We're eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked

[Pooky 3,784]

Should a POTUS not listen to public opinion, and not consult the Senate? Would the US have been better off if Obama had simply launched missiles at Syria as soon as it was learned that chemical weapons could have been used even without knowing who used them? After all, the use of chemical weapons is 'illegal' in international law (Syria not having signed that agreement not withstanding) so it's not really surprising that the POTUS took a stand. Or, is the main argument that the US has no business saying anything at all when another country engages in what is for all intents and purposes civil war regardless of the weapons used?

What I find odd is that some people seem to revel in the POTUS perceived 'failure'. Is it really more important to hate on Obama because he's a liberal than accept that some things may be done differently than they might have been done had the POTUS been a republican during this crisis? I am not an Obama fan, never have been, but it seems to me that regardless of what I think would have been a better way of handling the crisis, we are not engaging in another conflict however limited and that is a good thing, not a bad one.

It's still uncertain whether or not there will be military action. The best outcome for the USA is that the US military is not called into action.

The problem I have is that the Administration appears to have stumbled onto a non-military solution by accident. After the speech by the POTUS, I'm still not sure whether or not the Administration is going to sabotage this way forward.

The international perception seems to be that the Administration's policy toward Syria resembles Inspector Clouseau's investigation of a crime -hopelessly out of its depth and possibly arriving at a kind of resolution wholly by accident.

That impression is not one the USA should be projecting.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's still uncertain whether or not there will be military action. The best outcome for the USA is that the US military is not called into action.

The problem I have is that the Administration appears to have stumbled onto a non-military solution by accident. After the speech by the POTUS, I'm still not sure whether or not the Administration is going to sabotage this way forward.

The international perception seems to be that the Administration's policy toward Syria resembles Inspector Clouseau's investigation of a crime -hopelessly out of its depth and possibly arriving at a kind of resolution wholly by accident.

That impression is not one the USA should be projecting.

Is this really true? Or is it more likely that we don't get very much information about what actually goes on in US government because news outlets these days are more interested in combative sound bites than in depth investigation and interpretation of current events?

What is the source of your international perception of the US? I don't get that from reading UK newsfeeds which is about all I read these days. I can see that's how some US OpEd's are talking but that's not the same thing.

Edited September 11, 2013 by The Truth™

[Pooky 3,784]

What is the source of your international perception of the US? I don't get that from reading UK newsfeeds which is about all I read these days. I can see that's how some US OpEd's are talking but that's not the same thing.

Family and friends overseas, in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. The story is the same when you talk to the people and bypass the media.

[Peikko 1,575]

Family and friends overseas, in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. The story is the same when you talk to the people and bypass the media.

None of my friends and family have said anything like that. My mom was upset that the US might launch a military strike but she didn't even hint that people back home think that the US leadership is dithery and comical. Besides which, the UK newspapers are quite capable of making caustic comments about the US and they haven't so far, but I didn't read much today so maybe that's a joy to come.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Family and friends overseas, in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. The story is the same when you talk to the people and bypass the media.

Must be a different Europe you're talking to.

None of my friends and family have said anything like that.

Same here.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Pooky 3,784]

Must be a different Europe you're talking to.

Must be different parts, but what I'm hearing is pretty consistent.

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

I don't watch Madcow or Thank God for Sandy boot licker Matthews so I don't know what they're saying.

But -

British Foreign Secretary William Hague has positioned his lips squarely on O's buttocks =

"The United States' decision to consider military action against Syria and growing evidence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was behind a chemical weapons attack helped persuade Russia to change its stance towards its ally in the Middle East, Hague added."

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-syria-chemical-weapons-deal-must-identify-secure-104647051.html

Edited September 12, 2013 by Crashed~N2~Me

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Oh good, more nicknames.

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Oh good, more nicknames.

It's a word association trick I learned years back. Helps in many scenarios &...it's fun.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Is there a story here, or are you using this forum as your blog?

