Obama Rejects Criticism of Shifting Syria Policy

reply to post by sonnny1


Obama's enemies are all domestic, everyone is conspiring against him. That is how he and his closest advisers see it...

None of his failures or failed policies are his fault.

If Obama was capable of looking inward, and finding the truth, could see objectively everything. And really cared about this country, for his own good and the good of the country he'd resign.

But he will cling to power to the bitter end, unfortunately that makes him dangerous. The sooner everyone realizes that the better.

Good luck.

What difference would THAT POSSIBLY make ?

your claim was only one side was the cause of 100,000 deaths,
in war it is never "one sided" i was trying to point out your error.

i am an anti war activist, i am against all forms of war!
__________

You're missing the entire point. I'm not suggesting that anybody 'goes in' at all. I'm suggesting that Obama and Putin have other agendas because neither have even mentioned that the civil war should be addressed. Don't you find that a wee bit suspicious ?

yes i do
__________

The CW talks don't include getting any CWs from rebels that I know of. Please show that it does, I hope I'm wrong.

according to Russias position, the rebels have used CWs, i have nothing other than their opinion as evidence.

And the opinion is already against the U.S., and the ME has been a nightmare for .... how long now ?

rouge groups with CWs could be alot worse!
__________

?? The civil war has been going since Jan 2011 !! And the U.N. has failed in every single effort. Why is THAT ?
__________

civil wars are not as easy to mitigate, do you think peace keepers should be sent in?
xploder

xuenchen
The civil war has been going since Jan 2011 !! And the U.N. has failed in every single effort. Why is THAT ?

At every turn, Assad's "friends" have let the civil war continue. Russia and China have blocked resolution's.

In Two years WHY hadn't Russia come up with a viable solution? What would they lose if they could stop the bloodshed? That is the question that should be asked. Obama isn't selling weapons to Assad's Regime. Assad's Regime isn't killing Rebels and innocent victims with American weapons.

Lets not forget that.

reply to post by XPLodER

Mr. Confusion back with more questions for you. I'm asking you as you seem to be the major supporter of the Obama policy in this thread.

Forgive my ignorance, but what was Obama's policy? Not his goal, everybody wants the world to be free of WMDs, that's pretty much a given. What was his plan to get there?

If I recall, he ignored the first chemical attack, except for saying that he was really, truly, serious this time, and if the Syrians used them that would be crossing a red line. Somebody used the weapons, the red line was crossed, and nothing happened.

There followed a delay, as though he was thinking up a new plan. He appeared to the world to have two choices; military force, or admit that red lines drawn by the US don't have any particular meaning.

He tried, but was unable to get any international support even from his traditional allies. (The French eventually said they weren't going into this if they were the only ones.)

Then he went to Congress, asking for permission that he wasn't required to obtain, and said he reserved the right to launch an attack regardless of Congress' vote.

So, please. tell me. What was he thinking, what was his plan that he had in mind all along?

Obama now has the high moral ground, a plan and a resolution,the best outcome "removal and destruction" of any arms under UN observation,the opening of dialogue, between the different factions,

If this was his plan, why did he never approach the United Nations to ask for this? Actually, why did he never approach the UN on the subject at all?

you discount the fact that a strike from the us would decapitate Assads forces, creating a power vacuum, and put chem weponds at risk of theift or use.

Then why the red line and all of his other statements about targeted strikes designed to stop WMD use, and Kerry's comments about "unbelievably" small strikes?

And finally, this:

Assad now knows what the consequences will be if he does not get rid of his chem weapon's,
the international community can disarm and remove them from the country,

Would you care to tell me what the consequences would be? Russia is insisting that no military force be used or even threatened in controlling the WMDs. So what will we do, draw another line? Perhaps in puce, vermilion, or coral?

How successful have we been in getting to inspect and control Iran's nuclear program? Why should we think that good ol' Bashar will point out of his stocks of WMDs? There is no reason to believe that this proposal will solve anything. What it does do is tell the world that al-Assad is the legitimate ruler of his country, and that the world is willing to negotiate with him.

