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.

Probably, but I'm not really torn up about it either as the alternative to him isn't super encouraging.

Thanks Ouze for the compliment

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2

So Putin wrote an op ed, a decent read.

 juraigamer wrote:
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.

No you weren't about to go through with it.

You bluffed with the "Red Line" comment and then when that bluff was called (either by Assad or the rebels, I still don't know who did it), and the US realised that they had no international support to speak of, you ran around like headless chickens not knowing what to do (the "we didn't set the Red Line, the world did" comment).

You weren't about to go through with it when your President had just shifted the hot potato to Congress to try and get out of it.

It makes the US look weak in the eyes of Iran because you weren't able to fulfil a treat that you made. And it makes Russia look strong (again, to Iran and possibly other ME countries), because they where able to stop the "Great Satan" from attacking another Muslim country.

But I agree with you, this really is a win for everybody involved if it really goes through. Just pray to whatever gods you believe in that the UN report on the chemical attack either confirms that it was Assad that did it, or that it never surfaces now that this has blown over a bit... Because if that report says that the rebels are really responsible for that massacre...

I really don't like that we're "putting the onus on Russia" to resolve this.

We made the issue out of it, and the first thing we did was threaten to go to war. Then Russia (the one whose supposed to be the bully) steps in with a calm head, suggests a peaceful plan, and now we want them to resolve the issue.

So we just end up looking like the warmonger.

This is getting ridiculous.

 djones520 wrote:
So we just end up looking like the warmonger.

Yeah that would represent a drastic change of opinion from the rest of the world's current perspective of the us, which I'm sure was edging towards record highs before this whole diplomacy thing got in the way. .

 Crablezworth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So we just end up looking like the warmonger.

Yeah that would represent a drastic change of opinion from the rest of the world's current perspective of the us, which I'm sure was edging towards record highs before this whole diplomacy thing got in the way. .

And our oh so great "Nobel Peace Prize" winning President is only reinforcing a bad image by failing to do his job, which is be a leader. Leader of The Free World. Used to be synonymous with that office. Not anymore.

He refused to take the lead when we "wanted" to use force, and now he's refusing to take the lead now that peace is on the table. He's showing the world, and our enemies, that he's a weak knee'd punk.

Before anyone points out I was for using force before, that hasn't changed. But the political picture has, and we need to adapt with it, and stay on top, which we aren't.

Well Obama also did come out saying we are the "World Police Force". Well...I think I saw an article about him saying that. Not sure....going back o bed....

 whembly wrote:
Should Assad be held accountable for even using the weapons?

http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/non-member-states/

States that have neither signed nor acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention. . . Syria

So Syria does not recognise the restrictions on chemical weapons do we still get to enforce it upon them? And if we do then is that opening the door for our ally Israel to receive the same treatment concerning her alleged stockpile of nuclear weapons? Whatever action we take going forward needs to be careful, considered, and measured. As shown by the use of Kerry's own words against the Administration, people are watching what we say and do and it will be used against us and our allies at a later date.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Well Obama also did come out saying we are the "World Police Force". Well...I think I saw an article about him saying that. Not sure....going back o bed....

Obama came out and said that we are not the world police, but then went on to say how we should involve ourselves in another country's affairs. After all, the world set the red line, not him. But he just wants to be the one to enforce it because that'll show we aren't the world police. Right?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Should Assad be held accountable for even using the weapons?

http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/non-member-states/

States that have neither signed nor acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention. . . Syria

So Syria does not recognise the restrictions on chemical weapons do we still get to enforce it upon them? And if we do then is that opening the door for our ally Israel to receive the same treatment concerning her alleged stockpile of nuclear weapons? Whatever action we take going forward needs to be careful, considered, and measured. As shown by the use of Kerry's own words against the Administration, people are watching what we say and do and it will be used against us and our allies at a later date.

Syria didn't brake any laws by having the chemical weapons, and theoretically the Chemical Weapons Convention can't be enforced on Syria because they didn't sign it, but if it is proven that Assad did really use chemical weapons on civilians, then he can be trialled under the International Criminal Court (which Syria did sign but has't ratified the treaty yet).

PhantomViper wrote:
Syria didn't brake any laws by having the chemical weapons, and theoretically the Chemical Weapons Convention can't be enforced on Syria because they didn't sign it, but if it is proven that Assad did really use chemical weapons on civilians, then he can be trialled under the International Criminal Court (which Syria did sign but has't ratified the treaty yet).

Good point. Maybe he'll now claim that Syria no longer intends to be a party to the treaty.
I'd imagine that getting the evidence against him may prove tricky, and that any potential political deal involving his being replaced would include immunity from prosecution.

Many, people don't haveanything more coherent except.... "Thanks alot Obama!" in a sarcastic voice.

No matter what he did on Syria, it would have been wrong.

 Easy E wrote:
Many, people don't haveanything more coherent except.... "Thanks alot Obama!" in a sarcastic voice.

No matter what he did on Syria, it would have been wrong.

If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, then don't. Same result with less effort

We should have let Syria stay as Russia's playground and when they start criticising the US we point to their activities in Syria to show their double dealing and lack of bona fides. Instead we've handed them a propaganda victory on the world stage by allowing them to act as the peacemakers.

Our response should have remained humanitarian, while pushing for a political settlement. Not claiming we are not the world police, then saying the world wants us to lead a military response to the Assad regime.

 Easy E wrote:
Many, people don't haveanything more coherent except.... "Thanks alot Obama!" in a sarcastic voice.