You are probably too young to remember when a US President dictated policy to the Kremlin and collasped an evil empire. When a US President could stand in Berlin and say "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" and it happened! November 9, 1989.

The "new normal" is that our Puss-puss Prez gets told what to do by the KGB (Putin is, and always will be KGB) Putin then wirtes an Op-Ed scolding our President and the citizenry in the New York Times. Putin will now continue to poke his finger in Obama's eye...because he can. Snowden will be made a Russian citizen, by Putin, and we will never see the chemical weapons because it will be "just too complicated to do this during a civil war" and the Rebels...the AlQuaida operatives we support due to the recommendation of a 26 year old "expert" who lied about her Doctorate Degree and now got fired....will be the "reason" the weapons cannot be collected and turned over. Obama lost his initiative. His statement that "if this doesn't work THEN we will attack" is ludicrous. Pathetic even.

Since our Prez has no balls...and did not surprise Assad and Putin with a rain of missles from above, instead deferring it and downgrading it and more or less declaring when and where he would make his "incredibly small response" (as stated by Ho Chi Kerry) Then tried to pass it off on congress.

I guess he feels better having the KGB tell him to pound sand than having his party in congress do so.

this IS a story. This is perhaps the most incompetent collection of blunders and gaffes in US political history.

Good grief, what a #######!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

None of my friends and family have said anything like that. My mom was upset that the US might launch a military strike but she didn't even hint that people back home think that the US leadership is dithery and comical. Besides which, the UK newspapers are quite capable of making caustic comments about the US and they haven't so far, but I didn't read much today so maybe that's a joy to come.

Then they are unaware he is dithery. Tell the to read today's NYTimes and get informed. It is not comical. Of course this was before Putin scolded us in the NYT.

We just had our foreign policy handed to us by the Kremlin, nee...a KGB officer... and will get nothing for it.

I was not in favor of military resonse, but that does not mean we have to have the Russians handle our foreign policy for us. Obama babbled with his "red line" BS and couldn't talk his way out of it. He tried to fade the heat on congress..."congress won't let me" Then decided it is "better" to have Putin tell him what to do rather than his own party.

He should lock himself in his room for the next three years. Ho Chi Kerry should step down ad go be CEO of Ketchup.

[Peikko 1,575]

Then they are unaware he is dithery. Tell the to read today's NYTimes and get informed. It is not comical. Of course this was before Putin scolded us in the NYT.

We just had our foreign policy handed to us by the Kremlin, nee...a KGB officer... and will get nothing for it.

I was not in favor of military resonse, but that does not mean we have to have the Russians handle our foreign policy for us. Obama babbled with his "red line" BS and couldn't talk his way out of it. He tried to fade the heat on congress..."congress won't let me" Then decided it is "better" to have Putin tell him what to do rather than his own party.

He should lock himself in his room for the next three years. Ho Chi Kerry should step down ad go be CEO of Ketchup.

OH, it's true, your president is a right ####### head. Imagine, the US coming to this? How did you guys let it happen, eh?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

OH, it's true, your president is a right ####### head. Imagine, the US coming to this? How did you guys let it happen, eh?

More than half the US wants FREE stuff.

Here, your uninformed Euro friends can read what leaders of his own party say.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/top-democrat-almost-wanted-vomit-over-putin-op-140149800--abc-news-politics.html

[Peikko 1,575]

More than half the US wants FREE stuff.

Here, your uninformed Euro friends can read what leaders of his own party say.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/top-democrat-almost-wanted-vomit-over-putin-op-140149800--abc-news-politics.html

Oh, you mean he has won the popular vote? Looks like more than 50% of the people don't agree with you then. How'd that happen? You may be surprised to learn that my Euro friends aren't really that bothered how Obama is viewed by screwballs.

[Peikko 1,575]

Now, in other news a more rational and coherent observation of the current state of diplomatic discussion

The US secretary of state, John Kerry, on Thursday expressed cautious optimism that a deal could be reached to guarantee the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, as he began talks on the issue in Geneva with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov.

