria is well on its way to be being disarmed of its chemical stockpile? okay then!
sibelian
(7,804 posts)It's Putin.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)let Allah sort it all out gets cheers
now Pootie is just a lil darlin'.
Oh, and how is Mr. special Snowflake doing, Pootie? Are you treating him nice with good wodka and caviar?
Nice, good.
What's happening to you?
Putin made the offer that may circumvent the next Middle East conflict. That's just a fact. Why do you think I think that makes him a hero? What's it got to do with heroism?
sibelian
(7,804 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Put down the pom-poms and watch tonight's PBS NewsHour interview with Charles Duelfer. You might learn something. Hell, watch it while waving the pom-poms. You still might learn something.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Your powers of observation are in fine working order, near as I can tell.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)was all waving your face saying bomb syria.
Besides the story below, I could search for other stories showing you what was going on over the last few months and years. Bu,t whatever.
Lavrov, Kerry 'Agree On Need' For Syria Peace Conference (August background)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says he and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have agreed on the need to start a Syrian peace conference in Geneva as soon as possible.
Lavrov made the remarks after talks in Washington on August 9 with Kerry.
Lavrov said he and Kerry agreed they should meet again by the end of August to prepare for the proposed Geneva talks.
Kerry said Russia and the United States needed to find ways to work around their differences on Syrias civil war, and to make progress on missile defense, Afghanistan, and nuclear disputes with Iran and North Korea.
The talks came as the political mood between Moscow and Washington hit a low point with U.S. President Barack Obama earlier this week canceling an upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-lavrov-kerry-geneva/25071543.html
Tikki
(14,557 posts)Tikki
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)If you are going to get someone to stop doing something, or else...
You have to make them believe the 'or else' component.
Churchill was not prime minister of England for very long when the Germans took over France. He threatened to attack French ships unless they turned themselves over to the allies and one group chose not to cooperate. The British navy blew the hell out of some French ships (and killed over 1200 french sailors) and as a result: that naval action changed the mind of FDR - as to the British resolve. FDR seriously expected England to fall prior to that.
You have to demonstrate that you mean business, or people will walk all over you.
I agree with the OP, and I've signed every anti-war petition that came to me. I can see the wisdom of the president and his people staying the course - even though I didn't agree with it. Whether the president had it planned this way all along, I don't know - and I don't care. He apparently had a lot of people here at DU believing that he was gonna bomb Syria, and again, if they really believe that you are gonna do it - they behave accordingly. Additionally, let us remember this when folks call him a dove.
I hoped (and continue to hope) that we do not take military action in Syria, but I no longer believe that this president, that (as a candidate) bragged about his peace loving credentials: is afraid to commit troops if he thinks its necessary - regardless of what we think he should, or shouldn't do.
I'm not sure how I feel about that.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)... to the "Establishment" that has hijacked the worker's party.
As to the Libyan Civil War, however, if President Obama had not continued Bush/Cheney policies there, there would have Been No War and ~100K Dead People would Still Be Alive Today.
As well, if President Obama had not continued Bush/Cheney policies on Libya, and stabbed Gadaffi in the back after he voluntarily gave up his Chemical Weapons, Assad may have followed suit and another ~1000 Dead People (by gas) might be alive too - but then, we really don't know whose gas was used in that case; it certainly was not in Assad's interest to do so, the "rebels" are fundamentalist-terrorists, and many reports conflict with the WH story. Regardless, to the extent Assad does not want to give up CW today is unquestioningly connected to the betrayal of Gadaffi by this administration.
Iggo
(47,552 posts)That about sums it up.
Robb
(39,665 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)bigtree
(85,996 posts)Some of the biggest skepticism out there that Syria will meet their expectations has come from the President and Kerry in their initial reactions.
As late as this afternoon, the administration was warning that Syria has to live up to its word and offered more of the ultimatum that Kerry had outlined - about a week for Syria to measure up to their terms for forestalling military action.
I'm instantly skeptical about the prospects for Syria living up to the agreement because of the many security considerations which Assad just outlined as imperative to the defense of his country against what he sees as outside forces arrayed against him. On Charlie Rose, he equated his own military imperatives with Israel's determination to maintain their nuclear capability. That makes unilateral disarmament by Assad unlikely, in my view.
To the point, the U.S. is still strongly pushing for a resolution authorizing military force. I'll believe they're committed to a diplomatic solution when they withdraw that option from consideration - and, I don't just mean diplomacy on this ONE initiative.