No matter what he did on Syria, it would have been wrong.

I actually supported intervening Syria... o.O and now? "Thanks alot Obama!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Many, people don't haveanything more coherent except.... "Thanks alot Obama!" in a sarcastic voice.

No matter what he did on Syria, it would have been wrong.

If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, then don't. Same result with less effort

We should have let Syria stay as Russia's playground and when they start criticising the US we point to their activities in Syria to show their double dealing and lack of bona fides. Instead we've handed them a propaganda victory on the world stage by allowing them to act as the peacemakers.

Our response should have remained humanitarian, while pushing for a political settlement. Not claiming we are not the world police, then saying the world wants us to lead a military response to the Assad regime.

Yeah... someone posted, ( I forget), said that we should've created massive humanitarian logistics around Syria... then, just bomb the feth out of the known CW depot and any forces attacking civvies. I liked that plan.

I still dont get why we differentiate so much between the use of chemical weapons and bombing the gak out of people. People that weren't "intended" to die die in both instances.

Hell, one could argue using chemical weapons is less devastating as there are plenty that don't destroy all of the architecture and infrastructure.

 cincydooley wrote:
I still dont get why we differentiate so much between the use of chemical weapons and bombing the gak out of people. People that weren't "intended" to die die in both instances.

Hell, one could argue using chemical weapons is less devastating as there are plenty that don't destroy all of the architecture and infrastructure.

It could be borne out of the aftermath of WW1 and the deployment of the first atomic devices at the end of WW2.

Chemical biological and nuclear agents are potentially more destructive bomb weight wise than equivalents of TNT, torpex or whatever the hell they put in sdbs and such. It's all about casualties.

Thanks for the correction Dread. Seem I forgot to add "not" into the sentence

 Jihadin wrote:
Thanks for the correction Dread. Seem I forgot to add "not" into the sentence

No worries, I half caught the story and thought that maybe I had mis-read it

What if instead of the US president, instead of being the leader of the free world was the leader of a free country, and other free countries could also chime in and not be demonized if they don't follow the leader?

There's like, at least one or two other countries that appear to be labouring under their own freedom, I think. I could be mistaken though.

What if, perhaps, an issue like Syria could be debated without ending up yet another piece of nonsense in the 'yay my team boo your team' of US politics. Seriously, like two thirds of this thread has just stupid noise about whether Obama did good or did bad, instead of being about, you know, the actual issue of what the world should do about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

It's fething incredible, really.

People blame bush for using WMDs as an excuse for getting into Iraq. Now Were using chemical weapons as an excuse to interject on a conflict that, in the eyes of many, we don't need to be a part of.

Now the whole "chemical weapons" bs is being shoveled as the excuse go to Syria because its "inhumane," as if any weapon for war is more humane.

It took like three years before we in Bosnia in Force. We've another year to go unless Syrian conflict goes across borders

 cincydooley wrote:
People blame bush for using WMDs as an excuse for getting into Iraq. Now Were using chemical weapons as an excuse to interject on a conflict that, in the eyes of many, we don't need to be a part of.

It's different and nothing like Iraq.

Didn't you listen to John Kerry?

 sebster wrote:
What if, perhaps, an issue like Syria could be debated without ending up yet another piece of nonsense in the 'yay my team boo your team' of US politics.

Hey man - do you remember that one time where we never did that ever?

 sebster wrote:
What if, perhaps, an issue like Syria could be debated without ending up yet another piece of nonsense in the 'yay my team boo your team' of US politics. Seriously, like two thirds of this thread has just stupid noise about whether Obama did good or did bad, instead of being about, you know, the actual issue of what the world should do about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

It's fething incredible, really.

Have they confirmed it was assad who did it?

Kerry said if Syria didn't have chemical weapons then we wouldn't invade/attack? If so that's sound advice that Putin ran with.

 sebster wrote:
What if, perhaps, an issue like Syria could be debated without ending up yet another piece of nonsense in the 'yay my team boo your team' of US politics. Seriously, like two thirds of this thread has just stupid noise about whether Obama did good or did bad, instead of being about, you know, the actual issue of what the world should do about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

It's fething incredible, really.

You're honestly surprised?

 sebster wrote:
What if, perhaps, an issue like Syria could be debated without ending up yet another piece of nonsense in the 'yay my team boo your team' of US politics. Seriously, like two thirds of this thread has just stupid noise about whether Obama did good or did bad, instead of being about, you know, the actual issue of what the world should do about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

It's fething incredible, really.

I thought we had already reached the conclusion that "the world" shouldn't do anything? At most this should be solved by the Arab League since any intervention by western nations would just serve to inflame the whole region even more.

I thought we all agreed "Thanks alot Obama!"?

Chemical weapons are considered worse than conventional bombs because we essentially can exterminate vast numbers of people like vermin in an indiscrimnate way.

Way back in the day, even before the Great War at the Hague Conference (?) they decided that bombs and bullets were less dangerous because the soldier had the ability to choose not to pull the trigger on such devises. Chemical weapons not so much. That was the logic of the time, and still holds sway in people's minds. Is it an artificial construct, just like everything else.

Plus, people think kinetic weapons are less terrible than the air you breathe suddenly killing you as you are walking to the latrine.

Like I said before...at least chemical weapons don't completely devastate the buildings and roads where they're deployed......

I don't get the whole arbitrary notion that chemical weapons are worse than massive incendiaries.