Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

I suppose we shall see.

 

Complete fail. I said we have no role to play in the Syrian civil war. I do not believe you are a fool. I do believe you are an Obama sock puppet.

Under the Obama's destructive regime we are not the leader. Nor is there a Constitutional basis for military involvement in Syria. All sides are hostile to the US, including the president.

Were the Syrian people rounded up and sent to concentration camps to be gassed to death? It is clear from the intelligence that has been released (back in the 1990s) that we did know and we chose to win the war instead of making an effort to save those poor people who were killed by their own governments. The situation is different. Germany declared war on the United States. And the Congress declared war on Germany. Has Congress declared war on Syria?

You misuse history to your peril. I know a little.

I cannot recall a single time when I said we should not be involved outside the US. Just this once I shall overlook your strawman argument. We should only get involved militarily when our vital national interests are at stake. What vital national interest is at stake?

LOL. You just like to read your own words. That is a good thing as very few others will find much of value here. Where, in the US Constitution, do you find that the president has a right to use the military on a whim?

Do you know what verbal diarrhea is? See above. That was an entire wet pantload.

Veritas. Truth. You would do well to recognize that the truth is not in you. Did you just live near Harvard?

Do you believe we should attack Syria instead of assist in Israel's defense? Has Israel been threatened by Syria? If Israel is your concern shouldn't we destroy/free Iran through Iranian regime change?

 

Can you point out to me that enumerated power in the Constitution that allows presidents to be father figures to the world?


[video=youtube;m_9hfHvQSNo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_9hfHvQSNo[/video]

 

Al Qaeda in Iraq have already used chemical weapons. It is early 1900 technology.

That is the Easy Button. Al Qaeda has the resources, apparently.

Yeah. Actually they do have some value as deterrence. Now if you also have nuclear weapons and have willingly used them in the past, and if you president isn't a sissy then you can use the nuclear weapons as a stand in for chemical weapons. Otherwise, well, not so much.

If there is an international outrage then why aren't all of the European nations stepping up to respond?

Wait! The One is speaking. I must listen. LOL. Wait, I need to clip my toenails.

 

The lie was that you said that I called for Obama’s impeachment. I mean, this is the second time I responded to it, including in this very post you are replying to. Go back to post 147. I mean really, how many times are you going to pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about?

Oh, and saying that I “hate” Obama. I realize for Obamabots It’s virtually impossible to separate policy disagreements from “hate.”

As for this, it’s just a personal attack. Pointless.

Obviously we disagree on what amateurish is if you regard the President’s strategy as “brilliant” I’m sure I’ll have ample opportunity to mock you on it in the future based on a simple metric:
Will there ever by an international accounting of Syrian chemical weapons and their removal from Syria?

As for brilliant, I’m afraid that title unfortunately has to go to Putin.

Yes see my first comment in this post for a reference of where you lied.
As for avoiding responding, I believe I did. What do you think I left out?
In the meantime, I asked for your responses and you dodged them like the plague. Let’s give it another try shall we?
You said I stated that the constitution prohibits Obama from attacking Syria. Please post the statement where I said that.
Show me where it was the “world’s” red line instead of Obama’s.
Where did you get the information that the military strike was for the purpose of taking out Assad’s chemical weapons? (asked for the third time)

 

That is an entirely different question. Can you explain to me how lobbing a half-billion dollars worth of cruise missiles into Syria will have any impact what ever on the issues raised in your reasonable question?

If you believe this is important then have Congress declare war and send in a half million men and women to go get them.

 

I am not some CONSPIRACY THEORIST.

I am extremely PRAGMATIC.

What I have posted is a fact.

AboveAlpha

 

Agreed...he cannot back off the pressure now. The Ruskies and the Syrians....and the Iranian are watching.

 

The last time I checked...Syria IS part of the world. What parts exactly do you exclude? So you don't believe that I'm a fool, but then you toss out an ad hominem at me as if you require an insult to make some point which is completely absent. Nice.

First of all the Obama administration is not a destructive "regime". That's simply partisan garbage coming from those that hate him for other reasons. So opinions are simply that. Opinions based on bias. Why should anybody take them seriously. Secondly you're wrong about a Constitutional basis. Throughout American history, Presidents have claimed authority to send troops into battle or otherwise engage in warlike
acts without awaiting a congressional declaration of war. Jefferson sent ships to the Mediterranean to battle the Barbary Pirates, ( the terrorists of their day). Lincoln took it upon himself to blockade southern ports and otherwise begin fighting in the Civil War. Enacted in 1973, the War Powers Resolution provides that whenever the President initiates military action he should notify House and Senate leaders within 24 hours and that presidentially directed military action should cease after not more than sixty days unless authorized by Congress. So the President does have that authority, and you're simply wrong.

 

Really? Maybe it's that you don't understand the meaning of the word "liberal".

I would offer this:

"There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how administered. - Thomas Paine The Rights of Man

This is a pretty liberal view of social structure and governance. Paine of course wrote "Common Sense" which sparked the Revolutionary War itself. This is hardly different from the views of today's liberals. But I can see unequivocally, that the conservatism of today bears no resemblance to that of Russell Kirk, or Ronald Reagan. What do you have to say on that?

