|
Xandu posted:I've read he keeps a pretty casual office on holidays/weekends, at least compared to Bush. Didn't Bush like to power down hot dogs and ice cream at the Resolute desk?
|
# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:45 |
|
|
# ? Jun 7, 2024 09:43 |
|
ufarn posted:All jokes aside, it's interesting that the president isn't wearing a tie. And McCain hasn't been shown how to wear one properly
|
# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:48 |
|
SedanChair posted:Didn't Bush like to power down hot dogs and ice cream at the Resolute desk? quote:“I’ll never forget going to work on a Saturday morning, getting called down to the Oval Office because there was something he was mad about,” said Dan Bartlett, who was counselor to Mr. Bush. “I had on khakis and a buttoned-down shirt, and I had to stand by the door and get chewed out for about 15 minutes. He wouldn’t even let me cross the threshold.”
|
# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:48 |
|
Is there any reason that Obama and Putin can't have a chat about Syria during G20 this week? Aside from Obama's previously announced snub of Putin because of Snowden, which Obama could surely set aside before making the momentous, politically unpopular and expensive decision to bomb the hell out of Syria? Even if Obama decides to hold onto his petulance, couldn't he do the world-leader version of "I'm not talking to him because we're having a spat, so YOU CAN TELL HIM FOR ME..." But seriously, a summit of the nation's most powerful leaders might provide a good sounding board before the U.S. decides to pursue any reckless unilateral actions, no?
|
# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:52 |
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Whether or not he personally ordered the attacks isn't really important and almost certainly wouldn't change the response from the White House, other than to move a few names up or down the "people to kill" list. e: Unless, you know, Obama just wants to do the bare minimum he has to and get the gently caress out, which doesn't actually require whatever he does to work as a deterrent, just that it be easily spun as such. Ambrose Burnside fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Sep 2, 2013 |
# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:53 |
|
Willa Rogers posted:Is there any reason that Obama and Putin can't have a chat about Syria during G20 this week? Aside from Obama's previously announced snub of Putin because of Snowden, which Obama could surely set aside before making the momentous, politically unpopular and expensive decision to bomb the hell out of Syria? What do you think would be gained by that?
|
# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:58 |
|
What's the deal with the AP reporter claiming the rebels did it? Sorry if this has been talked about but this thread has been going a mile a minute.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:58 |
|
He doesn't really work for the AP (he's a freelancer), it wasn't published by the AP, and he wasn't in the country doing the reporting, and the story seems to be made up.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:59 |
|
Xandu posted:What do you think would be gained by that? Yeah there's nothing to be said that hasn't already been aired.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:00 |
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Yeah there's nothing to be said that hasn't already been aired. Well, you'd know.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:01 |
|
SedanChair posted:Didn't Bush like to power down hot dogs and ice cream at the Resolute desk? Bush 41 was fairly casual. quote:"Mr. Nixon said that he permitted the men in his office to take their suit coats off, but that he never did, because he wouldn’t like the way it made him feel," I (Greene) said. Anyways, so this doesn't become The Middle East: Presidental Suit Chat I do have a question. With the Syrian security forces supposedly hiding in mosques and schools there's not a large chance that those locations would be bombed , right?
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:02 |
|
It seems unlikely (to me at least) that regular military personnel would be the primary target of any strikes.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:08 |
|
So it's been reported that McCain is on board with Obama on Syria. I think the traditional GOP will come on board but the isolationist teapartiers will prob vote no. No idea how democrats will vote.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:11 |
|
^^^ Sounds like a good time to make some constituent phone calls.Xandu posted:What do you think would be gained by that? I dunno; maybe old-fashioned diplomacy, as Jimmy Carter suggested the other day: quote:The use of chemical weapons on August 21 near Damascus is a grave breach of international law that has rightfully outraged the world community. The United States and some of its European allies are calling for military strikes on Syria, but apparently without support from NATO or the Arab League. Predictably, Russia, Iran, and Syria are predicting dire consequences. At Syria's invitation, a U.N. investigation is already underway and will soon make its report. A punitive military response without a U.N. Security Council mandate or broad support from NATO and the Arab League would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war. It will only harden existing positions and postpone a sorely needed political process to put an end to the catastrophic violence. Instead, all should seek to leverage the consensus among the entire international community, including Russia and Iran, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and bringing under U.N. oversight the country's stockpile of such weapons. I know diplomacy's been displaced by our government's insistence on immediate unilateral bombing, but what's the harm in doing a lil peace-mongering first? If nothing else, it makes for better international optics about saving the country through bombing it. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Sep 3, 2013 |
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:12 |
|
I can't see any reason for Assad to negotiate given his current position and Russia almost assuredly can't force him to. If he wanted to leave and retire peacefully with a bunch of money, he had plenty of chances to do so. There's yet to be a successful ceasefire up to now, and the opposition isn't unified enough to make demands. edit: A little peacemongering first? Geneva's been talked about for over a year at this point. Secondly, look at Lebanon's sectarian strife post-Taif to see the problems inherent in a lot of the discussed peace settlements.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:14 |
