Syria

[Soxbadger]

The reason why the us can't accept this offer and te reason the Russians jumped at it is that the US has refused to negotiate over Syria unless Assad leaves. Refusing to negotiate does exactly what it is supposed to do, shut down negotiations entirely and force a military response.

 

If the US accepts an offer to negotiate with Assads regime over the chemical weapons, the US will be dropping its deman that Assad leave before any negotiations take place.

 

That's why the Russians jumped at it, it's a way to force the war-hungry us government to the negotiating table. If the US sits down and negotiates, then Assad and the Russians will have extracted the biggest negotiating victory they could have asked for. The gas attack will have been an enormous success.

 

At this point I just am going to stop discussing. You clearly dislike America and want to make it look bad. For what reason, to what end, I dont know.

 

The biggest negotiating victory?

 

Talk about hyperbole.

 

This wont end the war, thats the US demand about negotiations. They wont negotiate a PEACE unless Assad leaves.

 

But what does that have to do with Assad destroying his chemical weapons to prevent the US from striking?

 

Nothing, destroying the chemical weapons does not equal ending the civil war, it just takes away chemical weapons from Syria.

 

Which would be one of the biggest negotiating victories in the history of the United States. That they were successfully able to convince an enemy to destroy its weapons, without having to directly interfere.

 

But I guess in your anti-American world, that is some how a loss? I dont even know anymore, I just dont even know.

 

It makes me sad that someone can hate America so much that they want to portray us as a "loser". As if somehow the US and world loses if there are less chemical weapons.

 

Its clear that no matter what the US does, you are going to be against it.

 

If the US removes all chemical weapons without a single shot fired = greatest negotiating victory for Russia/Syria in history of world.

 

If US removes all chemical weapons by killing everyone = US worst country in the world.

 

If you hate us so much, why not move? There are plenty of other countries where you can hate the US with impunity and youll be called a hero.

 

[Balta1701]

You deserve a response to that BS that is against the rules of the page.

[Balta1701]

"The last refuge of the scoundrel" summed up very well in your post.

[sircaffey]

How so?

 

The U.N. Charter explicitly makes military action against member states illegal without the support of the U.N. Security Council. It doesn't give exceptions, it says that under all circumstances except when authorized by the U.N. Security Council, making war against a partner nation is illegal. If military action was to be legal in response to deployment of chemical weapons, it needs to be authorized by the Security Council

 

The U.N. Security Council has shown no interest in supporting a U.S. war against Syria. By any reasonable definition, the U.N. Charter makes war with Syria illegal.

 

At least in the cases of Iraq and Libya, the Bush and Obama administrations were able to get resolutions that gave them enough latitude you could make a case the intervention was legal. In this case, it is completely the opposite.

 

Except in the case of self-defense. Then you need not have the approval of the security council.

 

The UN Security Council in this case is just one big ole waste of time. Everyone knows it. Russia and China (Syria's 2 main allies) have vetoing power, and each have used it twice without even looking at the reports given to the council. Touching Syria with approval from the security council, in most any situation especially this one, would be almost impossible. So basically, any time France, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, or the US use their veto in the council, any act of force will be deemed "illegal." Pepe Le Pew could veto and the other 14 countries wish to approve, and it would still be illegal. However one might want to view the true legality of that, is up for debate I suppose, but Balta is right, it would certainly be illegal.

[Soxbadger]

Sometimes the truth hurts.

 

But I implore you to prove me wrong.

 

How does a deal on destruction of chemical weapons = peace treaty for Assad with rebels?

 

Or even this, what can the US do that you would think is the "biggest negotiating victory for the US".

 

Because Im not sure youve said 1 positive thing about the United States in this thread, and thats kind of pathetic seeing as the United States (for better or worse) is one of the few countries who even remotely cares about the plight of others.

 

There is just an irony that you have fought for days against the US striking Syria, and now that there is a peace option you call the US "losers" if they take it.

 

What game are you even playing here? Its just berserk.

 

I mean who cares if the US is perceived winners, losers or indifferent if the outcome is good for the world?

 

I just dont understand what you want, besides for trashing the US and whatever it does.

[Soxbadger]

"The last refuge of the scoundrel" summed up very well in your post.

 

And only a person with an indefensible position would quote Samuel Johnson as if he was someone to be proud of. You know he was the guy who argued that colonists had given up their right to vote!

 

 

[Balta1701]

Sometimes the truth hurts.

 

But I implore you to prove me wrong.

 

How does a deal on destruction of chemical weapons = peace treaty for Assad with rebels?