The very concept of liberalism is change. Paine understood that and that was back in the 1700's. You can see it in his writing. Liberalism never stays in one place. You seem to see Liberalism through conservative eyes and think it would remain static as if it were conservative in it's liberalism. Today's liberals are different from yesterday's so that makes them radical. Tomorrow's liberals will be different in turn. So does that make today's liberals, conservative by contrast? You can't view the liberal through the lens of the conservative and think that you understand it. It doesn't think along the same lines at all. If a liberal remained in the same place, he wouldn't be a liberal. If he did, he would never progress.

 

Here is a retake on my comments to refresh your memory. What I said was this: "And people just like you would call for his head with screams for impeachment. I didn't say YOU called for his impeachment. I said people just like you. Maybe you wouldn't. But others "just like you", meaning those that share your hatred for Obama are doing just that. And of course you say you don't hate Obama. Right. Lets look at a few other comments.

"In other words, your comment was an over the top exaggeration that we've come to expect from the I hate Obama crowd. So to avoid this in the future you might want to stop making absurd comments like that which are nothing more than opinions that carry no weight. Try dealing with the issues at hand and things will move along a lot better. You might start with facts. Those are always cool." Now, perhaps you don't hate Obama as you say, however, there are many that do and their arguments are always over the top exaggerations filled with hyperbole, just like yours. Would you like an example? Here's another comment from YOU by the way. "If I worshiped at the idol of the cult of personality that's Obama, I'd be trying to change the subject to a President that's been out of office almost 6 years too." Nobody is worshipping at any idol of the cult of Obama. Obama is not an idol, nor is he a cult. He's simply the president of the United States which is something that some people can simply not come to grips with. That comment is from your own right wing messaging filled with "loaded wording" Worshipping at the idol of the cult of personality that is Obama??? Really?? Nothing over the top there. But lets move on.

Why start there? Lets go back to your post #76 where you quote me.

I did. In the above posts. They do drip with hate. ""I would really like you to explain his brilliant strategy then, since right now this looks like the most amateurish thing I've seen from a White House in my lifetime."
Completely over the top exaggeration." or "If I worshiped at the idol of the cult of personality that's Obama, more over the top hyperbole. In case you don't understand the word and what it means:
Hyperbole is a figurative language technique where exaggeration is used to create a strong effect. With hyperbole, the notion of the speaker is greatly exaggerated to emphasize the point. The word “hyperbole” is actually composed of two root words: “hyper” which means “over,” and “bole” which means “to throw.” So, etymologically, “hyperbole” translates roughly to “over throw” or “to throw over.” True to it’s origins, hyperbole or language that is hyperbolic overstates a point or goes a bit too far.
Examples:
That was the easiest question in the world.
I went home and made the biggest sandwich of all time.
I’ve seen this movie at least 80,000 times.
the most amateurish thing I've seen from a White House in my lifetime.

I think what I find most amazing with conservatives is their ability to totally deny their own actions. It's really stunning.

If that were really true, you could voice your criticism without the exaggerated garbage and loaded language that always accompanies a comment. Loaded language is not inherently fallacious, otherwise most poetry would commit this fallacy. However, it is often a logical boobytrap, which may cause one to leap to an unwarranted evaluative conclusion. The fallacy is committed either when an arguer attempts to use loaded words in place of an argument, or when an arguee makes an evaluation based on the colorful language in which an argument is clothed, rather than on the merits of the argument itself. You bath in this practice. Loaded language is a subfallacy of Begging the Question, because to use loaded language fallaciously is to assume an evaluation that has not been proved, thereby failing to fulfill the burden of proof. For this reason, Jeremy Bentham dubbed this fallacy "Question-Begging Epithets". Now all you need to do is find out who Jeremy Bentham was. I'll give you a hint. Utilitarianism.

Was that actually your idea of an insult? The twerpiness comment? I didn't call you a little twerp. The use of loaded language often reveals twerpiness in people. I think the definition of a twerp is "a small or puny person; one regarded as insignificant, contemptible". That photo kind of fits the description, especially on a debate forum. But I'm sure you have your reasons for using it and the colorful and incendiary language in your comments about Obama.

Oh,,,now we're going to get into the definition of words? So I use the dictionary, and you use what?? The conservative dictionary compiled by New Gingrich on how to speak to liberals?

I'm sure there will be. It's actually easier than you might think. The Assad regime has already admitted to having them. Therefore, they'll all need to be accounted for. And the big bonus is that we know that he'll never be able to do it again. If he does, he faces the threat of force and the knowledge that Russia won't protect him.

You'd like to think that, just as most people like you hated to give Obama credit for getting bin Laden. But the fact of the matter is that there would be no diplomatic effort on the part of Putin without the knowledge that their is Force behind that diplomacy. Obama meant to launch, and the only way of stopping it was to get a diplomatic solution. Did it pass over your thinking that Obama and Putin spoke while Obama was in Russia and that these negotiations were going on for a while? Do you actually think that Kerry stumbled onto a solution? hehe. What Kerry said wasn't by accident. It was orchestrated for public consumption. Putin is made to look good in this. He looks like a facilitator of peace and the guy that is preventing a missile strike. But the fact is that this plan by Putin is backed by the force of our naval ships off the coast of Lebanon. Putin cannot afford for these WMD to be used any more than we can. He has his southern border which is a problem. If the Chechens get hold of them, they'll use them against Russia and he is more concerned about that than he is about saving Syria's ass. Obama doesn't want to involve the US in another war, but he's totally determined not to allow the use of CW's, and if it means launching cruise missiles, that's what he'll do and Putin knows it. So Kerry makes what appears to be an offhanded suggestion, and Putin jumps on it. How convenient. If he had any intentions of doing that, then why did he wait for Kerry to mention it? This was all very well orchestrated. The plan will be approved by China and the permanent members of the security council will all approve it.

