Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:
Thirded.

Russia isn't trying to help Obama save face. That's for darn sure.

The notion isn't that Russia tried to help Obama save face, it's that Russia came up with a plan that massively assists their own goals in the region at the expense of ours, and Obama jumped on it as a way of saving face after bluffing and losing.

How did Obama lose?

 Easy E wrote:
How did Obama lose?

By putting Russia firmly in the driver's seat on Syria, which in turn puts it firmly in the driver's seat on Iran.

 Easy E wrote:
How did Obama lose?

Seriously?
-His threats have been proven to be hot air. When Britain decided not to go along (thank you British MPs!!!!) he immediately ran for cover with Congress. When he makes the next threat no one will believe him.

-His team has been made to look utterly rudderless with mixed signals moment by moment.

-His "extreme elasticity in regards to the truth" in his statement that he didn't make the red line, the world did, makes him out to be, well a Chicago style politician.

-And none of this, none of it, is the fault of anyone but himself.


Don't let this man speak without a teleprompter again...

Obama's thread was so weak that Syria's biggest ally suddenly decided to do a complete flip on their position just so that they could help their biggest imperialist and capitalist frenemy save face.

Makes complete sense.

 d-usa wrote:
Obama's thread was so weak that Syria's biggest ally suddenly decided to do a complete flip on their position just so that they could help their biggest imperialist and capitalist frenemy save face.

Makes complete sense.

You really love arguing against the notion that Russia decided to help us out.

Unfortunately, nobody's saying that.

In 10 years time we will have all forgotten about chemical weapons being used against a civilian population.

It will be an afterword or a footnote to the discussion of Obamas red line policy.

PhantomViper wrote:

The US is free to intervene whenever it wants, but attack Syria after Assad has agreed to relinquish control of its chemical arsenal and while negotiations to do so are under way and Obama will come across just as bloodthirsty and "warmongery" as Bush was. And you are running dangerously low on allies that are whiling to accompany the US in these little adventures without risking pissing off a few more of them with a stunt like that...

Or, in other words, it isn't free to intervene whenever it wants.

PhantomViper wrote:

Russia never said that Syria didn't have chemical weapons. Russia never even hinted that Syria didn't have chemical weapons. Its a publicly known fact that they do have a chemical arsenal and they aren't breaking any international laws by having those weapons, so I fail to see what your point is on insisting that Russia somehow wanted to hide that...

I never said that Russia was attempting to hide the Syrian chemical stockpile. The point I was attempting to make is that they have consistently tried to minimize the significance of it in the context of this conflict, while simultaneously avoiding any confirmation of its existence. As such, this proposal is very nearly a complete reversal of policy as it not only involves the recognition of the Syrian chemical arsenal, but places emphasis on it.

 d-usa wrote:
Obama's thread was so weak that Syria's biggest ally suddenly decided to do a complete flip on their position just so that they could help their biggest imperialist and capitalist frenemy save face.

Makes complete sense.

Outmaneuvering the US politically on the world stage showing that all the US had to offer was military action that no one wanted to support, and using the words of Secretary of State Kerry against us is helping us save face?

I was looking at it as Russia demonstrating that they could accomplish what Obama could not, thus proving Putin's manhood to the world while making Obama look like a metrosexual.

 djones520 wrote:
Russia's plan is more "reasonable" then ours was, which is why we end up as the losers here.

Russia has, ostensibly, just balked at making it's plan enforceable.

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
How did Obama lose?

By putting Russia firmly in the driver's seat on Syria, which in turn puts it firmly in the driver's seat on Iran.

Wasn't the goal to stop Assad from using Chemical weapons? Does this Russian proposal stop using Syria from using Chemcial Weapons (if it works)?

The rest of the supposed "failures" are just belly aching that Obama's statements managed to make change happen, but not the way people wanted the change to happen.

I thought you guys would be happy since this would mean no strikes, that many of you were against won't happen and the US doesn't even have to be involved? I'm so confused on what you want, unless all you want is to complain about Obama.