I think there could have been better ways to play this, other than to leave us with a President seen as indecisive and weak, and allowing the Russians to protect their ally against any US action.

reply to post by XPLodER

your claim was only one side was the cause of 100,000 deaths,
in war it is never "one sided" i was trying to point out your error.

Time to level the table. I never said 100,000 deaths was from one side, I said it was from the civil war.
_____

civil wars are not as easy to mitigate, do you think peace keepers should be sent in?
xploder

U.N. peacekeepers won't work, plus Russia and the U.S. would probably say no. Neither want the U.N. involved, that's why we see what we are seeing now with the CWs. The CWs are a major p.i.t.a. for Putin and Obama. The CWs could have been released by a 3rd party. Again, all this new malarkey will keep the civil war going. There's an agenda beyond what we are seeing with the CWs. It's complicated, we will get into all that later in this topic I think. The suspicions will be discussed.
_____*****


In short, the issue is with the proposed natural gas pipeline to run from Iran, through Iraq, and into Syria, and then possibly underwater to Greece.

Assad agreed to it against the Saudi-Qatar offer to run their own proposed natural gas pipeline through Saudi Arabia, connect into the existing Arab natural gas pipeline that runs from Egypt, through Jordan, and into Syria. From there, a new pipeline would connect to the proposed natural gas pipeline in Turkey that intends to run all the way into Austria.

The issue Russia has is that their big natural gas company Gazprom has giant sales in Europe. So obviously, if Gazprom can get a piece of Assad's proposed pipeline ( or delay it or even stop it ), then that's to their advantage because huge money IS involved.

Qatar has huge natural gas reserves and has no way to get to Europe other than by ship for the most part.
The Saudis are involved because any pipeline coming out of Qatar would go through Saudi Arabia, plus they have gas also for sale. Both nations are Monarchies and are Wahhabis Suunis. Jordan is 90% Suuni. Turkey is also 75% Suuni. And of course, any new regime in Syria would support the Suuni beliefs (assuming Assad gets defeated).

In contrast, the 'Suuni' issue conflicts with Iran and Iraq because they are majority Shiite. That's why Qatar won't deal with Iran about a gas pipeline, and it's a secondary issue with the proposed Assad pipeline.

The U.S. supports both Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The U.S. has a large military base in Qatar. And both support the PetroDollar. And many Western companies do business in Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Russia has a military base in Syria.

The civil war in Syria 'coincidentally' started when Assad signed the agreements for the pipeline from Iran.

Go figure.

The oil/gas issues connected with all the nations involved obviously dwarf the CW issue in Syria.

Gazprom is the major influence along with all the other worldwide corporations competing.

Yes, Russia has corporatism too !! ( surprise ). So does China. Although China's interest's in Syria are small compared to the whole picture.

All that puts Obama and Putin between a rock and a hard place.

reply to post by sonnny1


All good points.

see my post above.

damned if you do damned if you don't

At first he was a warmonger and now he's a wimp because he didn't approve the air strikes.

He had the power to launch air strikes without congressional approval, yet he backed down from it and discussed it with congress.

If only we could have had a leader that did that back in 2001 and 2003

muse7
damned if you do damned if you don't

At first he was a warmonger and now he's a wimp because he didn't approve the air strikes.

He had the power to launch air strikes without congressional approval, yet he backed down from it and discussed it with congress.

If only we could have had a leader that did that back in 2001 and 2003

Funny how all that works ain't it.

The leadership back in 2001 and 2003 had more support, and didn't have a Russian military threat to deal with as I remember.

But good point anyway.

Obama is doing just fine.

reply to post by charles1952




Great Post Charles !!

I'm glad some of us old timers can still use our heads !!

I can't wait for the responses.

Obama Rejects Criticism of Shifting Syria Policy

Because if there's anything Americans hate, it's politicians that change their mind.

reply to post by xuenchen

Dear xuenchen,

I'm grateful to you for the Gazprom review and analysis. Why can't we have discussions of these questions in depth, in the media or from our politicians? I know, stupid question. But if the CIA can give the President a daily briefing, why can't they offer a declassified version to us?