You're problem is the same as every conservative. You can't stand the idea that Obama's plans work. They worked with bin Laden and they work with Syria. He tells Congress to hold off on a vote, and that gives every congressman cover from a vote they don't want to make. Now, they can be free to vote for the strike to show support for the president, and not have to worry about a strike, since it was really a threat and forced the desired effect which was diplomacy. No missile strike. No Chemical weapons. No involvement in the Syrian Civil War. We get what we came for. That's what these eyes call victory. That's called smart, and that's how things get done as opposed to shooting first and looking for the WMD later. That didn't work out so well.

I don't lie, so your comment has no meaning for me.

Everything. You do that consistently. Yet you expect a response from me?? I tend to address each of your points, and you focus on the trivial.

Ohh...in going back through your posts I found this: "While we go through this long delay, I can guarantee that by the time we do attack, every fixed military installation will have either a Mosque or day care attached to it. Expect footage of video of mangled children's bodies and crying mothers.
his is what the Obama administration calls, "smart diplomacy". The answer is YES.

Then I found this: "You've done a better job of cutting through the differences between the left and the right with that statement then a hundred books." More hyperbole.

And this: "To you guys, the real revolution started with the 1968 Democratic Convention and the intent is to overthrow everything that came before" Really? A hundred books? More hyperbole.

As for the constitutional issue: you offered this; "Given that the President wanted to finally make good on his red line comments, he should have just fired his cruise missiles "
So you're suggesting that he act without congressional approval. Then you offer this in the same post.
"And as for Congress...sheesh, the President has already acknowledged he doesn't need Congressional approval for the attack, and he may still attack regardless of how Congress votes."

I bring up this: "So you're saying that he doesn't need congress approval? Interesting. What happened to the constitution that you're always talking about?" So you agree that he doesn't need congressional approval. That's what you said above. So does he or doesn't he? You don't answer that question, but rather offer the suggestion that it's the president that says he doesn't need congressional approval regardless of how they vote. The question that is put to you is does he need congress or not? That's exactly what I asked you. All of this is contained in post 52.

There is also this: "This forced a political crisis in the UK that has severely damaged David Cameron." More hyperbole. And of course this: "Now I have to eat Freedom Muffins instead of English Muffins for breakfast. Thanks Obama!" Behold! the Wit and wisdom of the conservative. And at last this; "To rub in their faces the contempt Obama holds for the body." You assume that he holds contempt for the same body that he came from. So you make this assertion. It's a form of begging the question. Loaded language is a subfallacy of Begging the Question, because to use loaded language fallaciously is to assume an evaluation that has not been proved, thereby failing to fulfill the burden of proof. It's an assertion on your part.

Here's the problem in debating a conservative. You avoid facts and deal with bloviating language designed to attack and diminish the person. You bath in hyperbole as I think has been illustrated. Every time you argue you assert these off the wall incendiary claims, of amateur, or eating Freedom Muffins, or Cameron is now in trouble for doing what the people of the UK want ( as if that makes sense) or how we hate the country and on and on. That's not a debate. That's crapola.

Look at this: "Show me where it was the “world’s” red line instead of Obama’s" I'm the one that said it was the Worlds Red Line and not Obama's. Obama didn't create that. And in case you made a typo, I didn't say that you ever said that. I said that and it's absolutely true. That was set after WWI. Do you not know this? They used poison gas in WWI and it was outlawed by the world after the war. In 1998 I believe 198 countries signed on to this. That's before Obama. I never said that you said it was his. Rand Paul said today that it was Obama's Red Line which is a blatant lie, but he say's it anyway knowing that the low information voters will believe him. I mean how stupid does stupid get? The use of poison gas was outlawed after WWI. That's the "Red Line" and that's what Assad crossed. Obama didn't make it up. And nobody said that YOU said it was the Worlds line instead of Obama's. You did say this; "Given that the President wanted to finally make good on his red line comments, he should have just fired his cruise missiles " I assume that you meant his... red line comment as opposed to HIS RED LINE. He didn't invent it.

I already told you every-time you asked. From the president himself, and from Kerry at the Foreign Relations Committee hearings. What on earth do you think the strikes are aimed at? Did you not see his address tonight? Have you not been listening to every thing that has been talked about and debated over and over again. It's to degrade his chemical weapons. Period. Full Stop. What part of that don't you get. This isn't some secret website. It's all over the friggin news.

 

The Smartest Man in the Room

Professor Fawaz Gerges of the London School of Economics. Aa Lebanese-American academic and author with expertise on the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, international relations, Al Qaeda, and relations between the Islamic and Western worlds. He is currently a Professor of Middle East Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He also holds the Emirates Chair of the Contemporary Middle East at the LSE and was the inaugural Director of the LSE Middle East Centre. He earned an M.S. at the London School of Economics and a Ph.D. from Oxford University. He taught at Oxford, Harvard, and Columbia universities and was a research fellow at Princeton University for two years. He held the Christian A. Johnson Endeavor Foundation Chair in Middle Eastern Studies and International Affairs at Sarah Lawrence College.