That's what looks to be the WH motive in their cynical embrace of the Russia/Syria offer: To put a point on their claim that diplomacy has been exhausted with regard to Syria; a specious claim, given that they were either considering this option when they claimed diplomacy was dead, or, they're trying to present this proposal as the end-all to diplomacy with Syria to move forward with their militarism.
Of course, I've been told that I either don't believe in diplomacy for making these observations, or, I'm racist; or, I'm stupid; or, I don't want any diplomatic initiative to succeed.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Obama threatened strikes, and he was not bluffing. If Russia was unable to help convience Assad come to the table, the strikes were going to happen. The threat of the strikes has to be real. Has to be credible.
If Obama took those off the table, or "withdraws that option from consideration", Assad simply walks away.
Might Assad still try to wiggle out of this. Yes. So you keep the pressure in place.
So many (you?) start from a position in which the President must have evil motives, and then work backwards from there.
Then, when the evil thing doesn't happen, you're confused. You start with the assumption that Obama absolutely, positively wants strikes, hell, maybe an invasion too.
Now that that isn't happening, there must be some other part of Obama's evil plan that has yet to be exposed.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)How many different ways do you want it to be?
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Please define 'war criminal' and apply that term to Obama's proposed AUMF against Syria, citing treaty or statutory sources.
You can skip doing that, however, if you were just engaged in flaming hyperbole.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)An unprovoked attack on another country is a war crime, as per the UN, to which we are a signatory. And, in the case of the use of chemical weapons, the UN requires that the case be referred to the international court.
So. We don't have the backing of the UN and President Obama is not referring anything to the international court. In fact, he is claiming the right to go it alone. That means his proposed attack is illegal and would be a war crime.
Even more than that, he doesn't have the right to respond militarily without congressional approval--unless he can show an imminent threat to us--not our "interests", not our oil companies, US. Which he doesn't have yet and doesn't look like he will get.
So there are a host of good reasons not to bomb Syria, even above the practical how-will-this-help ones.
This particular elephant in the room gets missed or ignored by darn near everybody because we are in meanest SOBs in the valley...but that doesn't change the facts, does it? and I'm thinking it won't last forever. Our military might will only last as long as our economic strength--which is slipping, isn't it? And fwiw, how do you think the Repukes in the House will respond if President Obama serves them up an impeachable offense on a platter?
on the "flaming hyperbole"
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)I happen to disagree with your opinion, and asked for legal citations, which you failed to provide.
on the so-called 'answer'.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Also Criminal Practice & Procedure and Civil Practice and Procedure.
You're welcome.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)
Try reading the UN Charter and the Nuremberg accords. Both prohibit offensive war except in the case of self-defense, or, in the case of the UN, without the agreement of the Security Council. Anything else is a war crime.
I'm sure with your superior intellect and incisive mind the meaning will be clear.
I don't do debates. I'm not interested in scoring points for my side (Yea Team!). I'm interested in facts, and the truth. Play on your own time. Ciao.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)I was looking for legal citations supporting your assertion. It's obvious you don't know what they are, so I'll quit embarrassing you by asking for them.
Have a nice day.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)As for your "war criminal" masturbatory fantasy, have at it.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Presidents are not dictators and do not have the right to start wars on their own. Not constitutionally, and not under the terms of the UN charter.
Sounds like you fall in the Dick Cheney camp on this. Nice company to keep. I fart in your general direction.
bigtree
(85,996 posts). . . that's what I've outlined here. An administration determined to war which cynically embraced a diplomatic plan they know well won't satisfy their ambition to lob missiles into Syria.
Underneath every initiative this administration is considering is a determination to strike out with our weapons.
I'm firmly against that and every objection of mine is centered on that objection. That should make things clearer for folks who want to see some kind of personal animosity i must have to hold the position I do.
To read my explanations and come to the conclusion that I think Obama is some sort of evil is off-base and beside my point. He's committed to military action; I'm dead-set against it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)bigtree
(85,996 posts). . .and a rather petty and imprecise one, at that.
I've outlined much more than some subjective judgment on the president's morality.
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
AtomicKitten This message was self-deleted by its author.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and surely you have heard of game theory right?
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Expecting perfection is a form of delusional state, of a rather juvenile variety. I don't see anything big that was done wrong to complain about. A lot has been done right, so I see a net plus.
People are free to criticize, and that's fine, but it doesn't automatically mean that it is justified.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023638131
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and more that he incinerated, don't they matter now?
