So, those preferring a diplomatic soution were wrong when they wanted it

[sibelian]

AND wrong when Obama wanted it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. We only wanted diplomacy to because Obama wanted war. Or so they say.

Our love of peace was never any deeper than our hatred of him.

[Avalux]

2. Not wrong in those cases,.but wrong to refuse to give Obama credit for a diplomatic solution. n/t

[last1standing]

4. Are you posting comments against the threads calling us racists?

I called for diplomacy and was insulted. Now, I'm glad diplomacy is working and am being called a racist and told I don't want diplomacy. What's your opinion on that?

[Avalux]

14. Who is calling you a racist?

If others are doing that, they're wrong.

[last1standing]

19. Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023636995

He's now trying to justify it with weasel words but the meaning hasn't changed a bit. He's pretty much calling people racists then shrugging while mumbling, "just saying..."

[Avalux]

28. I posted in that thread before the edit.

I chose to write something else and not address the racist part. Reading it again now, I agree that what the poster wrote was not appropriate.

[last1standing]

34. Worse than inappropriate, it was hateful and sleazy.

How can anyone have an honest discussion after being called a racist? That kind of comment serves one purpose, that of dehumanizing the opponent for a quick and sleazy score.

[tridim]

9. Especially considering that Obama has said he preferred a diplomatic solution from the beginning.

Neo-DU will not be allowed to rewrite their history.

[NoOneMan]

32. With all due respect, that's the script

Even Bush said that

[tridim]

35. Obama is not Bush. DERP.

And a diplomatic solution was reached. DERP^2.

[NoOneMan]

36. The point still stands. That's the script

The general public at this time would not tolerate a politician saying, "we will go to war even if a diplomatic solution exists". No matter what the plan or intention is, they will always say they prefer a diplomatic solution. It doesn't mean that what is said isn't sincere. Im just saying, its also expected and been used insincerely

[tridim]

37. That's super, Noone. nt

[NoOneMan]

40. Derp

Whatever the fuck that means

[sibelian]

22. But why are you giving credit to him for that?

What did he do?

[Avalux]

31. He could have pulled a Bush, and bombed Syria by now.

He could have said "I'm the decider" and done whatever the hell he wanted. He didn't, and I give him credit for being prescient enough to see another option and allow the situation to unfold. If the outcome is a diplomatic solution, of course he had a hand in it and deserves credit.

[CakeGrrl]

3. Why are 'those preferring a diplomtic solution' so very ANGRY today?

It's on the path to being a possibility. More so than yesterday, much more so than last week.

So it's a good thing...right?

[last1standing]

5. Probably because we're being called racists for demanding diplomacy.

It's a great thing that this is happening and I'm happy for Obama to take credit, rightly or wrongly. I'm not happy to sit down and shut up as morons call me racist in their need to keep the flames of hatred stoked.

[Whisp]

12. I sure don't read every post here but saw no racist accusations.

can you provide some kind of evidence linkage wise?

[last1standing]

20. Strange. You rec'd it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023636995

[Whisp]

24. 'If you're not in that group, then my post wasn't directed at you.'

that pretty well covers it, no?

There are all sorts here like rapists, that's for sure.
A couple came out and admitted it a while back, so yah, I'm pretty sure there are some racists too. *gasp!

[last1standing]

25. What a silly ass excuse for calling people racists.

We both know that so we now both know you support it.

I find both your motivations sickening.

[Whisp]

45. there have been all sorts banned from DU

some were sexist, some were racist, all kinds got the hammer.

so don't tell me they don't exist here. that's nonsense.

I'm am not going to accuse anyone specifically and never did.

If you can't see that for what it is, then, have fun with your last straw of whining that Syria may not be bombed after all.

[last1standing]

53. So first you didn't see it, now it's fine because it only applies to others.

Like the thread I linked, these are weasel words used to justify sickening behavior.

[Whisp]

55. just such a coininkydinky that there isn't

the usual threads about Obama is a Warmongering Blood thirsty Ferengi Evol Souless Being

and now another bone has to be had to chew on. a much lesser one, but damn, those teeth need to be sharp for the next non scandal.

have fun.

[last1standing]

57. Is it that you can't admit to being wrong or do you like it when liberals are called racists?

It's one or the other. Otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to divert from the truth.

[Whisp]

58. you can go now. I'm done.

[last1standing]

59. LOL! Proved wrong, you try to act superior.

That's a classic example of a personality that really feels inferior. Maybe that's why you can't admit to being wrong.

[WilliamPitt]

49. *spew*

[treestar]

68. So you're going to play the victim card to the hilt?

Over that OP?