Interview on Sept 9, 2013

>> back with us today, middle east politics professor at the london school of economics and professor, to me it seems very strange choice for bashar al assad to give this interview. it seems he would risk an tag niesing the american people who are right now opposed to a strike on syria. what do you think he's hoping to accomplish here?

>> Gerges: well, i mean, first of all, assad has a huge credibility problem. he's really out of it. his inability to communicate with his own people let alone the american people. i was really struck by the notion that somehow americans might experience another moment of 9/11. this was a very stupid remark on his part. even though he was trying to send a message to the americans that there would be unpredictable consequences and unforeseen repercussions if america decides to attack syria. but that's not the way you communicate with americans and try to convince americans, in particular the american congress to vote against president obama's authorization to use force. but i think the big point what he was really trying to make, remind americans the bitter legacy of america's wars in the meeflt and that any particular war would have major consequences for american security in the middle east and even at the homeland.

>> in assad's interview with charlie rose, he brought up 9/11. let's take a listen.

>> Rose: will there be attacks on mideastern bases --

>> Assad: “expect everything, not necessarily through the government. the government is not the only player in this region. before the 11th of september, the discussion of many to say don't deal with the terrorists as playing games. it's a different story. they are going to pay the price if not wise. nobody expected it until september. it is difficult for anyone to tell you what is going to happen. it's an area where everything is on the brink of explosion. you have to expect everything.”

>> we have to expect everything. professor, how do these comments, how does this interview you think especially the mention of 9/11 encourage or discourage action in syria from the international community?

>>Gerges: well, first of all, what we need to understand is the context for the statement. what he was -- what assad was trying to say. syria is not alone. syria has major allies in many places. and if america decides to attack syria, syria's allies would take action into their own and attack america's interest. in the same way that al qaeda acted on its own and attacked america on 9/11. he was really trying -- it's an awkward and misleading analogy with 9/11. but the big point he was trying to really say, look to americans, look, i will defend myself. i will use everything at my disposal. i will use every action, all my allies on my side expect the worst case scenario. instead of saying so he used the notion as 9/11 to say to americans, look you experienced 9/11, you might experience another moment of 9/11 if you decide to attack america all out war against my country.

>>> also talk about the signals we're seeing from the state department and now russia, regarding a proposal that came out sort of unscripted but some diplomacy is unscripted that we could divert it intervention if a stockpile was put under control. does it show even the threat of force is actually potentially moving people who are i am moveable or it is just the posturing we could expect from a regime in syria that says a lot of deceptive things and doesn't actually try to make good on its word.

>> Gerges: look, and i could be wrong. i honestly believe based on everything that i know, that this is one of the most important developments since the end of august when chemical weapons were allegedly used inside syria. whatever russia wants from syria, russia will get now. whatever. syria is fully dependent on russia. russia would not have put the initiative out publicly without coordinating with syria. the russian foreign minister said that he wants -- he has urged syria to put all its chemical weapons and international control and then to dismantle it and russia would act immediately. a few moments later the syrian foreign minister welcomed the initiative. my own reading tells me that the russian had already coordinated with the syrians. this is a serious initiative, at least the first line in order to provide a diplomatic way out of the chemical weapons standoff. my take on it -- now you're having the secretary general of the united nations, let's go to the security council, let's pass a security council with the support of russia and china, basically verifying and making sure that all chemical weapons are dismantled inside syria as soon as possible. also, it's not just about chemical weapons. this could provide what i call a confidence building measure to move forward towards a real political solution really that ends the carnage inside syria. that's what diplomacy is all about. to the credit of barack obama, barack obama should also view this particular moment in order to use the threat of war in order to bring about a real diplomatic solution as opposed to punitive measures.

>> i fully support that option that you just outlined. right now it appears that getting security council to -- on our side would be nearly impossible. nato is not on the side. as it's constructed right now, would an american assault on syria be legal under international law?

>> Gerges: no. it won't be legal. look, the reality is, let's not mince any words, a solid majority of americans are against any military action in syria. we keep talking whether barack obama has succeeded in creating a broad coalition. there is no broad international coalition, that's a fact. britain is out. the arab league has not given the obama administration a cart blanche for military action. the united nations is against war and even the european foreign ministers went out of their way to support a strong aksz and stopped short from supporting unilateral military action. more important, there's no support for such action in united states in america itself. that's why i would argue regardless of what happens, barack obama should go to the security council and share the evidence that the united states has with the international community and also take the initiative by russia seriously about dismantling syria's chemical weapons and using that particular initiative as really confidence building measure in order to begin the process of finding a political solution. the irony is that after every pronouncement by secretary of state john kerry, every single one. he ends his pronounce. by saying there is no military situation to the crisis in syria. only a diplomatic solution. this tells you a great deal about the fact there is no military solution. so why not proceed. why not investigate. why not try to find out a real diplomatic solution and using russia obviously russia's interest deeply involved, russia wants to prevent basically escalation and also now it can really do a great deal of arms twisting when it comes to syria. this would be a win-win for everyone, dismantling syria's chemical weapons would be a win-win for the syrian people and win-win for the international community and hopefully it would provide a way out, a first diplomatic initiative to end the carnage and bloodletting in syria.

