१४ सप्टेंबर, २०१३

We have a framework.

And outline.

What do you think?
  
pollcode.com free polls 
द्वारा पोस्ट केलेले Ann Althouse येथे १०:२४ AM
Tags: , , ,

१८ टिप्पण्या:

Hagar म्हणाले...

Lavrov is calling the shots and telling Kerry and Obama just what scraps of clothing he will give them to cover their nakedness.

१४/९/१३, १०:४६ AM
Bob Boyd म्हणाले...

The subject has successfully been changed. It was about consequences for using chemical weapons. Now its about coming to an arms agreement.
But what is Obama's leverage? He's not going to attack Syria now.
He will have to trade something to get something. What does Syria/Russia want? For us to stop arming the rebels I would guess. Especially giving them anti-aircraft weapons that can shoot down the attack helicopters Russia is selling to Assad.
And what will Obama get in return?
A new fig leaf to replace the one Putin snatched away last week?

१४/९/१३, १०:५२ AM
Diogenes of Sinope म्हणाले...

The whole Syrian WMD affair as conducted by President Obama is so bad for the long term interests of the USA. It is just beyond my ability to comprehend Obama's strategy assuming he has one. Obama's actions are making me believe he is trying to diminish the international standing of the USA.

१४/९/१३, ११:०७ AM
traditionalguy म्हणाले...

Like the Cuban missle settlement the real deal is secret,

१४/९/१३, ११:२१ AM
Cedarford म्हणाले...

Well done President Putin. Thanks to Putin, Christians and other religious minorities are safer than they would have been had the Americans attacked on behalf of the Radical Islamists seeking to depose the Syrian Regime and behead any Christians, Alawites, Druze, Chaldeans, and Shiites (25% of the country).
As for "we disappointed the Saudis and Israelis that wanted to stand back and let America fight for Al Qaeda and other rebels because they see any enemy of Iran as serving them" ....well tough titties guys! Your manipulations inside the DC Beltway didn't work.

As for the few left that see America as obligated to be World Cop on grounds of "No More Munichs!!", especially on "Leaders who kill their own people"....consider two things: Lincoln and Saint Ronny.

1. Saint Ronny knew the public was sick to death of war after Vietnam so he saw no compelling urgency for the US to help Iran back in 1982 when Iran was gassing the child jihadis (they were back then as well-regarded as the Syrian Al Qaeda Islamists are now). In fact, the Republicans Saint Ronny was fine with letting both sides butcher away as dissapate their bloodlust some. The more Iranian and Iraqi casualties, the better, as it put a damper on both's international aggression.

2. Lincoln, like all leaders, "killed his own people", who were then in revolt and insurrection. Killed lots more of his "own people" than Assad ever will. Had the Brits intervened to "Save the Children of the South", as they were close to doing, the Brits would have been hated by all Americans for many generations for messing in American's own fight.

१४/९/१३, ११:४६ AM
Sam L. म्हणाले...

Barry should stop listening to that fool he sees in his mirror.

१४/९/१३, ११:४७ AM
Cedarford म्हणाले...

Well done President Putin. Thanks to Putin, Christians and other religious minorities are safer than they would have been had the Americans attacked on behalf of the Radical Islamists seeking to depose the Syrian Regime and behead any Christians, Alawites, Druze, Chaldeans, and Shiites (25% of the country).
As for "we disappointed the Saudis and Israelis that wanted to stand back and let America fight for Al Qaeda and other rebels because they see any enemy of Iran as serving them" ....well tough titties guys! Your manipulations inside the DC Beltway didn't work.

As for the few left that see America as obligated to be World Cop on grounds of "No More Munichs!!", especially on "Leaders who kill their own people"....consider two things: Lincoln and Saint Ronny.

1. Saint Ronny knew the public was sick to death of war after Vietnam so he saw no compelling urgency for the US to help Iran back in 1982 when Iran was gassing the child jihadis (they were back then as well-regarded as the Syrian Al Qaeda Islamists are now). In fact, the Republicans Saint Ronny was fine with letting both sides butcher away as dissapate their bloodlust some. The more Iranian and Iraqi casualties, the better, as it put a damper on both's international aggression.

2. Lincoln, like all leaders, "killed his own people", who were then in revolt and insurrection. Killed lots more of his "own people" than Assad ever will. Had the Brits intervened to "Save the Children of the South", as they were close to doing, the Brits would have been hated by all Americans for many generations for messing in American's own fight.