I certainly don't mind relying on you, but where can the rest of the country go? Do they want us stupid? Do they think we can't handle information more significant than Honey Boo-boo's dress size?

Oh, by the way, "Old timers" you say? Why you young whippersnapper! I'll have you know I'm only . . . umm ... (61?) Well, I guess you're right there, too.

With respect,
Charles1952

Mr. Confusion back with more questions for you. I'm asking you as you seem to be the major supporter of the Obama policy in this thread.

i am an anti war activist, i do not support any government or country!
i only joined the thread to add my view to the fray

Forgive my ignorance, but what was Obama's policy? Not his goal, everybody wants the world to be free of WMDs, that's pretty much a given. What was his plan to get there?

the very threat of "intervention" has provoked action, not one single country on earth wants to be looking down the barrel of the US military!!!
i cant say what the plan WAS, but i can see that the threat was very real and the case compelling for strikes,
but with a closer look the "fallout" was going to cause even more death if the issue of rouge groups with stolen CWs was not factored in.

If I recall, he ignored the first chemical attack, except for saying that he was really, truly, serious this time, and if the Syrians used them that would be crossing a red line. Somebody used the weapons, the red line was crossed, and nothing happened.

who do you punish if it is unclear who "used them first"
and secondly why decapitate Assads military if those same CWs end up in the hands of even more murderous groups?

There followed a delay, as though he was thinking up a new plan. He appeared to the world to have two choices; military force, or admit that red lines drawn by the US don't have any particular meaning.

or was the red line being used to force Obamas hand, one way or another?
this was and is a "no win" situation, the US still has the option to strike,
if they do they risk a larger CW threat from unsecured stockpiles,
if they do not people might call him a wimp,
the two outcomes are hardly comparable!!!

thing is no one over here is calling him that and many applaud the fact that he has not made a complex situation much worse, once started the strike would without doubt paralyse the sirian army,
problem is they are the only thing between the rebels and large stockpiles, is the sirian army!!!

frankly i trust neither!!!

He tried, but was unable to get any international support even from his traditional allies. (The French eventually said they weren't going into this if they were the only ones.)

in a civil war either side could turn to genocide,
which side do you suggest supporting?

Then he went to Congress, asking for permission that he wasn't required to obtain, and said he reserved the right to launch an attack regardless of Congress' vote.

in international law a mandate is required from the UN,
in american law a declaration of war is required by congress,
if there is "immediate" danger to the US then only presidential action is required,
im not sure where or under what situation this falls.

So, please. tell me. What was he thinking, what was his plan that he had in mind all along?

i can only answer for myself, i dont know Obama or how he thinks.
i am a civilian of NZ and not clairvoyant,
i can only answer IMHO

If this was his plan, why did he never approach the United Nations to ask for this? Actually, why did he never approach the UN on the subject at all?

russia would have blocked any security council resolutions without doubt,
sad but true!

Then why the red line and all of his other statements about targeted strikes designed to stop WMD use, and Kerry's comments about "unbelievably" small strikes?

because every civilised country in the world decries the use of CW,
and we both know what small means!!
just the idea of strikes was enough to get siria and russia to jump at the kerry proposal

Would you care to tell me what the consequences would be? Russia is insisting that no military force be used or even threatened in controlling the WMDs. So what will we do, draw another line? Perhaps in puce, vermilion, or coral?

why would siria give up the CWs if the US is still going to destroy them anyway?
what logic is there for siria in doing the disarming if the response is still strikes?
it was the "threat" of strikes that brought them to the bargaining table,

How successful have we been in getting to inspect and control Iran's nuclear program? Why should we think that good ol' Bashar will point out of his stocks of WMDs? There is no reason to believe that this proposal will solve anything. What it does do is tell the world that al-Assad is the legitimate ruler of his country, and that the world is willing to negotiate with him.

under international law he is the legitimate leader,
i know it sucks but it is true!!!!