>> very interesting and potentially hopeful developments today. thanks for bringing us the international perspective on

With no credible threat of military action, there is no initiative from Russia. If the Russians didn't think this was about to happen, then they would never have made this move. The fact's support that. They didn't act until Kerry opened that door. They could have offered this solution after the CW attack, but they didn't. The remarks by Republicans; especially Rand Paul, that as he said, "I would argue that it was people like ME, that refused to vote for a war because of Obama's Red Line that brought about a diplomatic solution" are astonishingly self-serving, not to mention completely false and incorporating an outright lie. For one thing, since the public and the congress was in no mood to launch a strike because of their weariness of war, thanks to the Bush Admin, there is little doubt that Assad and the Syrian regime knew exactly what the mood in America was regarding what he did. He also knew that there was no international coalition. Knowing that, why would Assad feel any reason to change his way's and stop doing what he's doing? It's absurd to think that no threat of an attack is going to make him see the light and change his ways. Rand Paul argues against all logic. Only a moron would think this. On the other hand, Assad is totally dependent upon Russia. If Russia says you will do this, then Assad does it. Assad has put Russian interests at stake. The use of Chemical weapons by Syria is not just a threat to the region, and our allies and our troops...it's a threat to Russia as well. With these weapons falling into the hands of Chechen rebels, his southern border is now in danger of gas attacks. Secondly, Putin knows that Obama means to launch missiles. As an ally of Syria what does he tell his people when America strikes an ally, and he does nothing? He becomes feckless and weak in the eyes of the Russian people. Also, Rand Paul asserts that this is Obama's "Red Line". As a guy that fancies himself a history expert, he's completely false and asserted a lie that is demonstrable. He's either ignorant, or deliberately lying. You be the judge.

The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929. The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects — the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.

So Rand Paul is a pathetic lying self-serving twerp. What else is new.

It should be understood that Kerry, as Secretary of State, NEVER says anything that is not scripted or orchestrated. He minces and parses every word, because everything that he says can have international implications, and he's fully aware of that. His entire life has pointed to this office and he knows exactly what he can and cannot say. The discussions that were going on with Obama and Putin at the G20 were taking place and the public was not privy to those discussions. If one believes in coincidence, you could argue that Kerry made an off the cuff statement, that the Russians jumped on. In the real world of international diplomacy coincidence's don't exist, and the comment was by design to open the door that Putin could walk through. This is exactly how diplomacy works. Obama's credible threat of military action, is what has brought about a diplomatic solution. Diplomacy backed by force. That's how things get done in the real world.

 

It’s certainly taken you long enough to clear that up, but what was the point of it? Since I never said anything about impeachment in the first place, why would you try to drag that into the discussion? It was a pointless distraction.

So you consider my response to your change-the-subject comment about Bush and Iraq, about the Obama cult of personality a comment of hate? I think you have pretty much disqualified yourself in making any sort of rational determination about what’s hate and what’s not. It’s not even germane to this topic but it’s basically occupied the bulk of your responses. And that confirms my cult of personality thesis. To you, this issue is first and last, the alpha and omega, about Obama. Nothing else. That’s why you’ve made these over the top accusations about impeachment and “hate.” Irrelevant to anything I’ve posted here.

My comment was not about sandwiches and movies and I totally disagree that it’s hyperbole. I stand by it. I’ve been trying to think of a similar foreign policy crisis that was self generated and could have been avoided easily, gives the President no options other than bad ones, and has the President exposing how weak he is by getting rolled by an adversary government and its client state. Maybe Bay of Pigs but since I wasn’t born then, that’s not a fair example. There may in fact be another incident during my lifetime that was handled this poorly, but I can’t think of it. I’m not surprised that you disagree with it but you’ve revealed enough that there wouldn’t be any convincing of you in any case.

That seems like a waste of writing. It has nothing to do with the issue (which seems to fit into a pattern&#8230



I'm sure there will be. It's actually easier than you might think. The Assad regime has already admitted to having them. Therefore, they'll all need to be accounted for. And the big bonus is that we know that he'll never be able to do it again. If he does, he faces the threat of force and the knowledge that Russia won't protect him. [/QUOTE]


Whether the weapons are accounted for and removed from Syria is actually a metric we can monitor, so we’ll be able to tell when that’s completed. I won’t be doing any breath holding in anticipation though.

So to summarize, Obama, Kerry, and Putin plotted this together to make a public showing of something they were all ready in agreement about. The US military was meant to give Putin force to his negociating… I’m guessing with Assad?
Putin is afraid that his client state will somehow give WMD’s to the Chechens and that explains his incentive.[/QUOTE]

Well…I think you’ve put together a nice little fantasy. It looks like this is ridiculous on just about every point. But again, this is easily testable. We’ll know if the WMD’s are accounted for, removed from Syria, and disposed of.

We’ll see if they do vote for a strike then. According to your theory, there will eventually be a vote to authorize a strike so we’ll see if there is a vote and if Obama wins it.
The 8 ball says, try again later.