१४/९/१३, १२:०४ PM
cf म्हणाले...

Putin should get the peace prize this year. At this point, he is saving our ass.

Interesting to consider Putin embracing the mantel of President of the World, the good and magnanimous Wise One that through our lifetimes has ever been American. It would be wholesome aspiration, and I can only "hope" he grows in that direction. It is a shame our own man is shriveling from that role, right before our eyes.

१४/९/१३, १२:२४ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...

Bob Boyd wrote;
The subject has successfully been changed. It was about consequences for using chemical weapons. Now its about coming to an arms agreement.
But what is Obama's leverage? He's not going to attack Syria now.
He will have to trade something to get something. What does Syria/Russia want? For us to stop arming the rebels I would guess. Especially giving them anti-aircraft weapons that can shoot down the attack helicopters Russia is selling to Assad.
And what will Obama get in return?

this has to be thstupidest thing I've ever aheard. Syria can get away with lying about chemical weapons. USE chemical weapons and then get us to promise to not use force. And now they want us to guarantaee that we wont arm the rebels, while Russing continues to arm the regime.

And Obama is stupid enough to sign this deal. "Pease in our time!(while the war continues to be waged with a big helping hand from Russi and us to the very regime that started this whole mess).

१४/९/१३, १२:४१ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...

Cedarford wrote:
1. Saint Ronny knew the public was sick to death of war after Vietnam so he saw no compelling urgency for the US to help Iran back in 1982 when Iran was gassing the child jihadis (they were back then as well-regarded as the Syrian Al Qaeda Islamists are now). In fact, the Republicans Saint Ronny was fine with letting both sides butcher away as dissapate their bloodlust some. The more Iranian and Iraqi casualties, the better, as it put a damper on both's international aggression.


WHy are we always sick of war and you never hear our enemies say that? Doesn't that speak to our lack of character? Good men couldn't be bothered to do anything. Evil men excited and energeized about commiting evil.
When in reality, evil could be tired out just as well if it was harder to do it. But we want to make it so easy for them.

१४/९/१३, १२:४५ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...

Cedardford wrote:
Well done President Putin. Thanks to Putin, Christians and other religious minorities are safer than they would have been had the Americans attacked on behalf of the Radical Islamists seeking to depose the Syrian Regime and behead any Christians, Alawites, Druze, Chaldeans, and Shiites (25% of the country).

There are al Qaeda in Syria(who ostensibly have chemical weapons) but they are not the only force that makes up the rebels. Saying it that way does make it seem like the Syrians are in fact the good guys. Even though they are the ones using the chemical weapons.
They are also arming Hezbollah. Are hezbollah the good guys protecting the christians and Jews from the radical Islamists?
Yet again, we get lies and distortions from Cedarford.

१४/९/१३, १२:४७ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...

When Syria arms Hezbollah does Heabollah kill it's own people Cedardord? Is Syria practicing neutrality, or are they arming their allies to wage war in another country.
What then was your point?
"Had the Brits intervened to "Save the Children of the South", as they were close to doing, the Brits would have been hated by all Americans for many generations for messing in American's own fight. "
Under your logic Israel is having its own fight. And Syria is arming enemies of ISrael to fihgt in that country. Meaning they are the Brits getting invovled in the American civil war.
So if you are going to condemn us for getting involved in Syria, why are you not condemning them (iran and Syria and Russia) for getting involved with Israel?

WHy does this whole neutrality thing only apply the US, while the rest of the world doesn't even make the pretense of neutrality and yet we have no commentary about it?



१४/९/१३, १२:५२ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...

1. Saint Ronny knew the public was sick to death of war after Vietnam so he saw no compelling urgency for the US to help Iran back in 1982 when Iran was gassing the child jihadis (they were back then as well-regarded as the Syrian Al Qaeda Islamists are now). In fact, the Republicans Saint Ronny was fine with letting both sides butcher away as dissapate their bloodlust some. The more Iranian and Iraqi casualties, the better, as it put a damper on both's international aggression


Yet he got involved in the Iran Contra affair and armed one side over the other.

१४/९/१३, १२:५३ PM
Cedarford म्हणाले...

JR565 being silly...

