Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons

[blackascoal]

I hope so, but do you think that will stick when President Obama is out of power?

Republicans are in a state of metamorphosis.

Antiwar/isolationist/libertarians are taking root there ... and I think they would be against this if a republican was proposing it.

They don't like people like John McCain and the warhawk bunch.

 

[Damocles]

I suppose that's fair, though I'd comment that bumbling seems to be an effective strategy so I wouldn't necessarily call it a flaw.

Bumbling idiocy and childlike disdain will not always present a good result, but in this one time somebody seized a moment and snatched a good result from the jaws of the wardog.

 

[Damocles]

Republicans are in a state of metamorphosis.

Antiwar/isolationist/libertarians are taking root there ... and I think they would be against this if a republican was proposing it.

They don't like people like John McCain and the warhawk bunch.

I wouldn't so much call it isolationism as I would call it a more centralized focus. Is there a valid reason for us to be in Syria? What is the compelling interest to the US? Before the questions were asked Obama was ready to flow on in there because he called "Red Line" and that's clearly an International Legal Term for "we get to blow you up" or can also be interpreted to mean "all your base are belong to us".

Anyway, yeah. I think that most of us would still be against this if it were a republican who proposed it, in fact McCain's been begging for it for the past 2 years.

 

[Bonestorm]

Bumbling idiocy and childlike disdain will not always present a good result, but in this one time somebody seized a moment and snatched a good result from the jaws of the wardog.

Lol.

 

[Bonestorm]

It's gotten to the point that I don't even understand what Damo is trying to actually say except that Obama is the worst regardless.

 

[blackascoal]

I wouldn't so much call it isolationism as I would call it a more centralized focus. Is there a valid reason for us to be in Syria? What is the compelling interest to the US? Before the questions were asked Obama was ready to flow on in there because he called "Red Line" and that's clearly an International Legal Term for "we get to blow you up" or can also be interpreted to mean "all your base are belong to us".

Anyway, yeah. I think that most of us would still be against this if it were a republican who proposed it, in fact McCain's been begging for it for the past 2 years.

You make my point .. better than I did. :0)

Unbeknownst to the casual eye, the Republican Party is indeed morphing.

Although the question remains, will they morph away from the social issues that keep them separated from mainstream society?

 

[Annie]

Republicans are in a state of metamorphosis.

Antiwar/isolationist/libertarians are taking root there ... and I think they would be against this if a republican was proposing it.

They don't like people like John McCain and the warhawk bunch.

I agree with this. A few posts down you ask if they are also changing on social issues, abortion? No, not for most. Some of the truly extreme RW, (which contrary to what others try to say about me, I'm not), are for prayer in schools, creationism, some anti-science-they are unlikely to change, but they are small numbers. (Probably around same as liberal anarchists, Occupiers.)

However, in regards to issues like hunger, homelessness, neglect of children/elderly, healthcare? The differences are in how best to address, at what level of government or if it should be government/private, but NOT whether or not to address. You may laugh and we'll never know, but if 9/11 hadn't happened, I think GW was going to articulate the partnerships between private and government to so address. I don't think we've had such a compassionate President since Carter and Bush was a hellava lot warmer.

 

[Big Money]

Why did Obama and Kerry conceal the fact that they were warned more than once that the rebel fighters have chemical weapons?

 

[Damocles]

You make my point .. better than I did. :0)

Unbeknownst to the casual eye, the Republican Party is indeed morphing.

Although the question remains, will they morph away from the social issues that keep them separated from mainstream society?

I can only hope.

 

[Damocles]

Why did Obama and Kerry conceal the fact that they were warned more than once that the rebel fighters have chemical weapons?

Because it doesn't fit with the current "spin".

Look over there! It's a video of somebody insulting Islam! Put somebody in jail fast!

 

[blackascoal]

I agree with this. A few posts down you ask if they are also changing on social issues, abortion? No, not for most. Some of the truly extreme RW, (which contrary to what others try to say about me, I'm not), are for prayer in schools, creationism, some anti-science-they are unlikely to change, but they are small numbers. (Probably around same as liberal anarchists, Occupiers.)

However, in regards to issues like hunger, homelessness, neglect of children/elderly, healthcare? The differences are in how best to address, at what level of government or if it should be government/private, but NOT whether or not to address. You may laugh and we'll never know, but if 9/11 hadn't happened, I think GW was going to articulate the partnerships between private and government to so address. I don't think we've had such a compassionate President since Carter and Bush was a hellava lot warmer.

First, thanks much for the sincerity good sister.

I'm not advocating that republicans need be democrats, liberals/progressives to inch closer to mainstream society, but there has to be room for dialogue and compromise from all sides. People shouldn't be demonized for their differences.

You should know that some try to beat me up because I have complimentary and even glowing things to say about George Bush. I know, call me stupid. :0)

But these are some of my favorite pictures of American political history ..

George Bush with his head on an African baby afflicted with AIDS.

As I said, they TRY to beat me up about Bush, but they cannot.

Although it does not minimize the horror of what he did in Iraq, George Bush has saved over a million African lives. Against the wishes of his own party, he walked into the White House door committed to doing something real about AIDS .. and he did it.

 

[blackascoal]

Why did Obama and Kerry conceal the fact that they were warned more than once that the rebel fighters have chemical weapons?

Good question.

 

[Big Money]

Good question.

I'm interested in hearing the answer too, my good Brother.

Why aren't the O-BOMB-YA cheerleaders stepping up?

 

[Annie]

First, thanks much for the sincerity good sister.