I think there could have been better ways to play this, other than to leave us with a President seen as indecisive and weak, and allowing the Russians to protect their ally against any US action.

i actually see it as the russians REACTING to kerry and Obama,
not the other way around.

you cant be serious.............really,
your more afraid of someone perceiving you as week (even with a military a factor bigger than anyone else)
than you are afraid of entering a no win civil war?

wow that's messed up, even with the largest mightiest military force on the planet,
your as insecure as letting name calling get to you?
WOW

god have mercy

your pal
xploder

reply to post by charles1952


It's hard to put it all together. The MSM is sketchy with the real information as we all know.

here's some sites that have better stories, even though their info is a bit scattered and sometimes contains dis-info for obvious reasons.

Global News


Economic Collapse


O S Net


The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis: Syrian “Opposition” Armed to Thwart Construction of Iran-Iraq-Syria Gas Pipeline


google searches find good info....like,

" Arab Gas Pipeline "

" Turkey Natural Gas Pipeline "

" Nabucco Pipeline "

" Qatar Natural Gas "

" Saudi Arabia Natural Gas "

" Islamic Pipeline "

" Gazprom "

etc. etc.



[ btw, i'm 1953 ]

reply to post by XPLodER

Dear XPLodER,

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide such a thorough response. It's only by hearing various thoughts that I can learn anything, and I appreciate your efforts.

While you've helped clear up some of my confusion, I'm afraid some remains.

the very threat of "intervention" has provoked action, not one single country on earth wants to be looking down the barrel of the US military!!!
i cant say what the plan WAS, but i can see that the threat was very real and the case compelling for strikes, but with a closer look the "fallout" was going to cause even more death if the issue of rouge groups with stolen CWs was not factored in.

Do you really think Obama was making a serious threat to employ significant military force? After all, Kerry said it would be "unbelievably" small, and Obama said he didn't want to affect the balance of power in the country. Seems like a wrist slap.

And forgive me for saying it, but if, after all this time, the President had not considered the possibility of the rebels getting the chemical weapons, I would be all in favor of firing him and his staff for inexcusably gross incompetence.

who do you punish if it is unclear who "used them first"

But Obama and his spokespeople were saying that they knew it was al-Assad who used them.

or was the red line being used to force Obamas hand, one way or another?

More confusion for me. Obama drew the red line himself. Is he forcing himself to take a side?

this was and is a "no win" situation, the US still has the option to strike,

I suppose, technically he could, but nobody believes he will after the Russian plan was announced. Syrian headlines are trumpeting their defeat of Obama.

thing is no one over here is calling him that and many applaud the fact that he has not made a complex situation much worse,

Unfortunately, he hasn't made the situation any better. There is no realistic plan to remove the WMDs from Syrian control, and the civil war will continue, just as it was before the red line speech. All of our flopping around and we're back to square one.

in a civil war either side could turn to genocide, which side do you suggest supporting?

Was there ever a requirement that we support either side? I'm sure you wouldn't want to. Does the US have an obligation to prevent them from killing each other?

in international law a mandate is required from the UN,

He didn't approach the UN, making his threat even less credible than it already was. Bush went to the UN for approval for Iraq. They turned him down and he used that rejection as one of the 12 reasons he was asking Congress for a declaration of war.

in american law a declaration of war is required by congress,

He was willing to do Libya without Congress, he could have done the same in Syria. Even further proof that he did not expect his threat to be taken seriously.

So, please. tell me. What was he thinking, what was his plan that he had in mind all along?

i can only answer for myself, i dont know Obama or how he thinks.

My confusion is that I can not create even a single logical possibility which would account for his moves. Most believe his red line comment was a mistake, but he was afraid to withdraw it. That left him in the position of trying to both support the possibility of a strike and reject it, at the same time.

You comment about the fear that the possibility of a strike put into Syria and Russia. I find it hard to believe. First, as I've pointed out, the US didn't want to disrupt the military situation in Syria. Secondly, Obama has always insisted on support from others for his military moves, even if, as in Libya, it was more of a fig leaf. Here, he had no support from any country, or group of countries (ala NATO), the American people didn't support him, the House didn't support him, it was even questionable if the Senate would support him. He was out there all by his lonesome. Nobody that I heard of thought he would launch more than a little symbolic strike, if any at all.

