Exposed: The Obama Invasion of Syria

[Something completely different]

I typed out a very wordy response Germans... Then I deleted it... Basically it went: Putin is a shady guy, not a cuddly teddy bear, but that doesn't make him wrong in this instance.

I know full well what Putin is saying is a poisoned apple... It all sounds just a wee bit too good. But that doesn't make him incorrect in certain regards. He's as slimy as a politician can get, but he makes some very valid points. Really, what his op-ed is doing is destabilizing Obama. Politically speaking, it's really quite smart.
The rest of the world is watching the US's political, geopolitical, and economic decline. It's obvious our two party system isn't working the way it should. Without some changes it's clear the current political situation is not sustainable. The Republicans are eating themselves alive and getting crazier by the day. The Democrats are spineless, oligarchs, though the Republicans have more than their fair share of oligarchs too. I think the rest of the world is waiting with baited breath to see how the mighty will fall. Everyone loves a good tragedy after all. The US's situation is a culmination of self-inflicted wounds. What could be more tragic? It's clear the US is in a pronounced period of decline, much like Western Europe following WWII. How will the US handle such damage to their reputation? Will the US continue to dominate in the one arena we clearly have the upper hand in (ie. military power)? Or will we look inwards and fix some of our very serious internal issues? We certainly won't handle it with as much grace as Europe did... which doesn't exactly bode well...

As to Putin not being in a position to champion diplomacy and civilian lives... Well, one would think the Nobel Peace Prize winner would do that instead of insisting on military action against a sovereign nation that has done no direct harm to those outside of their country. One would think Obama would have been the one to seek a diplomatic solution. But no, it wasn't him... It was the thug Russian. That deserves some props, because it takes some balls to stand up to the US who is notorious for simply waltzing in and intervening militarily in various countries, no matter what Putin's personal motivations are.

I do not defend Obama in every single action he has undertaken. I am making a destinction between your domestic problems and foreign policy. What ever your countries people may think of intervention, as long as your country officialy states to be the leader of the free world, it has to serve those responsibilities. That may have been previously abused as recently as during the Bush administration, but it it does not excuse looking away when something happens that may require intervention.

Ah, no. There is no international law that says it is illegal to support a government that the west wants to remove for any reason. There is an international law that say attacking a country that doesn't pose a direct threat to you is illegal without UN sanction.

So Russia is supporting international law where international law has something to say. Russia is supporting Syria where international law has nothing to say.

Don't make the mistake of thinking internaitonal law is whatever suits your personal conception of what western sensibility is for the moment.

As I stated before in a previous point. Russia is not a democracy, the UN and the institutions that enshrine and protect international law are democratic. It is not a coincidence that there is not a single Russian judge at the Hague. To honestly and sincerely participate in a democraticaly structured institution one has to accept and be willing to protect the principles of democracy. Which is why the UN and it`s securety council are a worthless institution, they give democratic possitions to dictators in the naiv hope that they may act in accordance to democratic principles.
So passing a resolution which which would have negative effects on dictatorships in a "parlament" filled with dictators, is like passing a bill condeming fascists in a parlament in which representatives are fascists.

And finaly, no matter how nice the Putins shit cake might smell to some of you, several people in Russian labor camps all accross Sybiria and the people living under the brutal regime in Chechnya, know exactly what intentions lie behind those words.

[Anomalocaris]

Do you have point? Is that point "Putin is against what I cherish and therefore he is wrong even if he is right?"

[Something completely different]

Do you have point? Is that point "Putin is against what I cherish and therefore he is wrong even if he is right?"

Putin is a dictator and therefor cannot engage in a democratic process let alone argue to defend such principles.

The man is a vicious snake and he is not right, his thinking is merely in line with what you see as right. Not even I have claimed to be right.
And what you seem to overlook is that his line of thinking does not simply involve a non intervention by the US, but the prevailing of a certain regime despite several war crimes being committed by it.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't care about his line of thinking. His points are valid.

[Something completely different]

I don't care about his line of thinking. His points are valid.

it is not.