|
Xandu posted:I can't see any reason for Assad to negotiate given his current position and Russia almost assuredly can't force him to. If he wanted to leave and retire peacefully with a bunch of money, he had plenty of chances to do so. That doesn't really answer the question of what's the harm in a little confabbing, given the meeting this week and all. Congress isn't even getting back to D.C. for another week so it's not like anything's getting held up time-wise. It's really bizarre to see summary dismissals of Carter, of all people, for the crazy concept of peace talks before we start unilaterally bombing a country in the Mid-East.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:18 |
|
There's no harm, it just doesn't accomplish anything. Ignoring years of envoys and conferences and attempts at peace to act as though military action came out of nowhere isn't really accurate.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:19 |
|
Nckdictator posted:With the Syrian security forces supposedly hiding in mosques and schools there's not a large chance that those locations would be bombed , right? Right, but they have to leave sanctuary eventually in order to conduct a war. Holing up in a mosque is probably a great way to get surrounded. And, what Xandu said. They can't bring along their heavy weaponry, aircraft, equipment and infrastructure with them. That's pretty much the only thing giving them parity with the rebels. If that's been getting them into a stalemate with the insurgency and now they're separated from it, you can guess how that will turn out.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:21 |
|
Xandu posted:There's no harm, it just doesn't accomplish anything. Ignoring years of envoys and conferences and attempts at peace to act as though military action came out of nowhere isn't really accurate. I'm so old that I remember when we'd actually try to solve this sort of stuff face to face before bombing a country, and this week's timing with G20 would be auspicious for that. But if the decision's been made already that we're going to bomb the country then you're correct: a peace summit would be of no value. vvv So what's one more sitdown, then?
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:22 |
|
Willa Rogers posted:I know diplomacy's been displaced by our government's insistence on immediate unilateral bombing, but what's the harm in doing a lil peace-mongering first? If nothing else, it makes for better international optics about saving the country through bombing it. Have you even been paying attention to Syria before this week? Obama's been desperately trying to avoid doing what you're accusing him of being gung ho for since day one.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:23 |
|
So do Lakhdar Brahimi and Kofi Annan not count? edit: This isn't new, Russia and China and the Arab World, supported by the UN and the West have been active players in peace attempts that went nowhere. Maybe we should keep trying for a while longer, but this isn't just a sudden decision.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:23 |
|
Since Syria is broke and Russia isn't selling them guns, isn't it simply a grind to the bottom now? It's not like Tehran isn't equally bankrupt, especially compared to the Gulf states. I really wonder if Iran thinks it can win.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:24 |
|
Willa Rogers posted:That doesn't really answer the question of what's the harm in a little confabbing, given the meeting this week and all. Congress isn't even getting back to D.C. for another week so it's not like anything's getting held up time-wise. Because Obama would be confabbing with someone who doesn't have control of either side of the conflict, just as Obama doesn't have any control of either side of the conflict? And before you even approach trying to get both sides to agree to peace you'd have to figure out who should even be representing the rebels. Basically see every previous attempt to negotiate peace, or even a temporary cease-fire, for why suggesting peace talks is just facetious.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:25 |
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Have you even been paying attention to Syria before this week? Obama's been desperately trying to avoid doing what you're accusing him of being gung ho for since day one. Golly, if only there were a way for the commander in chief not to bomb something. Hard to stop yourself, just accidentally slip and fall on the launch button.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:29 |
|
cafel posted:Because Obama would be confabbing with someone who doesn't have control of either side of the conflict, just as Obama doesn't have any control of either side of the conflict? I totally accept the fact that I'm pretty ignorant on the topic, which is why I relied on Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter as my source. I guess he's dumb and doesn't know poo poo about the diplomacy business either.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:31 |
|
Well you could just as easily rely on Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama Kofi Annan posted:I accepted this task, which some called “Mission Impossible” - for I believed it was a sacred duty to do whatever was in my power to help the Syrian people find a peaceful solution to this bloody conflict. Not much has changed in a year. Xandu fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Sep 3, 2013 |
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:31 |
|
Nobody fighting on the ground is intrested in peace, so at most it would be the US and Russia Having talks about not supplying Assad/not bombing Assad, and then looking the other way while a dude literally gasses people. "Peace".
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:32 |
|
YodaTFK posted:and then looking the other way while a dude literally gasses people. "Peace". I honestly believe this will immediately occur once the bombing is done anyway. edit: Anybody have a rough idea of the kinds of things to be destroyed? Some report on AJE mentioned pro-regime protesters camping around potential infrastructure targets, like electricity. Could be lies too, though. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Sep 3, 2013 |
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:35 |
|
Nonsense posted:I honestly believe this will immediately occur once the bombing is done anyway. Probably!