Seems like just last week we were being told that's why we were going to bomb Assad
Skraxx
(2,977 posts)Yeesh. Stop digging, Will. This WAS diplomacy, it WAS the "plan" to use a credible threat of force to make Assad give up his weapons. And it worked. Deal with it.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Skraxx
(2,977 posts)I wonder why that is?
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)"post hoc ergo propter hoc"
Just because war was avoided doesn't mean Obama's "diplomacy" was effective.
Skraxx
(2,977 posts)Or is it magic?
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)"false dichotomy"
Skraxx
(2,977 posts)Obama Derangement Syndrome.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Skraxx
(2,977 posts)Yeah, definitley ODS.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)The only thing that disappoints me more than not bombing is that we haven't yet zeroed out the capital gains tax!
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)Flaxbee
(13,661 posts)Better than we are, because the Kremlin doesn't tolerate a bunch of brain dead bloodthirsty warmongers (Wolfowitz and Lieberman being two of them on CNN last night) spouting off nonsense. Yes, freedom of speech is wonderful, but it does hinder the ability to present a unified front. I much prefer the first amendment, but the Russians do have an advantage when it comes to staying on message.
Honestly, if we worked with them more, I believe we could have a much more peaceful world. The Russians can exert tremendous influence worldwide; I'd love to have Russia working with us to contain China. So many politicians and current military leaders still have the Cold War mindset, that the Russians are our enemies (after all, the military needs a powerful enemy to justify its bloated, mendacious self). But the Russians played extremely important roles multiple times during the Cold War in preventing nuclear catastrophe.
Now, some of their domestic policy is abhorrent. But it is such blind idol worship to think this was all Obama's grand plan, and it underestimates the Russians. I think Putin et al were watching this situation extremely closely, and when they saw a way to divert this idiotic plan of attack and allow the US to save face, they moved on it. If there was a solution that did not allow us to back away from the bombs without losing face, we wouldn't have gone for it. Because it has been said many times by Kerry et al that we HAD to do this because we said we would and we couldn't make empty threats. NOT because it was the right thing to do, but because every Republican would scream that Obama was a wimp if he didn't go forward with it. And that might hurt the 2014 elections. Yes, I do believe that's what this was all about.
The Russians deserve a hell of a lot of credit for this. We should have been working with them all along. Imagine if the rest of the world refused to deal with the US because we have capital punishment. We have some awful policies; Russia has some awful policies; that doesn't mean we should not be allies to prevent catastrophe.
The Obama administration deserves a hell of a lot of credit for taking the offered olive branch (and hopefully not going ahead with this foolishness anyway). You know damn well Bush wouldn't have done so.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)And I'm just your average dumbass. But the course of action taken seems perfectly logical and predictable pattern to me, and it's playing out that way.
So far.
If everyone complies with a reasonable non-violent course of action toward resolution, we take the win and pop the champagne.
If the administration continues to push for violence while a reasonable non-violent course of action is being pursued, and/or resolved, then it will be a crushing and irrevocable blow to Obama's credibility, and the Democratic Party and I will be sadly forcing down a large hot steaming pile of crow before I head out to the Green Party voter sign up dinner.
,
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)Very well said. Pleased to K&R.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Chaco Dundee
(334 posts)They stumbled up on a lucky break.it made perfect sense and they were men enough to take it.good for everybody.
IronLionZion
(45,442 posts)they like protesting against something. It feels so rebellious and revolutionary and brave. Fight the power! It's catharsis. Not to judge anyone, but there is a personality that likes to fight and they are drawn to these types of discussions. It makes them feel alive. Even the freepers were flabbergasted as to how they found themselves on the same side as their mortal enemies on the left.
I like discussions with people who are FOR SOMETHING , rather than against everything.
Who on any side here even discussed the possible diplomatic solutions to the chemical weapons? I certainly did NOT. Maybe we need more discussions about peaceful solutions like this?
Can you imagine what would have happened if Romney/Bush's people were in charge? Things would be much more bloody. I'm glad Obama and Kerry are in charge here.
Soon people can go back to posting thread after thread bashing Obamacare instead of doing something useful like supporting single payer at the state level.
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)where each individual's "power of observation" took them. Your need to constantly call the president 'Mr. Obama' is telling.
And lastly, the suggestion that some folks would hero worship a politician because they are considering many levels of a situation and coming up with a scene that's different from yours is wrong. Suggesting a different scene is NOT demanding you hero-worship the politician in question. That was a pretty elementary thought process, if you ask me.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Seriously???