I appreciate the scouring of this site you performed in order to pull those quotes from different threads, but it must be disappointing that you didn’t find any contradictions.
Now this issue about Congressional authority I’ve answered several times in this thread so I’m not clear on why you are so confused by my answer. Please explain what you see is the contradiction in this:
"Given that the President wanted to finally make good on his red line comments, he should have just fired his cruise missiles "
"And as for Congress...sheesh, the President has already acknowledged he doesn't need Congressional approval for the attack, and he may still attack regardless of how Congress votes."
What is so confusing about that? I’ve said over and over I don’t think the President requires Congressional authority to launch his attack. I understand the arguments who disagree, but I think the constitution gives the President the authority. So, what exactly has you so confused?

Sigh… I answered that in post 76: “But no, Obama doesn't need Congressional approval to fire a few missiles at Syria.”
I’m not sure why you aren’t able to grasp that.

Amazing!

The “198 countries” you are referring to are the countries that signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. Syria was not one of those nations. So in the case of Syria, there is no red line set by the world unless you think the international community has a right to enforce treaties on countries that did not sign them.
So that just leaves Obama’s red line.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

I don’t know what’s so hard about that.

So you are still arguing that the purpose of the military strike is to take out Assad’s chemical weapons? No one is saying that except for you. That’s why I ask for proof, because you are either very confused or lying. So where is the proof?

So let’s see if you can respond to this without weaving and dodging again.

 

I don't believe in leaving things to chance. A limited strike to pave the way for our air superiority (if needed) would be prudent. Positioning of forces would be prudent. Awakening the US public to the possibility of war would be prudent. Once these have been done, which Obama seems to be doing, then if Assad, or whoever else, starts messing around with WMD's (remember, Syria has biological weapons too), we are prepared to very quickly act. I don't disagree with anything Obama is doing at this time, and trust me, that is rare. My opinion can evolve ofc, as the situation is fluid.

Degrading Assad's ability to attack our air assets by hitting a narrowly defined set of targets does not necessarily = degrading Assad's ability to fight rebels, as the rebels don't have an air force which would benefit from the action. That's about the limit of what I would do right now. If Assad used them again, or evidence comes out that he didn't do it, I can change my opinion. But the evidence is going to have to be strong, supported by a world leader(s), and not just a denial or saying the opposite of Obama, but having an alternative scenario with the details on the level that Obama has shared.

I am 100% interested only in ensuring that chance plays the smallest role possible in what happens to Syria's WMD's no matter the outcome of the war. I have determined that Israeli citizens have the right to also make preparations to confront the issue of Syria's WMD's. Which means as an ally, US citizens must confront the issue of this WMD use (which doesn't mean the US needs to save Israel; I'm pretty sure that if the US doesn't act, Israel will, and it might be bloodier and more difficult for them, but they would be successful at reducing the element of chance in the outcome of Syria's WMD's). It simply means that it is in the interest of the US if we expect nations to take our word seriously in regard to intl treaties and alliances, we better step in and not force Israel to act. I'm just a guy that reads/studies all day in my apt, with not much interaction with anyone else as I don't know too many in this new town. I have no agenda here except using logic to determine what are the safest options for humanity in this Syrian situation?

 

Whether the weapons are accounted for and removed from Syria is actually a metric we can monitor, so we’ll be able to tell when that’s completed. I won’t be doing any breath holding in anticipation though.


So to summarize, Obama, Kerry, and Putin plotted this together to make a public showing of something they were all ready in agreement about. The US military was meant to give Putin force to his negociating… I’m guessing with Assad?
Putin is afraid that his client state will somehow give WMD’s to the Chechens and that explains his incentive.[/QUOTE]

Well…I think you’ve put together a nice little fantasy. It looks like this is ridiculous on just about every point. But again, this is easily testable. We’ll know if the WMD’s are accounted for, removed from Syria, and disposed of.



We’ll see if they do vote for a strike then. According to your theory, there will eventually be a vote to authorize a strike so we’ll see if there is a vote and if Obama wins it.
The 8 ball says, try again later.



I appreciate the scouring of this site you performed in order to pull those quotes from different threads, but it must be disappointing that you didn’t find any contradictions.
Now this issue about Congressional authority I’ve answered several times in this thread so I’m not clear on why you are so confused by my answer. Please explain what you see is the contradiction in this:
"Given that the President wanted to finally make good on his red line comments, he should have just fired his cruise missiles "
"And as for Congress...sheesh, the President has already acknowledged he doesn't need Congressional approval for the attack, and he may still attack regardless of how Congress votes."
What is so confusing about that? I’ve said over and over I don’t think the President requires Congressional authority to launch his attack. I understand the arguments who disagree, but I think the constitution gives the President the authority. So, what exactly has you so confused?




Sigh… I answered that in post 76: “But no, Obama doesn't need Congressional approval to fire a few missiles at Syria.”
I’m not sure why you aren’t able to grasp that.




Amazing!

The “198 countries” you are referring to are the countries that signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. Syria was not one of those nations. So in the case of Syria, there is no red line set by the world unless you think the international community has a right to enforce treaties on countries that did not sign them.
So that just leaves Obama’s red line.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

I don’t know what’s so hard about that.



So you are still arguing that the purpose of the military strike is to take out Assad’s chemical weapons? No one is saying that except for you. That’s why I ask for proof, because you are either very confused or lying. So where is the proof?

So let’s see if you can respond to this without weaving and dodging again.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't pointing to you on a personal level. I was referring to people "like" you. There is a very strident conservative element that brings up impeachment on a regular basis.