[last1standing]

71. So you're going to excuse vile behavior because it's "your side?"

Disgusting.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. OK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3636023

Please note the genesis of that sub-thread was a declaration we hate Obama. We've also been told we're sexually aroused by Putin and have no sympathy for dead children.

[Whisp]

26. just chow down and be done with it

[Comrade Grumpy]

43. This is just pathetic. (And why do so many of your posts elicit that response?)

Obama got himself in a very difficult position with his push for a military attack on Syria. The Brits didn't support it, the UN wasn't going to support it, Congress wasn't going to support it. I give him credit for embracing the Russian initiative; that gives him a way to step back from the brink.

I don't know anyone who should be eating crow right now except perhaps the crowd that was cheering on the necessity of attacking Syria. That's apparently off the table, at least for now.

[Whisp]

47. I didn't see much cheering, some wondering what the right thing to do, sure.

show me cheering for bombing, please.

becuase I'm pretty sure you saw that, *ahem, elsewhere.

[Comrade Grumpy]

50. Nasty little cough you have there. Something stick in your throat?

[Whisp]

52. no, I'm fine, no crow there. you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. You said you saw no racist accusations. Presumably to deny that

the pro-war contingent had so shamefully lost its mind. Then, when you are shown that the pro-war contingent was in fact making accusations of racism -- you endorse those accusations.


Yours is bigger than mine --

[Whisp]

61. it was more believing that Obama would do the right thing than being pro war.

I have seen more of that from the dreadful Boggers and others that think the President is a good, thinking man, than 'cheering for war'. good lawd.

but you have your fun and glory with that racism thing, you got nothing else seeing as Syria looks like it might not get bombed and Obama isn't a blood dripping evil wall streetin' MIC lovin' sucka like some hoped.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. I actually started an entire thread denouncing the "nefarious Obama" CTs

And while I believe Syria won't get bombed I'll be so bold as to predict any efforts to reduce its stockpiles will A) be dragged out well past Obama's tenure if at all and B) all but unverifiable and C) Obama will be content to leave it that way because this whole thing was based on a "red lines" comment he never seriously considered.

[Whisp]

6. yeh, I thought Not bombing was a Good thing...

*scratches head.

*scratches dog's head (he liked that)

*went over and scratched the neighbour's head (he didn't like that so much)

[Wait Wut]

10. !

[Rex]

15. ...

[joshcryer]

67. *stomps feet* You can't say you'll bomb either!

Even if you prefer not to.

[polichick]

11. Where are the "ANGRY" posts?

[joshcryer]

65. Because it came with a threat of force, not cupcakes.

They wanted cupcakes.

As Obama has been sending for years now.

[DesMoinesDem]

7. Not wrong, just racists.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. no. they were wrong to continually second guess Obama's aims

and blame Obama first, last and always.

[Rex]

13. I wasn't wrong then and I am not wrong now.

I never thought Obama wanted to invade or attack Syria and I still do not think he wants to. Not unless Congress decides we should.

[KittyWampus]

16. why can't DU'ers just admit that neither Obama nor Kerry are warmongers? And conversely,

that both Obama and Kerry prefer using diplomacy?

[Comrade Grumpy]

44. Uh, they were both ready to bomb Syria up until about yesterday.

Or maybe it was 11-dimensional chess. I don't know.

All I know is what I hear them say.

[Whisp]

51. what you hear them say in public.

quite the distinction.

but if you are one that thinks this admin should be totally transparent in everything - and some do - they should have discussed everything on CSPAN for your approval. All the ifs ands or buts about resolving this situation should have been made public so everyone knew, even Pootie Tootie and the Asshats (good band name).

groan.

[treestar]

69. It is not warmongering merely to engage in a war

I thought that term had negative affects, which had to do with starting unneeded wars.

This was not to start a war. It was to intervene in a war that already existed and had gone beyond human decency.

If you think we can be total pacifists and survive, that's delusional. If we let off the message that we won't do anything about chemical attacks, they would increase.

Plus Pooty Poot was not cooperating until recently. That gave hope that had not existed before.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Kerry has been the definition of warmonger the last weeks, the word means

a person who advocates for military action. That is what he has been doing, perhaps it is not what he is, but a look at his voting record, Yes to Iraq and all that, suggests that he is shall we say, decidedly hawkish in many circumstances.

[polichick]

17. Seems we're really wrong because we don't think it was a master plan...

We wanted a diplomatic solution.

We still want one, now that Obama wants it too.

But we don't think it was all a master plan by a 3D chess-playing Superman - so we're wrong.

[reformist2]

18. They're wrong that they ever dared question Obama, or his tactics (e.g., ignoring int'l law...)

Am I glad things are working out so far? Yes.