I'm not advocating that republicans need be democrats, liberals/progressives to inch closer to mainstream society, but there has to be room for dialogue and compromise from all sides. People shouldn't be demonized for their differences.

You should know that some try to beat me up because I have complimentary and even glowing things to say about George Bush. I know, call me stupid. :0)

But these are some of my favorite pictures of American political history ..

George Bush with his head on an African baby afflicted with AIDS.

As I said, they TRY to beat me up about Bush, but they cannot.

Although it does not minimize the horror of what he did in Iraq, George Bush has saved over a million African lives. Against the wishes of his own party, he walked into the White House door committed to doing something real about AIDS .. and he did it.

Thank you for fairness. In 1999-2000 Bush truly was addressing domestic issues, he really wanted to work at 'home' and not on interventions. As I said, 9 months in, after horrible transition, 9/11 happened, so we'll never know. But there are indications when one looks at AIDS, his immigration stands, (whether or not I agreed with him, isn't the point), even the very misguided "No Child Left Behind." I don't think he got the presidency he thought he would, then again, which of them does?

 

[blackascoal]

I'm interested in hearing the answer too, my good Brother.

Why aren't the O-BOMB-YA cheerleaders stepping up?

Simply put, because they can't.

They've invested so much in Obama, the recognition of his failure is devastating to many.

 

[Annie]

Simply put, because they can't.

They've invested so much in Obama, the recognition of his failure is devastating to many.

Yeah, there's just a touch of truth in this:

 

[Montessa]

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.

A giant elephant at that!

 

[blackascoal]

A giant elephant at that!

Of Godzilla proportions.

 

[Montessa]

Exactly! Kerry is probably stamping his feet and throwing a tantrum right now because he completely opened the door to a resolution. And of course Assad has been given a green light to continue his war, sans the chemical weapons.

I have to speculate that he never did need chemical weapons and probably never did use them anyway. That makes this a complete victory for Russia and Syria no matter how the US propagandists try to spin it.

However! And here's where it gets a lot more complicated. The US will not be denied it's planned war and so that leaves only for the US to somehow move the goalposts and demand more than Obama has stated, or, make the claim that Syria is not complying.

Either way, the American people are going to fall into line with the demands for war and there will be a war.

I have to continue to say that Obama doesn't want war and it will be the political right that will take up the fight for war. We'll have to wait and see but in any case there is no doubt that the US will go to war with Syria in some fashion.

Could it be with a strike by the US that causes Syria to shoot down a US plane? Could it be with continuing US pinprick strikes that cause Syria to strike back successfully, killing an American or two? There's no doubt an American death will do it for the American people!

Thus, WAR!

Nah, I am not so sure. I think Obama only beat war drums because of his own dumb "red line" statement. Seriously, I think he is that arrogant and self absorbed. Putin and Assad have helped him save face. Of course they are the ones who stand to be the actual winners.

After the debacles of Libya and Egypt, I think he may have become a tad bit weary of his ideological belief that you can befriend these folks and then sing Kumbaya. That is why he had not armed rebels early on in Syria and why I think he will still drag his feet in this regard- Look at the players who are now involved and again remember Libya and Egypt.

Someone posted about Russia's gain regarding natural gas sales to Europe, and Assad maintaining control of exports in the region. In the end, it's always about power, and power is always tied to money. Westerner's like to play with power in board rooms- Arabs like Jihad. Sometimes we get sucked into their Jihad because they won't play nice with us. Syria was not one of the times we needed to get sucked in. I contend rebels gassed Syrians. I further contend that they were not non sectarian rebels, but Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaeda, hoping to drag us in to defeat Assad. They did so because we failed to arm them. I give Obama kudos on that one. Pundits argue that had we armed them immediately before these outsiders got involved, it would have been a good thing- the appropriate thing. I disagree, we have done this too many times only to have4 it blow up in our faces. Think Contras and Sandinista.

 

[monty1]

Nah, I am not so sure. I think Obama only beat war drums because of his own dumb "red line" statement. Seriously, I think he is that arrogant and self absorbed. Putin and Assad have helped him save face. Of course they are the ones who stand to be the actual winners.

After the debacles of Libya and Egypt, I think he may have become a tad bit weary of his ideological belief that you can befriend these folks and then sing Kumbaya. That is why he had not armed rebels early on in Syria and why I think he will still drag his feet in this regard- Look at the players who are now involved and again remember Libya and Egypt.

Someone posted about Russia's gain regarding natural gas sales to Europe, and Assad maintaining control of exports in the region. In the end, it's always about power, and power is always tied to money. Westerner's like to play with power in board rooms- Arabs like Jihad. Sometimes we get sucked into their Jihad because they won't play nice with us. Syria was not one of the times we needed to get sucked in. I contend rebels gassed Syrians. I further contend that they were not non sectarian rebels, but Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaeda, hoping to drag us in to defeat Assad. They did so because we failed to arm them. I give Obama kudos on that one. Pundits argue that had we armed them immediately before these outsiders got involved, it would have been a good thing- the appropriate thing. I disagree, we have done this too many times only to have4 it blow up in our faces. Think Contras and Sandinista.

I respect the fact that you are thinking more deeply about all this than the typical rabble no-minds on this forum. However, I disagree with most of it. I sure don't disagree that the gas use was by the terrorists and I think that the US intelligence agencies couldn't be unaware of that. The rest of your post, I won't get into details on what I agree with and disagree with for now.

You do raise some plausible possibilities.

edit: Oh, and I find it an interesting idea that Putin and Assad would want to help Obama save face. That could only be possible if they think Obama is their best chance to prevent war.