It wasn't a change of subject comment. I have no interest in rehashing the Bush Admin and their cowboy diplomacy. I mention Bush only in contrast to your over the top hyperbolic statement. Bringing him up to contrast that doesn't = any desire to change the subject. Only to highlight the absurdity of your comment. There is no "Obama cult of personality". That's an invention of the conservative echo chamber. Their calling it that doesn't make it true. It's merely a convenient ad hominem attack on the president as an effort to portray those that voted for him in a negative light. In other words, the verbiage that the conservatives use to describe Obama, or his supporters doesn't make the term true, and only serves to inject their animosity. Like the low hanging fruit that voted for Bush. None of this serves for an intelligent debate on any issue. If you have a rational argument to make, then make it. If you want to inject hyperbole into it, then you'll get called out for what it is. BS.

I don't think so. I've seen it all my life and I'm quite sure that I'm older than you and probably have more experience in this than you would. I'm white, I grew up in full view of racism and hate in the suburbs of Chicago. I know all the dog whistles and I know who they're directed at. Your posts are all loaded with innuendo and it's easy to spot. The "most amateurish thing you've seen in the White House in your life" comment is pretty revealing. Of course it's not. Perhaps you weren't around during Watergate, let alone what we went through prior to Obama. 9/11, two wars, and a crashed economy, doesn't speak well for professionalism. Nailing bin Laden, and forcing a diplomatic solution to the Syrian situation does.

Nothing confirms a thesis. You can never prove a theory. Didn't you know that? You're applying inductive reasoning like every other conservative. You probably never heard of the Problem of Induction. It was put forth by David Hume in the 1700's. Hume stated that we can never justify our science (or it's theories) using inductive reasoning. The reason is that we are using induction to prove induction, and you can't use a theory to prove itself. That's called circular reasoning and it's a logical fallacy. The most recognized example is the idea that All Swans are White. It's the assumption that because every swan you've seen is white, it confirms the theory that the next swan you see will be white. However they found black swans in Australia, so the theory is demonstrably false. What you might want to consider is the scientific method here and use deductive reasoning instead. It doesn't attempt to prove a theory. What it does is set out to disprove a theory. When you've accomplished that, you can get rid of the theory and you're one step closer to the truth. Just a suggestion that might save you a few asinine mistakes in the future. Any time you think you've confirmed a thesis, you'd do well to subject it to more serious criticism.

This statement is meaningless, but once again goes overboard with some alpha/omega conclusion that has no relevance to anything. You seem addicted to hyperbole.

No sh*t Sherlock. You seem to have missed the point entirely. Your statement is every bit as hyperbolic as those presented.

Of course you do. That's completely expected. It's also denial, but I would never expect you to recognize any fault in your manner of posting.

I was. And President Kennedy accepted his mistake. The more accurate comparison would be the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy had visual proof of the missiles and confronted the Soviet ships that turned around rather than confront American war ships. The missiles were dismantled because we were willing to use force to keep Nukes out of Cuba. Kind of like the threat of force to rid Syria of CW's.

Well, you don't have to go back too far. We had an administration that shot first and looked for the WMD after, as opposed to verifying the WMD first and then acting. The first approach yielded no WMD and about 8 1/2 years of occupation costing a trillion dollars, and over 4,000 dead Americans. The second approach forces a diplomatic solution that will remove the WMD, no missiles are launched and no Americans die, and no cost to the American people. And you think that this is handled poorly? I guess from the Republican World, invading a country and occupying it for a decade or more, and costing us trillions as well as dead Americans makes sense to you, but it doesn't strike me as smart. Now...either you're so biased that you can't recognize a good outcome when it's in front of your face, or your hate for the man overwhelms your senses. I wonder which it is?

Well you made it an issue when you complained about insults. So after the explanation of why there are none, now you consider the response a waste of writing.

Whether you hold your breath or not is up to you. What matters is that Chemical Weapons will no longer be used. That's the immediate goal. The Russians don't want that hanging around their necks. They're on the hook for this now, and they need to make good on it.

Yes. Basically that's it. There is no question that Obama and Putin talked about this at the G20. What goes on in public and what goes on in private are drastically different things. Back in the 80's Saddam Hussein used gas on his people. Our government issued a generic condemnation. We said that "We condemn the use of Chemical Weapons by any and all countries. That was it. Saddam was PO'd at us for the statement and Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq as an envoy to assure him that the statement was for public consumption but that it would in no way change our business dealings with him. Hell...we supplied him with the stuff he used to kill his people, including the helocopters to deliver it. And Saddam was gassing his people again on the day of the meeting.

[video=youtube_share;r42oejmpkgw]http://youtu.be/r42oejmpkgw[/video]

Syria was almost the entire topic of discussion with the countries, and the meeting was in...Russia. Putin has all the influence there is with Syria. The last thing that Russia wants is an Islamic state in Syria, and WMD spread into the former Soviet states. So this entire thing is in their interest. Assad...and of course Putin were certain that Obama would launch whether congress approved or not. Going after Bin Laden and getting him was not lost on these guys. They're fully aware that he'll act when he thinks its in our interest, regardless of the dithering of congress. Especially if he thinks he has the US constitution on his side. Putin needed cover to introduce this. These are state leaders, and they all need to save "face" for the sake of their position at home. Kerry opened the door and Putin walked right through it. When Russia offered this diplomatic solution, they were admitting that Syria does have this crap, and of course being Syria's top ally, they would know. Syria then joins in within minutes thereby admitting what they denied earlier. So...now everyone knows what they already knew, and the process must begin. The Sec. General of the UN has jumped in and China is on board. That means no veto's in the Security Council. The threat of Force by the US is what drove the diplomatic proposal.