Am I an "all's well that ends well" kind of person? Not so much. How you get from A to B matters.

[pampango]

23. No. Kennedy wanted a diplomatic solution to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

He used a naval blockade of Cuba as part of the means to achieve it, but it ended with a diplomatic solution.

Those who wanted a diplomatic solution without any military involvement were not wrong, but neither were those, including Kennedy, who thought that applying military pressure would help facilitate a diplomatic solution.

[The Straight Story]

27. Here is the thing: We tried the UN before, failed. We threaten strikes, now the UN/Syria/Russia

pay attention.

I supported (still do) the president on this and he has went about it in a manner that has made more progress than doing nothing, just striking as soon as he could, or going back again to face a veto.

Those who wanted him to do nothing or the same thing as last time would have ended up with the same thing as last time.

Nothing.

[sibelian]

30. "he has went about it in a manner that has made more progress than doing nothing"

What do you mean by that? What did he do?

[The Straight Story]

33. Hmmm let's see here....

Sent ships, said he would strike, brought in congress to authorize the strike and basically said no matter what they did he could still strike.

In other words - he carried a big stick and got the Russians' attention and that of Syria and the rest of the world.

Last year we just asked nicely for the UN to please let observers in, and got a veto.

This year he tried a harder tactic, and got results. Suddenly people are paying attention, even here on DU, whereas before it was hardly mentioned.

Worked didn't it? Look at all the threads on it, how Syria is reacting, etc.

[frazzled]

29. Diplomatic solutions had eluded us for several years ... until the threat of force

They still might elude us.

Just remember that Russia has been blocking any resolutions of even the weakest sort at the UN regarding Syria. Suddenly they seem a bit more willing not just to cooperate, but to even acknowledge that there is a problem.

[sibelian]

42. That's not really answering my question.

My question pertains more to the fact that those who sought a diplomatic solution at all were repeatedly accused of lacking moral fibre for not wanting to bomb Syria and avenge the deaths of innocent children. Via a teensy weensy goal-free messagey bomcing campaign. Now suddenly we're expected to believe that diplomacy was the goal all along when nothing whatsoever supports that hypothesis other than a series of emotionally charged assertions.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. We all wanted a diplomatic solution: Obama knew how to get one, YOU didn't

Pretty simple, actually. It is not the goals that differ, but the methods. Oh, and the fact that Obama's methods actually accomplish the goal, while the methods of his detractors flap around on the ground.

[Comrade Grumpy]

46. That's not the impression the administration's stumbling around on this left.

I don't see a brilliant master plan, but I will give him credit for taking this diplomatic track now. It also gets him out of the horrible box he painted himself into with his horribly unpopular (British parliament, US Congress, US public) threat to strike militarily.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

39. No

but it might have taken the threat of force to get here. I mean, what incentive did Syria (and Russia) have to come to the table without a threat of force against Syria, particularly since they want to have the US raining missles on them as much as most of the public here in the US and around the world did? It seems as though diplomacy was still occurring throughout this whole process as well and I think that it's fair to say that we'd already have missles flying by now and there wouldn't be any talk about consulting with Congress if we had President McCain or President Romney calling the shots. I never was particularly for or against strikes and just as relieved that we might not actually strike them- but this thing is still far from over.

[DevonRex]

41. I'll tell you EXACTLY what was wrong. Calling Obama UNTRUSTWORTHY.

Saying he's PNAC. Saying he hires, funds, trains and arms Al Qaeda in Syria. Calling Obama supporters Al Qaeda fans. That actually happened.

THAT WAS FUCKING WRONG.

[Comrade Grumpy]

48. Yeah, and so was all the other stupid name-calling coming from the other side.

Meanwhile, Obama continues to fund, train, and arm rebels in Syria. So while the threat of overt attack recedes for now, the covert war continues.

[DevonRex]

63. You think Obama is fucking arming, funding, hiring, training Al Qaeda.

Fuck that shit. AFAIC that's fucking crazy talk. That's my opinion. Crazy talk. Woo. Batshit.

[Comrade Grumpy]

72. Did I say that? No, I very carefully didn't.

He is, however, funding, training, and arming other rebel elements. Publicly for a few months, covertly, for who knows how long. We are already players in this little war.

[treestar]

70. +1

Now watch them demand links or deny they said it.

[Skittles]

54. pretzel logic

[joshcryer]

64. Nope, I've always been right.

[treestar]

66. It was those claiming it had not been tried

When it has been in the works several months.

[Zorra]

73. I supported a diplomatic solution before, and I applaud the President for

pursuing a diplomatic solution now.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

[JI7]

74. people looking forward to a war just so they can get on their outrage