Appearing alongside Lavrov, shortly after the beginning of two days of negotiations, Kerry acknowledged that expectations were high but said: "We do believe there is a way to get this done."

Kerry insisted that the threat of military action against Syria, over a chemical weapons attack in the country on 21 August, remained an option. He also rejected Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's suggestion that he would have 30 days, under the standard terms of the chemical weapons treaty, to declare his stockpiles.

"We believe there is nothing standard about this process at this moment because of the way the regime has behaved," Kerry said. "And the words of the Syrian regime, in our judgment, are simply not enough."

The joint press conference between Kerry and Lavrov marked the start of an uncomfortable alliance between the US and Russia, after the two countries unexpectedly converged around a proposal to disarm Syria of its chemical stockpiles. Delegations of Russian and American technical experts are in the Swiss capital to discuss the mechanics of the disarmament plan, which would involve Syria identifying the locations of its stockpiles and handing over control to the international community.

Washington is seeking to shift responsibility for the success of any weapons destruction programme to Moscow. US officials argue that the plans for dealing with Syria's chemical weapons were put forward by Russia, and says its "prestige" is now at stake.

Earlier on Thursday, Assad told Russian television Syria would submit documents to the UN for an agreement governing the handover of its chemical arsenal. "Syria is placing its chemical weapons under international control because of Russia. The US threats did not influence the decision," Interfax said, quoting the state-run Rossiya-24 channel's yet-to-be-aired interview.

Assad said the process by which Syria was to become a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention would occur "in the next few days".

The White House and State Department both indicated on Thursday that the US was treating Assad's promise with scepticism. In Geneva, Kerry said: "It is too early to tell whether these efforts will succeed, but the technical challenges of trying to do this in the context of the civil war are obviously immense. But despite how difficult this is, with the collaboration of our experts, and only with the compliance of the Assad regime, we do believe there is a way to get this done."

Kerry said Syrian weapons destruction would need to be credible, comprehensive, verifiable and implemented quickly, and added that there would need to be "consequences" for Assad if he did not comply with his obligations. He did not specify whether such consequences would involve the use of force against Syria.

However, he also said that the credible threat of military action had forced Syria into conceding that it possessed chemical weapons and agreeing to their destruction, and maintained that the threat of strikes remained. Lavrov said that the securing of Syria's chemical weapons "will make unnecessary any strike against the Syrian Arab Republic".

Kerry adopted softer language than has recently been used by the Obama administration, saying only that "force might be necessary" to deter Assad from using his weapons if the diplomatic route failed.

The question over whether force could be authorised, in the event that Syria did not comply with chemical weapons actions, is at the centre of negotiations at the UN in New York, where a possible resolution is being drafted.

Lavrov added that Russia's position on Syria had been laid out in president Vladimir Putin's op-ed article in the New York Times. "I am convinced that all of you have read this article," Lavrov said.

In the article, Putin welcomed the new diplomatic initiative over Syria but condemned a US tendency toward unilateral "brute force" and sharply criticised America's belief in its own "exceptionalism". The article caused consternation in Washington.

The Republican senator John McCain said the article was "an insult to the intelligence of every American", while the Democratic chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, Robert Menendez, said of reading the piece: "I almost wanted to vomit."

The US administration chosen more diplomatic language. A State Department deputy spokeswoman, Marie Harf, said the time had come for Putin to "put forward actions now, not just words".

The White House spokesman Jay Carney said: "The important thing is that both in his op-ed and in his statements and actions, president Putin has invested his credibility in the transfer of Assad's chemical weapons."

He added: "[Nevertheless] there's a great irony in the placement of an op-ed like this because it reflects the truly exceptional tradition in this country of freedom of expression – something on the decrease in the last dozen or so years in Russia."

Carney said the White House would not tolerate any delay by the Syrian government and would continue to provide military assistance to rebel groups throughout the process.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/12/john-kerry-syria-chemical-weapons-surrender