I'll address the rest in another post.

 

While all of that is interesting what is our vital national interest? How does the One's itty-bitty strike, only about a half-billion's worth of expensive cruise missiles wasted, further our vital national interest? How do you degrade Assad's air defense capabilities without killing Russians? Is this worth fighting a major regional war?

Given that we are not threatened the One has no recourse but to go to Congress to seek a declaration of war.

 

Do you believe that to be involved anywhere in the world means we must act everywhere in the world? No, I do not yet believe you are a fool. That should be good enough for you.

 

But I disagree that we aren't threatened by the use of WMD's in the region. AQ has repeatedly threatened the US. They are in Syria trying to win. There are WMD's in Syria. I'm not leaving whether AQ acquires them to chance; I want a say in the outcome. We underestimated AQ before when they took down the heart of our financial system (impacting the stock market for years). They have taken down the govt of Mali, and they are working on taking down Syria, Libya, Yemen, (and with the Taliban) Pakistan, Afghan, and Iraq. I want US military ready to respond, whether Assad uses them (for the humanity reasons Obama has already eloquently described), OR if AQ obtains/uses them (because I don't continue to underestimate their movement as many of my fellow Westerners do).

Refine your arguments for non-intervention now, because you will need them again in Pakistan imo. I predict the same situation in Syria, except this time nukes will be laying around in the chaos. The world needs a plan for WMD's in failed states or states in the midst of invasion. So far, only the US seems concerned, which is why only the US takes the heat for its intervention over the decades.

 

Earlier I wrote, "Under the Obama's destructive regime we are not the leader. Nor is there a Constitutional basis for military involvement in Syria. All sides are hostile to the US, including the president."

Of course it is destructive. If you are able to do so look around. We have the smallest number of people in the workforce since Jimmy Carter. We have more debt. We have a hollowed out military and we have a flake who believes he is royalty in the White House. He has done more damage to our military than any enemy military force could have done under the worst of circumstances.

If I am wrong it should be very easy for you to point out that article in the Constitution that grants the President the right to declare war.

You know you are wrong. There is no Constitutional basis for this attack. What you are referring to is custom. It can never be acceptable when men lacking integrity occupy the White House. The War Powers Act recognizes that there will be cases where time is of the essence and that a vital national interest is at stake. This case with Syria is not such a case. There has been plenty of time to have Congress debate the issue and vote. So let's do it.

This gives evidence that you are a statist.

 

If maintaining control of Syrian's chemical weapons is important then let's have the Congress declare war, and send in a half million troops to go get them. It might take a million men. Bring on the draft.

We do not know where the chemical weapons are. We could also support Assad and crush the rebellion.

 

LOL. You are putting lipstick on a pig...

 

Obama could have Osama Bin Laden killed and the right would fault (oh wait, that already happened).

 

Earlier I wrote, "Were the Syrian people rounded up and sent to concentration camps to be gassed to death? It is clear from the intelligence that has been released (back in the 1990s) that we did know and we chose to win the war instead of making an effort to save those poor people who were killed by their own governments. The situation is different. Germany declared war on the United States. And the Congress declared war on Germany. Has Congress declared war on Syria?

You misuse history to your peril. I know a little."

Did you miss the part about a declaration of war against Germany while we do not have one against Syria? As a public service I bring it to your attention.

Yes. It was Germany who rounded up and murdered noncombatants including their citizens and citizens in occupied countries. That was not our problem to solve until Germany declared war upon us and we reciprocated against them.

I take my understanding from a book by Bruce Lee called Marching Orders. Today I found a good source online. Look here.

Here is one excerpt:

It was not until a number of further significant releases of wartime
records of the Signal Intelligence Service and the Government Code and Cypher School through
the decade of the 1990s that the amount of COMINT material available to researchers of the
Holocaust dramatically increased. By early 2004, at NARA, over 600 translations and
decrypts of various intercepted messages about the Holocaust could be found in the record
groups of the National Security Agency. These included some decrypts of German Police messages that reported the massacres of Jews and other groups. ​

And this:

From October 1940 to November 1942, P.C. Cadix, as the site now was named,
intercepted German high frequency communications in occupied France and elsewhere...​

If you read more you will discover that about 3000 messages were intercepted concerning the murders of noncombatant civilians in the occupied countries.

The NSA booklet is 167 sourced pages.

So as long as Assad and the rebels use other brutal methods to murder noncombatants it is okay? But using chemical weapons which tend to be less lethal and less destructive than bullets, artillery and bombs is so bad we must waste our resources to "send a message"? Why not just send a diplomatic cable?

If you like to put lipstick on pigs by all means do so.

 

Earlier I wrote, "We should only get involved militarily when our vital national interests are at stake. What vital national interest is at stake?"

Well then I am sure you will want to lob cruise missiles into many countries on the off chance that you son is deployed someplace.
Assad has not threatened us. So you and the president are one. I never doubted that.

You would have been better off just agreeing that we have no vital national interest in Syria. I am impressed with your emotional response. You can be easily manipulated by Obama and his chemical weapons holding regime.