 

Or even this, what can the US do that you would think is the "biggest negotiating victory for the US".

 

Because Im not sure youve said 1 positive thing about the United States in this thread, and thats kind of pathetic seeing as the United States (for better or worse) is one of the few countries who even remotely cares about the plight of others.

 

There is just an irony that you have fought for days against the US striking Syria, and now that there is a peace option you call the US "losers" if they take it.

 

What game are you even playing here? Its just berserk.

 

I mean who cares if the US is perceived winners, losers or indifferent if the outcome is good for the world?

 

I just dont understand what you want, besides for trashing the US and whatever it does.

The US government will care. And that will prevent them from taking Any offer seriously.

 

I want te US to stay the Hell out of another war in the Middle East. Not a single one has worked well for us.

[Balta1701]

And only a person with an indefensible position would quote Samuel Johnson as if he was someone to be proud of. You know he was the guy who argued that colonists had given up their right to vote!

And only the lowest of the low human beings would take a disagreement on policy and decide that they should question another persons patriotism.

[Soxbadger]

And only the lowest of the low human beings would take a disagreement on policy and decide that they should question another persons patriotism.

 

lol

 

Great part about America, you dont have to like America. But if you are just going to plain hate, expect to be called on it.

 

Of all people I would have thought youd be cheering in the street that a possible non-military solution was on the table. But instead that option is now "a terrible loss" for the US.

 

Its as if you wont be happy unless you can point out all the mistakes that the US makes.

 

Yeah we make mistakes, yeah bad things happen. But we try, and thats a lot more than I can say about 99% of the world. So why not put things in perspective? Why hold the US to some unattainable standard that it will always fail at?

[Soxbadger]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oba...0,6112982.story

 

The president said he had explored the possibility of a proposal for Syria to cede control of its chemical weapons stockpile to international authorities with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting last week in Russia.

 

If Syria did so, that would "absolutely" put any U.S. military strike on pause, Obama told ABC News.

 

Not much in the world you can be sure on except the following:

 

No matter what really happened, politicians are always going to claim they were the ones who came up with the idea. Until of course the idea goes bad, and then theyll claim it was someone else.

 

Thats just politics 101.

 

 

[Balta1701]

lol

 

Great part about America, you dont have to like America. But if you are just going to plain hate, expect to be called on it.

 

Of all people I would have thought youd be cheering in the street that a possible non-military solution was on the table. But instead that option is now "a terrible loss" for the US.

 

Its as if you wont be happy unless you can point out all the mistakes that the US makes.

 

Yeah we make mistakes, yeah bad things happen. But we try, and thats a lot more than I can say about 99% of the world. So why not put things in perspective? Why hold the US to some unattainable standard that it will always fail at?

So when this "offer" collapses, I assume you'll be so angry that you'll finally stop supporting stupid bombing campaigns in the Middle East?

 

I'll admit it if I'm wrong and be incredibly impressed if they can pull this off, I don't think the us has any intention of trying it and the way the US instantly backed off as soon as the Russians had a positive response is a pretty good but of evidence.

[Soxbadger]

/points up

 

Obama is already claiming this was his idea. They are putting Syria/Russia in a corner. If Russia cant deliver on getting Syria to destroy its chemicals it will be much easier to convince people to attack Syria.

 

And Ive never said that the US has to attack Syria. Ive said that there has to be consequences for using chemical weapons. Being forced to destroy all your chemical weapons stockpiles is a consequence.

 

{edit}

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/oba....html?hpt=hp_t1

 

Its hilarious, but hes saying exactly what I predicted they would say:

 

 

Or he correctly played the game and got Syria to make a major concession in the face of a military strike.

 

I have no clue if this was really the end game. But I can predict that irregardless of outcome that people will claim it was Obama's end game.

 

"We have not seen these kinds of gestures up until now," the president said. "The fact that the U.S. administration and I have said we are serious about this, I think, has prompted some interesting conversations."

 

Politics is just so pathetically boring.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Jake]

If Syria cedes its weapons at the behest of Russia, I'll be very pleased with how this worked out. It would seem, then, that Obama played his hand perfectly. Those who wanted a military response should be pleased as well as those who did not. I would think this would put Russia-US relations in a better place as well.

 

Has to actually happen, though.

[greg775]

If Syria cedes its weapons at the behest of Russia, I'll be very pleased with how this worked out. It would seem, then, that Obama played his hand perfectly. Those who wanted a military response should be pleased as well as those who did not. I would think this would put Russia-US relations in a better place as well.

 

Has to actually happen, though.