That's respect, for the office and the man.
Of all the gibberish that has been barfed into this thread, that one takes the cake.
Wow.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)wait till you get called a racist!
That last post was just the dessert dish and fork.
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)take-away from these responses. Gibberish? Hardly.
I feel it's less respectful to call him Mr. than President, but then I see moons and Junes and Ferris Wheels coming from his eyes.
Why couldn't you have just said 'It's a good thing that things turned out this way' without adding more negatives where none are needed?
bobduca
(1,763 posts)SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)Mr. President would be shades more respectful to me than Mr. Obama.
Why can't people post on this group without being snarky? I don't need a clue, I'm good thank you.
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)And the Russians bit.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)They're all over this thread acting like they were pro-diplomacy all along, and that they had faith in Obama's diplomatic skills.
The truth is, they were pro-war.
The argument was never "I trust Obama's diplomatic skills", it was "how would you feel if your children were gassed?" and "Assad is a dictator!" and "American credibility!" and "this is COMPLETELY different from Iraq!", et fucking cetera.
They got lucky. This isn't over yet; we may still drop bombs. But it's looking like we dodged a bullet here.
Maybe it was Obama's diplomatic skill, and this was the endgame all along; maybe (as I believe) the OP is right and Obama made a good move after making several really bad moves.
Either way, gloaters, stop pretending that you were confident that Obama would find a diplomatic solution. That's not what you've been saying. You've been agitating for war. If you think the US would be right to drop bombs on Syria, fine, but quit being so goddamn dishonest.
Skraxx
(2,977 posts)And that strategy worked much better than the "Underwear Gnome Theory of International Diplomacy" that so many here seem to practice. It goes like this:
1. Anti-war!
2. ?
3. Assad gives up his CW's!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)HumansAndResources
(229 posts)And I can't imagine why Assad didn't follow right in his footsteps and do the same given his "eternal reward" at the hands of the Obama/Clinton/Rice Team. Damn unfortunate that they continued the ongoing "Support Terrorists to Undermine Arab National Secularists whose people get a decent standard of living and freedom of worship" - an inhumane strategy, directly-continuing ongoing Bush/Cheney operations, but with a history beginning long before that.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)they are simply pro-anything they perceive Obama to be in favor of - and I mean ANYTHING
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)You pissed off all the RIGHT people!
Skittles
(153,160 posts)they're past the stage of being groupies and are now just embarrassing
Rex
(65,616 posts)They make kitty sadz.
I almost feel sorry for them - they really think they're the "true supporters" but Obama himself would find them ridiculous
Rex
(65,616 posts)the black and white thinking, of that I have no doubt.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)yes INDEED
Rex
(65,616 posts)deserve an ASSKICKING! DAILY! HELL...how about on the HOUR!?!
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)crackpot conspiracy theories as the mainstream sensible center - while the vast majority of mainstream Democrats and mainstream Americans who opposed military intervention all along and recognized the obvious mishandling of this situation are being called the fringe. This is a twist of Orwellian logic that would be the envy of Glen Beck.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)The crackpot right imbues the "Obama Machine" with an almost supernatural amount of power, foresight and ability to manipulate circumstances (e.g., the Birth Certificate idiocy). The "crackpot middle" (as I'll call them) seems to imbue a similar supernatural ability to the President (e.g., the English parliament voting down Cameron's war proposal was all part of the plan).
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)because I didn't support Obama when he was pro-bombing!
TommyCelt
(838 posts)Good stuff.
The main thing is the missiles stay in whatever the thingies are called that we keep the missiles in.
Tveil
(108 posts)iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)there are plenty of other reasons to be one of those lol ...
I just disagree with your stance in this instance. Ive wanted the united states to taking leading role in a lot of places , especially Africa, at bringing stability and peace...
and while it breaks my heart to think people lost their lives, i still believe what we did in bosnia and in Kosovo will show on the right side of history for what we did... just wish we had done more to be honest. anyone who doesn't get their heart broken watching women get shot in the forehead or raped behind a building just doesn't have one. i hate violence just everyone here id imagine does.. but non-violence just doesn't always work if you want change and people wont bend. asking the serbians to please stop didn't work. if you look just at our nations history, youll see violence was used ALOT to get workers rights. sometimes people just don't react to peaceful methods.