He is painting an untrue picture by ignoring the good that has been done by the US, and yes there is good. He is appealing to emotions by reinvoking memories of the catastrophies which are Afghanistan and Iraq and is outright liying when concerning Lybia. War wearyness is not an excuse for not intervention when it is required. And so far every other argument brought forward here is one that claims that "maybe" the chemical weapons "could have been" used by the rebels. Which is something unexpected and utterly idiotic. There is a good reason why whites claimed that civil rights leaders were planting bombs in black churches to make the "KKK look bad". Aswell as there is a reason why Hitler blamed international judaism for the beginning of WW2, Iran blaming 9/11 on the goverment ecetera. It is a pathetic flight from what the indications really point at and to paint somethign that would otherwise not stand by itself as legit.

And it is utterly disgusting that the man whos party has murdered and beaten half dead journalists uses the free press of the west to publish this message. May Anna Politkovskaya rise from the dead and eat his face.

[Minimalist]

A moderate-ish republican (by today's standards) could probably win the vote here.

Well, now you are back to being right. They have purged the party of moderates. There is nothing left but corporate criminals and batshit crazy teabagging morons.

[Something completely different]

Third parties sometimes come to rise through historic events which splitt a traditional political camp.

The greens in Germany gained their power which gave them participation in parlament, govermen and as governor, through various such events.

-Most of them where 1968 generation protest students who could not gain much out of the moderate socialist party
-During the 1980s the conservatives disenfranchised traditional voters by aproving of projects which harmed the enviorment, thereby driving those voters to the greens.
-During the 1990s and early 2000s that power was well used when they first came into goverment by giving this country the best foreign secretery it arguably ever had.
-2 Years ago a brutal police crackdown on a group of old age protesters also gave the greens more power to the extent that they were elected into a governor office.

In the end it is attention which gives new parties their rise into politics. One has to establish oneself through relentlessly and continuously pressing ones issues and showing that the others are incapable of solving those.

One should also lower ones expectations. Third parties never form a goverment. But they can impact the goverments decisions in a great way.
The fact that there are 2 and not 4 or even 5 parties in your congress is the biggest thing i critizise about your democracy.



But then again, even if your congress was on fire it couldnt pass the the "put the fire out in congress" bill.

I am not sure if a third party would change that, third parties simply make compromises in a democray an unavoidable thing for every other party and stubbern hardliners who never compromise lose their possitions. But in your case your senetores campain on the image of being stubbern and not on the image of being people who can work with others. And if a red state would vote for a third party that would only be an even more crazy party which is less capable of compromise. So only the political left would be capable of compromise, which is useless when there is nobody to negotiate a compromise with.

Maybe you should have simply let the South secede so it could have been the shity version of Mexico that it always wanted to be.

[festive1]

I do not defend Obama in every single action he has undertaken. I am making a destinction between your domestic problems and foreign policy. What ever your countries people may think of intervention, as long as your country officialy states to be the leader of the free world, it has to serve those responsibilities. That may have been previously abused as recently as during the Bush administration, but it it does not excuse looking away when something happens that may require intervention.

Who died and made the US responsible for dealing with all the bad things that various countries do? There is a link between our foreign wars, current economic issues, and a considerable amount of the political division in the US. Domestic problems, in part, stem from our foreign policy. How are we ever going to get out of the role of "World Savior" without simply putting it down? If we continue intervening all the time, it just perpetuates itself and becomes a vicious cycle. We can't break the cycle by doing the same thing. We can break it by doing something different, like trying diplomacy or not intervening militarily in every single situation that displeases us. Instead of looking away, maybe pressure the international community to pick up the slack. We don't have to look away, but we certainly cannot continue using our military in all of these instances.

[kılıç_mehmet]

So IS the Obama administration invading Syria?

No.

A fiew air and missle strikes are certainly not an "invasion".

Invasion would be to send troops in for the purpose of conquest.

Here, the purpose of the missle and air strikes clearly is to "punish" a regime for it`s use of chemical weapons.

The words "invasion", "no evidence" and "Al Quaida" are simply thrown arround by the Alex Jones braindead conspiracy club and the Ron Paul friends of sociopaths society.

And you mean that they don't have troops to invade Syria? I'm sure Obama will pressure our servile prime minister to the supply "troops" that will do the conqureing. Of course we won't be getting any of the spoils though.
In the light of all their past wrongdoings, there is nothing more than I wish for Syria to be paid in kind. But not like this.

[Minimalist]

Aw...poor John McCain. Doesn't get his war.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/se...-statement


Fuckhead acts like a baby who just had his toy taken away.