 

Putin is a horse's ass. Did you see his statement today about how it is unwise to praise one's own people or something like that? To acknowledge specialness in one's own people? He's a turd.

[Jake]

Putin is a horse's ass. Did you see his statement today about how it is unwise to praise one's own people or something like that? To acknowledge specialness in one's own people? He's a turd.

 

He is quite a turd, but there is a grain of truth in the op-ed (which he probably didn't write). Americans patting themselves on the back and saying they're the best people/country in the world is the type of belief that leads us into these conflicts. It also has other effects, but those aren't so relevant here. You won't find a country with a bigger inferiority complex than the USA (even though I wonder if England/UK would give us a run for their money)

[greg775]

He is quite a turd, but there is a grain of truth in the op-ed (which he probably didn't write). Americans patting themselves on the back and saying they're the best people/country in the world is the type of belief that leads us into these conflicts. It also has other effects, but those aren't so relevant here. You won't find a country with a bigger inferiority complex than the USA (even though I wonder if England/UK would give us a run for their money)

 

I took it more of an elitist criticism of people who are not in the government. I don't like Putin. He pretty much comes across as, "I hate the United States. I hate its people. I've been trying to bring the Cold War back 100 percent, maybe someday you Americans will notice someday."

We owe those Russians nothing.

[Jake]

I took it more of an elitist criticism of people who are not in the government. I don't like Putin. He pretty much comes across as, "I hate the United States. I hate its people. I've been trying to bring the Cold War back 100 percent, maybe someday you Americans will notice someday."

We owe those Russians nothing.

 

Like I said, Putin pretty much sucks. He definitely mourns the collapse of the USSR and would probably love to see calamity befall the USA. His human rights record is putrid.

 

I don't think that the sentiment that "American exceptionalism is dangerous" is wrong, though

[greg775]

Like I said, Putin pretty much sucks. He definitely mourns the collapse of the USSR and would probably love to see calamity befall the USA. His human rights record is putrid.

 

I don't think that the sentiment that "American exceptionalism is dangerous" is wrong, though

 

I just wish our government officials would blast Putin more. Today was a start in response to his moronic editorial. Kudos to those with the balls to blast this jerk, Putin.

[Quin]

I just wish our government officials would blast Putin more. Today was a start in response to his moronic editorial. Kudos to those with the balls to blast this jerk, Putin.

 

Wouldn't be smart stooping to his level. Don't need a Cold War like atmosphere.

[greg775]

Wouldn't be smart stooping to his level. Don't need a Cold War like atmosphere.

 

Yes but what do we get out of being nice to Russia? It's China and Korea that are the maniacs I think would lob a nuke at us if they get to that point.

[Quin]

Yes but what do we get out of being nice to Russia? It's China and Korea that are the maniacs I think would lob a nuke at us if they get to that point.

 

Less tension in the world.

 

The whole China vs. US possible war is never going to happen. Too co-dependent on each other.

 

North Korea's nuclear war would be over the second they launched the missile. It'd never hit the US. Possibly Seoul.

[Jake]

I just wish our government officials would blast Putin more. Today was a start in response to his moronic editorial. Kudos to those with the balls to blast this jerk, Putin.

 

Blasting Russian leaders has never been very effective when it comes to US-Russian relations

[DukeNukeEm]

The whole China vs. US possible war is never going to happen. Too co-dependent on each other

like when a country with 7 million German immigrants went to war with Germany twice.

 

Confrontation with China is a matter of when not if. We don't really need them and soon they won't really need us, once we cross that threshold and China becomes increasingly aggressive something will happen. Probably not open war or anything wild but I seriously doubt we'll be on good terms with China 10 years from now.

[Quin]

like when a country with 7 million German immigrants went to war with Germany twice.

 

Confrontation with China is a matter of when not if. We don't really need them and soon they won't really need us, once we cross that threshold and China becomes increasingly aggressive something will happen. Probably not open war or anything wild but I seriously doubt we'll be on good terms with China 10 years from now.

 

That'd be a quick way for China to destroy its economy.

 

The world economy makes any such war unlikely. If this were the 1940s, it'd happen. Not so much now.

[Soxbadger]

Eh I doubt that the US and China ever go to war. Its more likely that there is some sort of civil insurrection in China than a US/China war.

 

Just nothing to be gained by either side. I cant imagine that China would risk their existence over Taiwan.

 

As for Putin, he proved that the US is different. Its unimaginable that Obama would write a letter to the Russian people thinking that it would have any impact on Russian politics. Yet Putin knows that in America, opinions do matter. Why else write a piece to the people of America?

 

Now that is not to say Americans are exceptional.