*I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENCE, PEACE IS ALWAYS THE BEST WAY*
I respect your opinion because i know its in good faith and conviction.. how could I not.. after everything that happened with Iraq ... hell, I was right here with you guys being angry about the whole ordeal... I still remember the loud drums in 2002 and listening to mike malloy... frankly I was terrified at what was going on...
i just hope that folks will at least show me some forgiveness for my stance on Syria and understand that its held with good intent .. i am not a war monger and im certainly not blood thirsty.
this whole thing has made me very upset, honestly.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)They had a peace treaty signed. The USA met with the Fundamentalist-leader, and he took his name off of it. Then, the 'ethnic cleansing' began, with the largest of those operations being the US-Backed "Operation Storm." http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3555039
That war, like All Others, was about Stealing Resources for the Western Transnationals and boxing-in Russia, the only credible military-impediment to TPTB "owning" the entire planet.
I do hope, that someday, people who believe wars are used for good will do a nation/region analysis of human suffering and compare and contrast that to military action and/or lack thereof. Then do the same analysis where Transnational-vested-interests (stolen from their people) are concerned. Then look at "our" (sic) ally list and who is in it and their human-rights records. Even off the top of one's head, isn't it Beyond Clear As Day what is really "going down" here?
When some military power starts wars in order to return the land and resources of their nations to its people, I may reconsider. Otherwise, the best excuse is, "Our Mafia-thief Transnationals are better than their Mafia-thieves."
Whisp
(24,096 posts)He made this party and is a no show.
TBF
(32,060 posts)They've got a handle on things now and it will die down. The fan club is going to keep doing their rah-rahs and that's fine ... but the rest of us understand what happened and are ready to move on.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)efhmc
(14,726 posts)right course. After all he supported the war in Iraq with all the evidence we had of weapons of mass destruction and can always be counted on to lead the way. McConnell (R-Ky.) said he could not support attacking Syria citing the possibility of unintended consequences and lack of clarity about a mission to Syria.
Do you mean like that 10 year war you previously were so in favor of? We all know your mission, Mitch. And it is be a weasel.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)But they are probably well beyond embarrassment.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)when it comes to foreign policy, add the recent leaks and NSA spying and awareness of the PNAC plan and --yea---some of us are a little paranoid.
I want to give credit where it's due, I want to be able to do a happy dance, but does anyone for a second believe all the war hawks gave up on gunning for Iran, that their plan is now gone?
Maybe I need to take a giant blue pill, and my Bush/MIC PSTD will be cured, my eyeballs can be scrubbed from what I just saw and I can do a happy dance about this.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)In reference to Romney:
"Please proceed to look like a Mormon not ready for prime time slime.
We all await your terrific answers, you smarmy rich boy WASC! (White Anglo Saxon Cultist)"
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)I think the mescaline finally kicked in, dude. Have fun.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)while also commenting on some pretty shady alerting/jury work about a post I made regarding Romney.
Pretext to "discipline" me for being an outspoken critic of the zeitgeist and borg mentality against Obama.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Many people experience life altering expansions of the mind after partaking of strong hallucinogens, but I fear this is simply a case of delusion advancing toward dementia.
It's really very sad...
...in an endlessly amusing way.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)being informed and motivated might make up the other 50%.
Pretzel_Warrior humor: 60% of the time it works every time.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)househusbands and wives of the little town of Obamabash.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You would be an expert.
cprise
(8,445 posts)I can't feel certain as to the cause of the gassing, but it was ghastly nonetheless, leaving the world in a geopolitical quandary.
The Obama administration's reaction was bound to be met with stiff opposition whether it chose to strike Syria or to be entirely diplomatic with them. Each stance would bring out a different side of public sentiment. And subsequently, there was a high probability of some kind of climbdown when handling an issue such as this, post-Iraq war.
EDIT: I largely agree with your take here, and the need in some people to assign this outcome to powers of uber-sentience and planning is, IMO, a sign that some minds have been taken over by Hollywood blockbuster plots and an inclination toward sensationalism in all things.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)I honestly think Obama was pissed/panicked at being pushed to action by his "red line" statement when the alleged chem attack hit -- it was one hot potato he truly wanted no part of. I think everyone involved was immediately looking at any way to get out of the situation, including the handing of the "strike" potato to Congress. It reminds me of "The Right Stuff" and the test pilots who would try maneuver A, B, C -- right on until the moment they augured into the ground. How they handled it in the media was bad -- it appeared chaotic and not thought through -- total policy/political whiplash.
If this new turn of events stops a strike on Syria then I am all for it.
With that said, I will never forget nor forgive their initial attempt to pull the "national security" con on the American people.