I'm fairly certain that Seaward was in favor of intervention.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
In 10 years time we will have all forgotten about chemical weapons being used against a civilian population.

It will be an afterword or a footnote to the discussion of Obamas red line policy.

10 years? 10 days more like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
I was looking at it as Russia demonstrating that they could accomplish what Obama could not, thus proving Putin's manhood to the world while making Obama look like a metrosexual.

Well, when Russia offered Syria a missile shield, they really meant Putin's furry man chest. Evidently it seems 100% effective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Russia's plan is more "reasonable" then ours was, which is why we end up as the losers here.

Russia has, ostensibly, just balked at making it's plan enforceable.

its not trying to. It has no intentional of actually being helpful. This little shiznit will drag on for months and months, giving Assad enough time to finish the rebellion.

Don't assume Obama is not, in fact, un ok with that.

 Easy E wrote:
Wasn't the goal to stop Assad from using Chemical weapons?

Yes, but that's merely one of many goals. Syria's a problem not solely due to it being Syria; it's a problem based on where Assad's support is coming from, the example it sets going forward, the precedent it sets for our dealings with hostile Russian client regimes, etc.

Does this Russian proposal stop using Syria from using Chemcial Weapons (if it works)?

Temporarily, until someone just sells them more. Let's not rule out the possibility that it will be Russia.

The rest of the supposed "failures" are just belly aching that Obama's statements managed to make change happen, but not the way people wanted the change to happen.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Absolutely nothing has changed yet, and there's no guarantee it will. If it does, however, I'm still not comfortable with us luckily stumbling our way into halfway-workable foreign policy due to an off-hand suggestion from possibly the most soporific individual since Ben Stein played that teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I'd like a little more coherency than that.

If the president never intended to take military action, that's fine. The majority of the country elected him to make that kind of call. But he shouldn't have bluffed if he didn't anticipate the consequences of getting called.

 dogma wrote:
I'm fairly certain that Seaward was in favor of intervention.

I was, yes, and I remain so. I posted several months ago that I thought we should begin an air campaign as soon as possible, for a long, long list of reasons.

I think we missed our window of opportunity, however. Let these conflicts get entrenched, and the ostensible "good guys" start to take on a more and more radicalized complexion.

Wait? Some of you people got the case of the ass because Russia seemed to have stop Syria/Assad/Rebels(if they agree to it) to turn over their chemical stock pile to Russian control? I thought that was the goal of stopping the use of chemical weapons in Syria? Russia came up with a better idea then what Obama had going and you people are taking a piss at it?

 Frazzled wrote:

its not trying to. It has no intentional of actually being helpful. This little shiznit will drag on for months and months, giving Assad enough time to finish the rebellion.

I understand that Russia is not trying to aid the US, and I understand that it is trying to exacerbate the controversy within the US. What amuses me is the fact that the people preoccupied with Russian agency tend to be those that grant it.

 Frazzled wrote:

Don't assume Obama is not, in fact, un ok with that.

I don't, and never did.

 Jihadin wrote:
Wait? Some of you people got the case of the ass because Russia seemed to have stop Syria/Assad/Rebels(if they agree to it) to turn over their chemical stock pile to Russian control? I thought that was the goal of stopping the use of chemical weapons in Syria? Russia came up with a better idea then what Obama had going and you people are taking a piss at it?

I'm not...

If Russia can truly get them to turn over the stock... that kudos for Russia.

But that still doesn't excuse Assad from using it in the first place.

 Jihadin wrote:
Wait? Some of you people got the case of the ass because Russia seemed to have stop Syria/Assad/Rebels(if they agree to it) to turn over their chemical stock pile to Russian control? I thought that was the goal of stopping the use of chemical weapons in Syria? Russia came up with a better idea then what Obama had going and you people are taking a piss at it?

