Russia snaps up Kerry's proposal for Syria to turn over arms

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Sep 9, 2013.

  1. chompalot
    Offline

    chompalot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,952
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +304
    Answer to your first question: No always. For instance, when the decision for a military action is made the Ambassador would likely be on board. The answer to your second question: She said that our military action would be limited.

    BTW, rick, weren't you on the Cheney/Bush bandwagon to invade Iraq?
  2. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    No. Afghanistan yes, but not with boots on the ground. That was a huge mistake, and so was the nation building in either country. Nation building is not what our military should ever be used for. Nor should we ever have to pay for nation building after going to war. Besides, nation building is so WWII... and the Muslims will never like us afterwards... even if we rebuild their stinking nation.
  3. cocodrilo
    Offline

    cocodrilo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    10,931
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +679
    Don't let Halliburton hear you say that.
  4. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    They're mercs, not military. They're part of the old school GOP that thinks bilking money (nation building) after a costly war is a good way to spend/waste the taxpayers' money.
  5. cocodrilo
    Offline

    cocodrilo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    10,931
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +679
    Yes, they're mercs, which means the military takes care of them. It started out as Brown & Root, Texas benefactors of Lyndon Johnson, who gave them, Bell Helicopter of Texas and others the Vietnam War to make piles of money. As Halliburton they had Dick Cheney to look after them.

    LBJ, Dick Cheney... I think I'm going to be sick.
  6. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,477
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +961
    Just a few scant years ago, Dems were called traitors for espousing this viewpoint.

    Lesson for pubs: it may take awhile, but Dems are usually proven right by time.
  7. gatorchamps0607
    Offline

    gatorchamps0607 Always Rasta

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    39,980
    Likes Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ft. Myers, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,710
    Good lord fred will you EVER stop talking about the past? You bring up the Bush years more than ANYONE on this board. It's rather pathetic, actually.

    "But Bush....."
    "Dems did so and so"
    "When Bush was in office"
    "You didnt say that about Bush"

    It's like you have Bush tourettes syndrome. Get over it already.
  8. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Historical perspective is always a valuable tool in understanding the present. What's the beef, except that the comparison may bring up memories some would rather forget?
  9. oldgator
    Offline

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    looks like Obama taking the stand of military action is having the effect of getting Russia to support removing chem weapons from Syria.

    Obama taking same sort of gutsy action as POTUS that JFK did to shatter the Cuban missile crisis.
  10. gatorchamps0607
    Offline

    gatorchamps0607 Always Rasta

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    39,980
    Likes Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ft. Myers, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,710
    The beef isn't with one single comment. This guy probably thinks about Bush more than his own wife does. It's not healthy to continue to obsess over one man for years and years.
  11. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    France, which has been our staunchest ally in this incident since the UK Parliament's "no mas":

    "France to push Russian proposal on Syrian chemical weapons at U.N. Security Council

    BERLIN — An unexpected Russian proposal for Syria to avert a U.S. military strike by transferring control of its chemical weapons appeared to be gaining traction on Tuesday, as France said it would draft a U.N. Security Council resolution to put the plan into effect, and China and Iran voiced some support.

    French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told reporters in Paris that by bringing the proposal to the security council, the world would be able to judge the intentions of Russia and China, which until now have blocked efforts to sanction Syria for any actions during its two-and-a-half-year-long civil war..."​

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9ff-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html?hpid=z1

    Probably goes nowhere but if so hopefully we don't chase it too long, as it is just as likely intended as a time waster by the Russians.
  12. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    OK, if that's the way you see it.
  13. gatorpa
    Offline

    gatorpa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,955
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    East Coast of FL
    Ratings Received:
    +296
    Except Obama looks the fool and Putin completely out maneuvered him.

    Remember Obama "knows Assad did it" after a few weeks and after a year still saying duh about Benghazi, etc.

    Theses are also the chem weapons that Syrian military has under its control.
  14. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,088
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,419
    Speaking of Iraq, kind of makes you wonder where Syria got all these chemical weapons, doesn't it? :whistle:
  15. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    13,590
    Likes Received:
    923
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,697
    Sure is a good thing that Putin and Assad are such good and honorable men that they can be taken at their word. Meanwhile, they can keep funding and arming the Hezbollah mercenaries and the internal security force and give them the extra gas to use as they see fit.

    Assad, Iran, and Putin are all laughing their arses off watching the lap dog 0 scramble to get the crumbs they drop on the floor.
  16. The_Graygator
    Offline

    The_Graygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    34,824
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,132
    And Obama can do nothing but sit there and look like an absolute fool over all of this.
  17. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    This is the best possible solution to a bad set of circumstances.

    That said, I doubt it came cheaply. One wonders what Obama had to give up to get Putin to agree with it?
  18. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +350
    I have avoided posting on this topic for quite some time, although I have discussed it with some folks who I sometimes and even regularly disagree with, but who's opinions I respect a lot, via PM. However, I guess I'm about to put myself to the firing squad by saying something now.

    The use of chemical weapons is morally obscene and on par with the use of nuclear weapons and genocide in its depravity. It should be beyond any toleration. And for a government to use it on its own people, particularly in a desperate effort to cling to power, is beyond any level of outrageous. I would hope we can all agree with that.

    The next question is, even though it is hardly something we want to do, should military action be on the table in such a circumstance? After a lot of contemplation and questioning, I am left to conclude that the answer is yes. I think history has shown this for two reasons. First, that level of moral depravity requires intervention, punishment, and nuetering those who are so morally depraved that they would resort to such a weapon. Second, if they are willing to do so now, what makes us think that our oceans are going to protect us when we become the target? To me, little if anything. History has shown that our oceans make us rarely the first target, but hardly save us from being an ultimate target.

    Today's development, however, is an incredibly positive one. I don't want us to engage militarily in Syria. I don't think many people do, including the administration. But it is not lost on me that for this development to happen there needs to be a carrot and a stick. Our threat of military intervention is the stick and that Russia, who has historicaly been closer than us to Syria, Iran, Iraq and a number of other Middle Eastern states, is a very credible carrot.

    That being said, I don't know if this was a mistake (as some have suggested) or a plan by the administration (possibly even with Russia's preexisting agreement for some time), but, if it works, I don't care. Assad has said he will give up his chemical weapons to Russia and, if that happens and can be confirmed, I'm more than happy for that resolution. But our continued threat of military action needs to remain on the table in order to make that happen.

    I hope that this really can be resolved diplomatically, with us playing bad cop and Russia playing good cop. But, one way or another, Assad having access to chemical weapons is not acceptable.
  19. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,042
    Likes Received:
    466
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,535
    So who else has chemical weapons, and will the UN make them give them up ?

    Or will we ?

    If Kerry's gaff was a planned one, Barry Oh! is finally learning how to play checkers.

    If not - which I suspect - the best outcome would be that we blundered into some sort of a temporary foreign policy, instead of having none.
  20. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    Lol... so true.

Share This Page