As for the "end-gamers", there are some people here who are so deeply invested in Barack Obama as President -- be the reason personal or professional -- to the point it has become ridiculous. It's ugly and unnerving to see, but deeply educational.
Beer Swiller
(44 posts)...strategist is both fascinating and entertaining, in a NASCAR kind of way.
What happened here? Let's remember the order of events, shall we?
1. Somebody used chemical weapons in Syria, at least 14 times, according to Prime Minister Cameron.
2. Meanwhile, back on the American ranch, people across the political spectrum were getting mightily upset over the NSA spying on American citizens with zero real accountability, and Obama was all for said spying.
3. All of the sudden, Assad is blamed by the Obama Administration for the chemical attacks, in spite of zero evidence that he ordered them, and in spite of the fact that he didn't need to do so, as Vladimir Putin accurately said. Bill Clinton says everyone will call Obama a wus if he does not use military force.
4. Obama announces that the United States and its allies will retaliate militarily against the Syrian government, because they crossed his foolish "red line" that he stupidly drew earlier.
5. Most Americans, of all races, genders, and political parties are opposed to military intervention in Syria.
6. Obama Admin people say he doesn't need Congressional approval.
7. The British Parliament votes down any British military participation.
8. Obama announces that he will seek a vote in Congress to endorse military action, after some Congressional grumbling.
9. Even more Americans become opposed to such action, mainly, I think, because most of us think that the Syrian civil war is none of our damned business and we don't trust any American President not to drag us into yet another prolonged, Middle Eastern war.
10. It becomes clear that the House will never approve a strike on Obama's terms, and that if Obama goes ahead and does it anyway he's probably going to be impeached.
11. Kerry taunts Assad by saying he can avoid a strike if he turns over all his chemical weapons in a week.
12. Russia and Syria take Kerry up on his offer.
13. The State Department says Kerry was just speaking rhetorically.
14. The Russians say he's the Secretary of State, and the world thinks he's a complete idiot, and why in the world would the US want to avoid a possibly peaceful way out?
15. McCain throws a tantrum about Kerry possibly taking his war away when he had the popcorn ready and everything.
16. Obama leaves the door open to the Russian offer.
Sorry, Obama Demigod fan club, but I see nothing but bad decisions, blunders, stupid macho dick-waving, and then maybe finally deciding to do the only he can to save his own political ass from the trash can of history on the part of Obama. Fortunately, the only thing he can do is the right thing, and we avoid another war.
Everybody wins, except for Al-Qaeda. So proclaim his brilliance all you want. I don't care if Obama saves face. I don't care whether or not you think he's brilliant. I don't care what you think of me for thinking he was acting stupidly from the beginning up until yesterday.
All I care about is that we probably won't be sucked into another damned war. To me, this isn't some freaking ball game with one team in red uniforms and the other in blue.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts).. especially the McCain bit.
As to the 'teams' - I agree with your sentiment in this case. I would also ask all to consider thinking about the 'league' both 'teams' belong to, who seems to call the shots, and how to get the "worker's party" out of that league and into an independent-player working for the interests of the other 99.9% of American People.
Response to HumansAndResources (Reply #272)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Logical
(22,457 posts)gulliver
(13,180 posts)It's pretty obvious that you just don't get how things actually work.
randr
(12,412 posts)We may just be learning how to stumble into peace.
NealK
(1,867 posts)Well said, great post.
Triana
(22,666 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)Not.
I can only speak for myself of course, but when I objected to BHO putting chained cpi on the table, the criticism wasn't based on any speculative achievement of that goal, but rather how damning it is to propose it to begin with.
When I opposed his efforts of the sabre-rattling kind in Syria because of an inability to see how military strikes there would comply with the dictates of a "just war", the UN Charter, etc, it wasn't because I thought military strikes inevitable, but rather the fact that he was proposing doing something damning.
There simply is no "there, there" in terms of being right or wrong as far as predictions go because the alleged "bluffs" have yet to be called, much less where a "rubbing of the nose in it" is concerned. Just because we may never see him sign chained cpi into law, or attack Syria without a sanctioning of this congress, the UNSC, or the approval of a majority of the American people, says nothing about the level of willingness he's expressed for doing both in defiance of them. He is either willing to break the law or has been bluffing about military strikes, no? Since his more avid supporters will no doubt fail to concede that he was willing to make himself a criminal under international law (which apparently isn't objectionable given the "bizness" those who've objected on those grounds have recieved) it would appear that bluffer with a big stick is the preferred description.
