POTUS: Russia is not Playing the US on Syria

[Keukasmallies]

http://www.cbsnews.c...gle Feedfetcher

 

"If you give me a hamburger today, I'll gladly pay you Tuesday." J. Wellington Wimpy

Edited September 15, 2013 by Keukasmallies

[DC Tom]

"...but he downplayed the fear that Russian President Vladimir Putin is "playing" America, insisting Russia has a vested interest in a stable Syria.

 

 

You moron...they have a strong interest in a stable, Assad-led Syria. That's how you're getting played.

[Barack Obama]

"...but he downplayed the fear that Russian President Vladimir Putin is "playing" America, insisting Russia has a vested interest in a stable Syria.

 

 

You moron...they have a strong interest in a stable, Assad-led Syria. That's how you're getting played.

My Russia/Syria policy is not that dissimilar from Obamacare. If you like your dictator, you can keep him

[Koko78]

"I'm less concerned about style points. I'm much more concerned with getting the policy right," Obama told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview on "This Week."

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-rejects-criticism-shifting-syria-policy-im-less-130259612--abc-news-topstories.html

 

Well at least he managed to make no style points on the way to an ineffective joke of foreign policy. It takes real talent to go 0-for-2.

[/dev/null]

Watching the Sunday talk shows, Team Obama is spinning this as they played Russia to get Syria to give up their chemical weapons

 

Tell a lie enough and it becomes the truth

[B-Man]

Mr. President, if you have to state that you are not being played...............

 

 

you've been played.

 

 

 

 

 

Jay Leno: 'I'm on That New Obama Diet. Every Day I Let Vladimir Putin Eat My Lunch'

 

 

 

.

[Chef Jim]

Mr. President, if you have to state that you are not being played...............

 

 

you've been played.

 

 

 

 

 

Jay Leno: 'I'm on That New Obama Diet. Every Day I Let Vladimir Putin Eat My Lunch'

 

 

 

.

 

I was going to say the same thing. This guy is a spineless joke.

[B-Man]

[DC Tom]

 

Oh, please. Obama's Syria policy isn't that coherent.

[B-Man]

[dayman]

Basic summary I get from it is:

 

1) Syria is not a proxy for a US/Russian conflict (IMO this is true, despite how entertaining it is to act like there is an actual real international conflict that means anything between US and Russia)

2) Assad is backed by Putin here, I don't back Putin, however, we deal with Russia on other issues including important military issues regarding a war we are currently fighting and other terrorism operations. (seems reasonable)

3) Then reinforces that, in light of these facts, Syria is not cold-war between US/Russia. (Once again, a true statement)

4) In the end he wants to do something about chemical weapons but do something that requires little to no US mission. (probably smart if you ask me)

5) If weapons in Syria are taken and they sign the weapons pack, that to me would be a good job. (I can't argue with that...pushed for enforcement of international norm...got some results...no war).

 

I know this is just me defending Obama again...but just so happens it is also just me calling it as I see it as well.

[Chef Jim]

Basic summary I get from it is:

 

1) Syria is not a proxy for a US/Russian conflict (IMO this is true, despite how entertaining it is to act like there is an actual real international conflict that means anything between US and Russia)

2) Assad is backed by Putin here, I don't back Putin, however, we deal with Russia on other issues including important military issues regarding a war we are currently fighting and other terrorism operations. (seems reasonable)

3) Then reinforces that, in light of these facts, Syria is not cold-war between US/Russia. (Once again, a true statement)

4) In the end he wants to do something about chemical weapons but do something that requires little to no US mission. (probably smart if you ask me)

5) If weapons in Syria are taken and they sign the weapons pack, that to me would be a good job. (I can't argue with that...pushed for enforcement of international norm...got some results...no war).

 

I know this is just me defending Obama again...but just so happens it is also just me calling it as I see it as well.

 

But if he gets from #1-#5 why do I feel it's going to look like this?

 

[DC Tom]

Basic summary I get from it is:

 

1) Syria is not a proxy for a US/Russian conflict (IMO this is true, despite how entertaining it is to act like there is an actual real international conflict that means anything between US and Russia)

2) Assad is backed by Putin here, I don't back Putin, however, we deal with Russia on other issues including important military issues regarding a war we are currently fighting and other terrorism operations. (seems reasonable)

3) Then reinforces that, in light of these facts, Syria is not cold-war between US/Russia. (Once again, a true statement)

4) In the end he wants to do something about chemical weapons but do something that requires little to no US mission. (probably smart if you ask me)

5) If weapons in Syria are taken and they sign the weapons pack, that to me would be a good job. (I can't argue with that...pushed for enforcement of international norm...got some results...no war).

 

I know this is just me defending Obama again...but just so happens it is also just me calling it as I see it as well.

 

Mostly accurate (subject to debate on matters of degree, not substance). But it ignores the fact that we got to that point by a complete lack of any meaningful policy and a complete void of any thought into the matter. And ignores the fact that, if Putin didn't take the lead on matters, we'd already have bombed Syria (or made excuses why we should have but couldn't - Congress, the UN, the House of Commons, etc.)

 

Just because the end result is, in fact, pretty decent, doesn't mean that it was achieved in any sense.

[dayman]

Mostly accurate (subject to debate on matters of degree, not substance). But it ignores the fact that we got to that point by a complete lack of any meaningful policy and a complete void of any thought into the matter. And ignores the fact that, if Putin didn't take the lead on matters, we'd already have bombed Syria (or made excuses why we should have but couldn't - Congress, the UN, the House of Commons, etc.)

 

Just because the end result is, in fact, pretty decent, doesn't mean that it was achieved in any sense.

 

IDK. At the very least it was achieved by the act of not bombing. Not bombing is an affirmative act for us in situations like this. Oh and by the way I'll take the results anyway. Funny enough Obama actually comments on this, and imo he's probably right when he says if he had been more affirmative and just made the decision to bomb and then bombed people would have "graded" it better.

Edited September 17, 2013 by SameOldBills

[DC Tom]

IDK. At the very least it was achieved by the act of not bombing. Not bombing is an affirmative act for us in situations like this.

 

That is horseshit.

[Chef Jim]

IDK. At the very least it was achieved by the act of not bombing. Not bombing is an affirmative act for us in situations like this. Oh and by the way I'll take the results anyway. Funny enough Obama actually comments on this, and imo he's probably right when he says if he had been more affirmative and just made the decision to bomb and then bombed people would have "graded" it better.

 

Who do you give credit for us not bombing?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Who do you give credit for us not bombing?

When "I didn't bomb you today" has become the singular talking point of an entire foriegn policy...

 

well...

 

Enough said.

[GG]

 

Just because the end result is, in fact, pretty decent, doesn't mean that it was achieved in any sense.

 

End result? Really?

[DC Tom]

End result? Really?

 

Yeah, I know. I wanted to keep it simple and address the salient point.

[dayman]

Point being complaining about how we handle something is better than complaining about how we create a disaster out of something.