WHy are we always sick of war and you never hear our enemies say that? Because our rivals, not "enemy" have generally avoided war. The Chinese? Focused on developing their country and creating jobs. It's been 60 years since the Chinese got in a meaningful war, aside from a month lang intense skirmish with the Vietnamese, vs. some 38 wars and "interventions" done by Global Cop America in the same 60 years.

Doesn't that speak to our lack of character? Constant war speaks to our Good Character???

Good men couldn't be bothered to do anything. Evil men excited and energeized about commiting evil.
When in reality, evil could be tired out just as well if it was harder to do it. Most Americans do not see it is the mission of the US alone to be involved in constant conflict as we decline and decay - as some sort of sacrificial gesture to "tire out all global evil" on behalf of "all humanity"

But we want to make it so easy for them.
Really?? Let me ask you what happens if REAL EVIL that threatens America itself happens and we are worn down from "saving the 3rd World" and in economic and cultural decline??? We have to look after our own interests 1st. We have jobless rates pushing 30%, bankrupt states and cities, and a public unwilling to commit more lives and treasure to neocon adventures abroad. We are also getting close to a post-Vietnam sort of mindset, that threatens to undermine support for the US military, as a way of starving the Neocons of military resources available to blithely dispatch troops anywhere and everywhere.

१४/९/१३, १:२३ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...

Cedarford wrote:
Really?? Let me ask you what happens if REAL EVIL that threatens America itself happens and we are worn down from "saving the 3rd World" and in economic and cultural decline?

what is this real evil of which you speak? I would argue its Syria and Iran. If the real evil were to happen then we adjust and deal with as it occurs. But in the meantime we still have to deal with the REAL evil we are facing NOW today, regardless the hypothetical evil that may occur down the road.

Y guess is the neocons would be the ones screaming about the real evil and it would be you saying its not in our interest to deal with.theyd be warmongers, and your side would yet again by propping up the dictators, but blaming those who were trying to warn against the evil as being the ones trying to start the wars.

And Rand Paul would be saying we could trade with the REAL EVIL and that would solve all the problems.

१४/९/१३, २:५० PM
jr565 म्हणाले...

Cedarford wrote:
" Constant war speaks to our Good Character???"
No, turning a constant blind eye to evil speaks our bad character. And ill note that when you say peace, the country you are saying we shouldn't go to war with is engaging in war against its people, and also arming radical terrorists to wage war against another country. So, how much do you really care about war? Hezbollah wages constant war. To not deal with Syria and or Hezbollah does not then lead to less war. It leads to them being able to conduct a more effective war.so your calls of war monger are misplaced and applying two sets of standards for us and them.

I, as a warmonger, would not care one whit about Syria if they weren't arming Hezbollah, getting and using chemical weapons and acting as a proxy state for Iran. If hey were innocent like Sweden, no warmongers would have a boner to take them out. So look to the rogue regime for the cause of the war mongering. It is a reaction to provocation, not the cause of the provocation.

१४/९/१३, ३:०९ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...

"Most Americans do not see it is the mission of the US alone to be involved in constant conflict as we decline and decay - as some sort of sacrificial gesture to "tire out all global evil" on behalf of "all humanity"

That's your assertion. that we are seeking to tire out all global evil on behalf of all humanity. No, I want to deal with one regime that is behaving in behavior that warrants a response. I fully recognize that it will not solve all issues of evil. However, I think it can have the effett of making future evil harder since those commiting said acts have to think twice about commiting them.

INcluding, Syria. Syria didn't have a chemical weapons program. War is threatened, and now they do. The threat of war got them to tell the truth and suggest cooperation. Prior to Syria using its chemical weapons we'd be hard pressed to get your side to even admit that Syria had chemical waeapons. THe warmongers though,knew all about it, since their heads weren't up their asses in regards to Syria. And since that was the very reason why they were speaking tough on Syria in the first place.

१४/९/१३, ४:०१ PM
Mid-Life Lawyer म्हणाले...

Although I voted on the 3rd choice, it is with the awareness that no cover that would make Obama appear incompetent/evil/stupid/anything negative, is transparent to anyone who voted for him the second time. They have a denial mechanism that is impervious to even the most obvious.

Although I saw through the affirmative action creation the first time, I can understand how people got caught up in his bullshit. Second time Obama voters are unable to see through glass.

१४/९/१३, ४:३२ PM

टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा

याची सदस्यत्व घ्या: टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)