That's why we see all of the "you're a racist"/"some like to see him fail"/assad protectors, etc, etc, etc stuff, because they completely lack a viable argument that undermines objections based on principle alone, like adhering to the "rule of law", or that is convincing and compelling enough to sell their "bluffing" BS to the risk averse. And how does one know when the bluffer is bluffing? When they stumble over a red line?
It's almost like objecting to the proposal of such things is the crime, as opposed to the crime (in the denotative and connotative sense they respectively are, syria/chained cpi that is) they would be if realized.
The "failure to communicate" isn't the product of misunderstandings, etc, it's the product of one side having no reasonable objections to reasonable objections and criticisms of the "Bluffer in Chief", even if they include incontrovertible things like http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-03/world/41712097_1_chemical-weapons-president-bashar-assad-s-security-council to object to.
Obviously all that rhetoric about a "war of choice" that no doubt figured so prominently during the Bush years, and "dumb wars" that helped get BHO elected, was just meaningless rhetoric intended to bluff them into ignoring the following sage advice from another great communicator
There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again.
We can in large measure thank the shrub for the reason why this war wasn't sold, here and abroad. Apparently most of this country and the world are BHO-haters and assad-lovers/protectors, for having doubts, war weariness, or a problem with warring period, and the rest are followers of the Bush Doctrine.
Democratic regime change[edit source | editbeta]In a series of speeches in late 2001 and 2002, Bush expanded on his view of American foreign policy and global intervention, declaring that the United States should actively support democratic governments around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism, and that the United States had the right to act unilaterally in its own security interests, without the approval of international bodies such as the United Nations.[3][4][5] This represented a departure from the Cold War policies of deterrence and containment under the Truman Doctrine and postCold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.
Hekate
(90,690 posts)That's all I ask, can't speak for others, and frankly a quick glance at some of the other posts has me going arrrgh again, so I'm off to listen to Rachel Maddow do her thing until hubby comes home for dinner.
Be well, you and yours.
Hekate
2banon
(7,321 posts)after years of passively reading.. breath of fresh air to see expressed exactly what I think and how i feel.. and by the way haven't seen ya here in the bay area since the invasion of Iraq/stolen elections/evil doer Bush Cheney years... so shout out back atcha..
and thanks for this!
paulbibeau
(743 posts)The people who think this was all part of some master plan have to explain what part of it involved setting a redline before we got an assurance the Brits would be backing us. And losing the Brits. And losing the UN. And then going to Congress at the last minute, and having those whip counts show that Congress was about to smack the bill down. And having John Kerry make that remark that sounded like we actually were going to put boots on the ground - which he had to walk back, making him look pretty inept.
And having even guys like McCain - who is sexually aroused at the thought of military intervention - give your people all kinds of trouble. All of this undercut the credibility of the threat. Which means it decreased the leverage. And it embarrassed him and his administration.
This is like the debt ceiling/fiscal cliff negotiations. It's ugly and messy, and it doesn't make him look good.
He was STILL smart enough to find a way out, and for that I am extremely happy. It was a bad situation all around - a completely intractable humanitarian crisis with few good guys and no good options.
But the guy's not Keyser Soze. He's just not W. So... good enuff.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
paulkienitz
(1,296 posts)And I'm not convinced he won't still go ahead and bomb. Which for many of his supporters, might well be the moment they go all "Fiendish Dr. Wu, you done fucked up now!"
TekGryphon
(430 posts)The administration played hawk publicly while playing dove behind the scenes.
You seem to think that Assad would have agreed to disarmament, and that Russia would have felt motivated to push for disarmament, had the US not made any show of gearing up for a potential military strike.
I call THAT magical thinking.
Call it 11th dimensional chess if you like, but whatever it was - this administration played you. Played you like the professionals they are, showing the armchair ambassadors how the world works.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)To criticize is easy and during the Bush administration, right. But I wish folks like Pitt and critics of Obama would tell us what they would do to resolve the intractable problems in the ME. Easiest thing in the world is to find fault, hardest thing todo is offer real solutions to create long term peace.
TekGryphon
(430 posts).. in the face of what Obama actually DID do.
- Assad is going to relinquish his chemical weapons
- The US did not have to fire a single shot.
- The US did not have to put a single boot on the ground.
- The US strengthened its diplomatic ties with both Europe (primarily with France) and Russia in forging a behind-the-scenes solution.