You know something, Jihadin - you're a good egg. We're not on the same sides of things often politically, but I have noticed that in all this time we've spent debating stuff on the forums, this and that, you never pull any nonsense. You don't move goalposts, you don't erect strawmen, you don't make personal attacks, you don't feign outrage, and - this is the rare part - you have proven yourself to be a reasonable guy. I just thought someone should tell you - you're an OK dude.

Anyway, I agree with you. I didn't want us to bomb Syria because I didn't want the country to get entangled into a foreign civil war. I would have preferred a diplomatic solution; and look - now we have one (maybe). The idea that Vladimir Putin, of all people, is helping Obama save face is laughable... but at the end of the day, if we're now not going, I'm good with it.

Now perhaps we can try working with Russia to force an end to the civil war. However, it's not really in their best interests to do so since they'd stop being able to sell them as many arms as they can now; but who knows?

 Ouze wrote:
The idea that Vladimir Putin, of all people, is helping Obama save face is laughable...

No one is suggesting this.

I'm considering putting that in my sig.

I still don't see where any one is saying the Russians are deliberately helping Obama save face, he's still getting a pie to the face, it's just not a pie to the face while waist deep in dog gak like intervening in Syria would be.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

By accepting a face saving solution Obama has lost face and been publicly humiliated!

No news yet on whether there is a face saving method that actually saves face for Obama.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
In 10 years time we will have all forgotten about chemical weapons being used against a civilian population.

It will be an afterword or a footnote to the discussion of Obamas red line policy.

The opposite of that, actually.

In 10 years time the nonsense about how Obama has handled this will be forgotten, or remembered as just one more piece of horse race political discussion in the never ending 'yay my political team boo your political team' drone,

What will be remembered is that Syria deployed chemical weapons as part of an on-going process of targeting civilian populations, and how the world responded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
I was looking at it as Russia demonstrating that they could accomplish what Obama could not, thus proving Putin's manhood to the world while making Obama look like a metrosexual.

Only if we pretend the Russian's are offering the plan to remove weapon stocks from its client state completely of their own accord, with no relation to the US' willingness to launch missile strikes. And then we play even more pretend games, and think Syria would acceptance the plan of reducing its weapon stocks in the midst of a brutal civil war, just because, and not as a measure to avoid US missile strikes.

Do have to admit that it stopped a US military response. Even if Obama goes for it he and the US chalked one in the "lose/lose" column. I would not be surprised if Putin gets a Nobel Peace Prize

 Ouze wrote:
You know something, Jihadin - you're a good egg. We're not on the same sides of things often politically, but I have noticed that in all this time we've spent debating stuff on the forums, this and that, you never pull any nonsense. You don't move goalposts, you don't erect strawmen, you don't make personal attacks, you don't feign outrage, and - this is the rare part - you have proven yourself to be a reasonable guy. I just thought someone should tell you - you're an OK dude.

I just liked to say I agree with this. Jihadin debates like it ought to be done.

Seems like a pretty good win all around, if they just give up the weapons peacefully.

The main goal was to stop the use/distribution of chemical weapons. Goal achieved (as long as pressure is kept up to make them follow through).

Everything else said on the matter is just faffing about (aka politics).

I'm not quite sure how anyone could claim this makes america look weak.

We made a threat, were about to go through with it, and now they want peace?

No money was spent, no extra lives lost, no missiles fired, we skip the "war" part and go straight to peace again.

Seems win win. Unless your a moron.

If it had been an immediate deal, maybe.


But as it is. We spent too much time derping around, especially after the British vote. Plus Obama's little "I never set a Redline" comment.

It really just makes Obama, and the US, look weak overall. The Russians on the other hand don't want to get involved in a big snit at the moment and really picked the course of action that benefited them the most.

What really takes the cake is them looking like the peacekeeper(classic role reversal) while the US government seems flatfooted.


Putin really gave us an offer we can't refuse with timing that's impeccable.

If the offer had been made right after Obama gave a final ultimatum minutes before launching the missiles it would have been different. But the timing of the offer was perfect for them.

Should Assad be held accountable for even using the weapons?