Syria and Russia weren't afraid of him, there were Russian and Chinese warships steaming into position, threatening all sorts of holy hell if Obama lifted his finger.

So now we've told the world that we can't be trusted or believed, a move that weakens our alliances, emboldens our enemies, and makes the US even less significant in the world. Maybe that was his plan from the start.

See why I have some residual confusion?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

I think there could have been better ways to play this, other than to leave us with a President seen as indecisive and weak, and allowing the Russians to protect their ally against any US action.

reply to post by XPLodER

i actually see it as the russians REACTING to kerry and Obama,
not the other way around.

Just a bit of humor with this.....

This is the Russians' reaction to Obama's speech last week:

reply to post by charles1952

So now we've told the world that we can't be trusted or believed, a move that weakens our alliances, emboldens our enemies, and makes the US even less significant in the world. Maybe that was his plan from the start.

"Maybe that was his plan from the start"

That is a very real and very scary possibility.

We need to think hard about that.

Obama's record, and political agenda and political beliefs all speak for themselves in spite of all the denials and diversions.

Maybe Obama *IS* working *with* Putin. The bigger issues involved *are* global in reality.
_______________

And, on a national level, the 2014 elections are coming up too.

The Senate has 35 seats up for grabs, 20 of which are now Democrat.

The House is all up for grabs.

Perhaps the plan went something like this;

1. We 'announce' the threat. [ we have to do something, the U.N. is a real pain in the butt because somebody put CWs in the air ] [ we really need the civil war to keep going ]

2. Then we watch public reaction as we direct the MSM outlets to assume an attack is unpopular and make sure Democrats are not politically injured.

3. Then we appear to back off and decide to ask Congress to vote [ but make sure we don't call Congress back from recess early ] [ that gives us time to line up the stories, and allow for more confusion as a diversion ]

4. Then we give a feeble presentation to Congress so the public retains the successful illusion that most people are against it, and therefore Democrats in Congress can voice opposition and therefore will not be blamed at the polls next year.

5. Then we hem and haw [ as usual ] until another diversion comes along to allow us to 'reconsider' a direct attack. [ we don't really need to attack, we just need to slow down Assad's progress a little so the civil war keeps going in our favor [ as in rebel support ].

[ all the way through, we put the word out through channels that Democrats are not to object publicly too much, just in case ]

6. Then later we can get more 'reasons' to launch attacks and/or appropriate more support for the rebels, and go from there. Those 'reasons' won't hurt Democrats in the election, we'll take of who to blame if we fumble this one again, especially if Congress never gives a go ahead nod.

[ God help us if the Republicans get any big majority in both Chambers - Gulp ! ]

reply to post by charles1952


if i didnt know any better id swear that you are almost "upset" that there is a real chance at peace,
and you sound like you think your country is only safe if every one thinks your president has his finger on the button 24/7, when in effect your military is 5X bigger than it needs to be to dominate the planet!
sorry to give it to you straight, but my respect for your country and president has increased,
the easy-er option is the military one.

its almost like losing face is worse than losing the lives of soldiers, in your eyes.

and in my mind, IMHO
sometimes things can spiral out of control,
causing a much larger regional conflict.

its not like your military has suddenly taken holiday or something.

i admit i really dont understand why you would think that power restrained is not power in full.

xploder

XPLodER
but Obama just saved a nightmare from the world,

That's insane. PUTIN saved the planet from a World War of Obama's making due to his ineptitude and ignorance. The world isn't at war today because Americans stood up against Obama; because Congress wasn't going to vote in that war was okay; and because PUTIN jumped on a gaff by John Kerry.

Pffffft .... Obama saved the world .... that's a crock. He nearly destroyed it.

Without the threat of real military action, none of this would have been achieved. That is the point. The threat of military action was to obtain what has been obtained by diplomatic means. If anyone thinks that this outcome could have been achieved without the threat of military action, then they are simply naive.

Making a threat and 'not keeping to it' is inaccurate as the threat was to obtain the outcome which has in the main been achieved. Going forward regardless would create far more problems both short and long term.