This was a Royal Flush, and I'm not interested in watching armchair ambassadors trying to pretend they could have done better with a pair of eights.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)But I still would love to hear a coherent argument that is proactive rather than reactive from the Obama critics. Sadly, everyone can tell us how awfu l he's done, but no one seems to be offering their better solution. Hmmmm.....wonder why?
Number23
(24,544 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)Beats skating smoothly into failure, every time.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)C'mon, Will, tell us what you'd do to solve this problem. I've always likked your analysis, but tell us what you'd do. Understand that this might mean starting in 2008, but I want to know how Will Pitt would have resolved all of our problems in the ME.
WWWPD?
sibelian
(7,804 posts)some other power will have to take up the reigns.
Waaaaaaiiit...
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Whisp This message was self-deleted by its author.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)They got lucky, BUT they were smart enough to go with it. Anybody who feels the need to invent some narrative where the president is some of kind of demi-god really doesn't understand how much they're insulting him by ignoring what actually happened. Few people get lucky, less when they desperately need it, and extremely few who need it AND are smart enough to use it. He's won the lottery and he's going to use it. The combination of luck and the ability to recover a bad decision are far more impressive than any contrived story of 11th dimensional chess. It shows the president has the ability to adapt when a good chance arises. I hope he continues with it.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)his decision to run with the save is a good one
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Post removed
DFW
(54,380 posts)The difference here is that Cheney never intended to stop digging in Iraq, even if he had seen a chance to.
Obama saw that things were headed in the wrong direction and "stopped digging" before the hole got too deep. I credit this in great part to the fact that he never wanted to initiate armed conflict in the first place. Even Lyndon Johnson, for all his political savvy, couldn't manage to find the light of day with Vietnam, and it proved his undoing. For all the great stuff he accomplished domestically, the burden of Vietnam buried his political career despite all his human rights accomplishments.
Ninga
(8,275 posts)As a soon-to-be 70 year old, please do not think me presumptuous in offering my reaction to your OP.
While your analysis followed a reasonable and thoughtful path when I got to the paragraph drenched in vinegar.....I thought to my self "why do this?" What good does it do other than to get it off your chest and onto the page?
I just wondered, that's all.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Because it's nice to have a source for clear thinking, non-partisan journalism. Thanks Will.
Ninga
(8,275 posts)of opinion finished off with a splash of vinegar. Your "gee Mrs Cleaver the Beaver is perfect" makes me think that perhaps you selectively read my post, which is the exact opposite of how I read Will.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)was a nice (in the original sense: beautifully accurate) turn of phrase, I thought.
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
free0352 This message was self-deleted by its author.
JHB
(37,160 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)
..."He meant to do that".
Was having the British balk at joining in part of the "plan"? That put a big damper on airstrike-fever.
Am I "anti-Kerry" to hear the "unbelievably small" talk and be reminded of the guy who was blindsided by the Swift Boat Liars and inept in countering them -- despite ample warning and plenty of people trying to get fact-checks and counter-points into the hands of his campaign? Anything "unbelievably small" is pretty unbelievable that it would be effective... or the end of it.
And the whole thing isn't over, it's just that the fast-track to a train wreck has been averted. Kudos to the engineer and switchman for that, but can we have a little more "declare victory and go home" and a little less juvenile (and possibly premature) "BOOM! IN YOUR FACE, SUCKA!"?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Magical!!!
By Steve Gutterman
(Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that he and U.S. President Barack Obama had agreed at talks last week to step up efforts to safeguard Syria's chemical weapons and discussed placing the arsenal under international control.
<...>
"Russia's position ... is well known - we are against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction of any kind - chemical and nuclear weapons," Putin said.
"In the current circumstances in Syria this is really taking on special importance, and the U.S. president and I really did discuss it on the sidelines of the G20 summit...this issue has repeatedly been discussed by both experts and politicians - the question of placing Syria's chemical weapons under international control. I repeat, the U.S. president and I discussed this theme on the sidelines of the G20."
"We agreed that we would step up this work, intensify it and instruct the (U.S) secretary of state and the Russian foreign minister to ... enter into contact and together try to advance a solution to this question," he said.
- more -
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-syria-crisis-russia-obama-idUSBRE9891B620130910
Kerry to discuss Syria's chemical weapons with Russia in Geneva on Thursday
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023638954
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023640131
bobduca
(1,763 posts)I can almost feel reality changing!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)This thread isn't "reality"
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Shaping Reality from your bunker is your self-deluded "specialty"
here is a link that proves my point
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023637685#post1