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:40 |
|
Xandu posted:There's no harm, it just doesn't accomplish anything. ...which probably makes it a net plus over a cruise missile strike at this point in time.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:44 |
|
Aurubin posted:The White House looks really tacky. I hate antebellum/Victorian decor. As for non-furniture related "news": Israeli propaganda? No. It has very little to do with memories of Saddam and his chemical attacks. Rasfanjani is a somewhat moderate voice of opposition and has his fingers all over anything financial in Iran so it's not surprising he would be a voice of dissent if he thought $$$ was being wasted and he could take political advantage of it. With the crappy Iranian financial situation over the past few years there's been a lot of public resentment directed at the $$$ received by Hezbollah and Syria.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:46 |
|
shovelbum posted:We need to launch a few missiles first so Obama can save face, then resume implementing this solution. If the president doesn't kill some people to score political points that'd be terrible. whatis posted:Something I don't know if I've seen discussed yet: If a country or non-government group like AQ really wanted to hit the US and wasn't on a timeline there is nothing that will stop them from sneaking something in to the US if they can't get what they need here (Oklahoma City, both WTC attacks...etc). After that point it'd be a matter of moving and not getting yourself caught before you act. The downside is that if/when something like that happens the response won't be "well we brought this on ourselves, and it is impossible to have total safety" it'll be "oh gently caress we need Patriot Act 2: Patriot Harder we can't let the terrorists win no you can't have privacy gently caress you you must be a terrorist " At this point the best thing would be if the GOP actually votes against any strike, which they might because gently caress Obama, since then Obama can just cry about how he really wanted to act but couldn't, and we don't get drawn (further) in to another lovely conflict that nobody wants us involved in. Yes the fighting sucks, but it's not our fight. Every time someone dies the US doesn't need to do a flyby and bomb poo poo. If we did then places like Chicago would be nothing but rubble and ash.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:48 |
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If the president doesn't kill some people to score political points that'd be terrible. If someone, somewhere doesn't reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons such that the international community at large backslides into using them again, that'd be much more terrible than mere cynical framing of the situation.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:52 |
|
Dolash posted:If someone, somewhere doesn't reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons such that the international community at large backslides into using them again, that'd be much more terrible than mere cynical framing of the situation. This would make sense if chemical weapon use hasn't been continuously tolerated on the sly if it's being done by one of America's friends.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:54 |
|
Can we get people to stop claiming that Obama has done everything he possibly can to stop a war? It's a valueless nationalistic statement, pure propaganda invoked in every single war, and happens to be totally inaccurate in this case.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:56 |
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:This would make sense if chemical weapon use hasn't been continuously tolerated on the sly if it's being done by one of America's friends. If you're referring specifically to White Phosphorous being used by Israel, I agree that that's also terrible and should've been met with international condemnation and action of some sort. That it wasn't, however, shouldn't mean that now all bets are off. Any enforcement the ban on chemical weapons gets is good - certainly if it's a case as blatant as a sarin gas attack.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:59 |
|
Dolash posted:If someone, somewhere doesn't reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons such that the international community at large backslides into using them again, that'd be much more terrible than mere cynical framing of the situation. Yeah, that's totally going to happen and isn't a steaming pile of bullshit. You do get that virtually no one has chemical weapons, right, and the US not bombing a country when they use chemical weapons isn't going to make every dictator perk their heads up and say "Hey, time to spend a shitload of money on weapons that aren't even that useful" - just like that didn't happen when Saddam used chemical weapons.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:59 |
|
Tezzor posted:Can we get people to stop claiming that Obama has done everything he possibly can to stop a war? It's a valueless nationalistic statement, pure propaganda invoked in every single war, and happens to be totally inaccurate in this case. Not even nationalistic, it's actually the even-worse party-line apologism.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:00 |
|
Dolash posted:If you're referring specifically to White Phosphorous being used by Israel, I agree that that's also terrible and should've been met with international condemnation and action of some sort. That it wasn't, however, shouldn't mean that now all bets are off. Any enforcement the ban on chemical weapons gets is good - certainly if it's a case as blatant as a sarin gas attack.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:01 |
|
|
# ? Jun 7, 2024 09:43 |
|
Aurubin posted:Since Syria is broke and Russia isn't selling them guns, isn't it simply a grind to the bottom now? It's not like Tehran isn't equally bankrupt, especially compared to the Gulf states. I really wonder if Iran thinks it can win. Sanctions have loving ruined Iran. There's been protests against the theocracy's support of Syria because it's been taking money out of Iran to help float Assad through the civil war. The outside-looking-in thought is that Rouhani was a bandage to help assuage the growing discontent with Iran's economy, since he's kinda a reformer and not a Basij thug like Ahmadinejhad. Edit: loving beaten, since someone is talking about the recent Jerusalem Post article on this. In addition, but there the reports of Assad launching chemical attacks have disturbed some of Iran's more hardliners and even military leadership. Remember, a lot of those guys were just frontline grunts during the Iran-Iraq war and they wouldn't use chemical weapons on their worst enemy because of what they've experienced there.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:02 |