|
Putin continues to troll the everliving poo poo out of the US, I guess. I can't even think of a metaphor or simile or analogy to describe this any more.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Ambassador Rice has now turned her Syria speech into an "Iran must not have nukes" thing. What is going on? Does anyone take this seriously?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
OBAMA CURES ALAWIS posted:Ambassador Rice has now turned her Syria speech into an "Iran must not have nukes" thing. And now she's going on about North Korea? Don't mean to TVIV this but it started out with her making her case fairly clearly and has just gone on and on into some strange ramble that keeps repeating itself. e: I liked that pause after she talked about the measures they and their allies were taking to stop Iran getting nukes, so you could mentally fill in "and covertly assassinating Iranian scientists" The New Black fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
"Energy security", ding ding!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
What the gently caress is Rice going on about?! She's literally going "we have to bomb because video also parents also Iran"
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
https://www.people-press.org/2013/09/09/opposition-to-syrian-airstrikes-surges/ quote:Over just the past week, the share of Americans who oppose U.S. airstrikes in Syria has surged 15 points, from 48% to 63%, as many who were undecided about the issue have turned against military action. By contrast, the share of Americans who support airstrikes remains virtually unchanged: Just 28% favor U.S. military airstrikes against Syria in response to reports that its government used chemical weapons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Looking away from Rice's weird presser for a second, could anyone point me toward a summary of what's going on with the Kurds in Syria? I heard that they were basically a third side in the war a while back, and reading around on wikipedia suggests they're mostly fighting with al-Nusra rather than government forces, but I have no idea if that's accurate. Are they trying to form their own state, or is it more about just keeping the rebel/government fighting away from their region?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
OBAMA CURES ALAWIS posted:Ambassador Rice has now turned her Syria speech into an "Iran must not have nukes" thing. Perhaps it's some sort of clever joke about how if Syria is willing to give up their chemical weapons, it will be received as warmly as Iran's willingness to give up enriching uranium  e: beaten like an idiot eSports Chaebol fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
It's becoming pretty clear that there isn't any actual philosophy behind Obama's foreign policy and that everything has just been responding to any situation with a crisis management sort of approach. Minimize the damage, make it go away and make it look like we did the right thing. Only it's now all catching up with them and piling up in an ugly car crash of rhetoric. And now from a State Department spokeswoman we have this gem.quote:Harf, the state department spokeswoman, underscores US skepticism of the talk coming out of Moscow and Damascus about a new quarantine of Syrian chemical weapons. "All we've heard today are statements from Russians and Syrians who've lied for the last two years..." Harf says. Quickly someone pound on the reset/overload button!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
Shout out to Pyongyang and Israel and Palestine, this is really all about Iran's nukes because as an ally of Syria they are in fact responsible for Assad's use of chemical weapons. I'm actually sort of speechless. Not only is this less competent than Bush-era SADDAM'S WMDS, it's borderline incoherent. As if Rice picked up a PNAC talking point binder with the bulk of the pages missing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:"Energy security", ding ding! How dare you imply that the US' interest in this situation is anything more than pure and true concern for the civilians of Syria. I mean, how dare you imply that this situation is not a lucky confluence of Syrian citizens' interests and the US' national interests. Err, how dare you imply that this is about oil instead weapons of mass destruction. Sorry, I can't keep up with the talking points slippage any more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
This seems like a victory for Obama to me. The narrative being "US flexes muscles and Syria gets scared, drops the chemical weapons and runs to Putin for protection."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
Miltank posted:This seems like a victory for Obama to me. The narrative being "US flexes muscles and Syria gets scared, drops the chemical weapons and runs to Putin for protection." They're grabbing defeat from the grasp of victory here. Back to the Guardian's liveblog... quote:
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
I can only hope that Obama bows out and accepts this initiative, with a speech about how the threat of force lead to actual successful diplomacy and the standard against chemical weapons use was upheld or something. This is beyond embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:How dare you imply that the US' interest in this situation is anything more than pure and true concern for the civilians of Syria. I mean, how dare you imply that this situation is not a lucky confluence of Syrian citizens' interests and the US' national interests. Err, how dare you imply that this is about oil instead weapons of mass destruction. It's the new Susan Rice Pipeline Investment Extravaganza!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:How dare you imply that the US' interest in this situation is anything more than pure and true concern for the civilians of Syria. I mean, how dare you imply that this situation is not a lucky confluence of Syrian citizens' interests and the US' national interests. Err, how dare you imply that this is about oil instead weapons of mass destruction. I mean really, what a incredibly lovely thing to say. Why bring that up AT ALL!? "Yeah, I know kids are puking their lungs out, but my Camero needs petro ASAP." Completely unnecessary and really naive. I'm astonished at how bad they look, and am actually scared they won't back down. "Nope, don't believe you Asaad, incoming anyways."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
I think this Russian incentive is actually a pretty great solution for all except the reputation of the Obama administration's foreign policy. Hopefully no more cw usage, Russia and Syria looking like obvious liars and the idea of diplomatic solutions not being totally dead. All the while the average Syrian will still have the same lovely time as he would otherwise, but he might not die to nerve gas in a bombshelter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I can only hope that Obama bows out and accepts this initiative, with a speech about how the threat of force lead to actual successful diplomacy and the standard against chemical weapons use was upheld or something. This is beyond embarrassing. It's really not enough, you have to bring the people responsible to justice. It'd be ridiculous if the international community allowed a government to gas over a thousand civilians, then just say 'oops we promise not to do it again' and keep going as if nothing ever happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
I've never been impressed with Rice, so maybe I'm not a good judge of this, but I don't think she has much of a future if this deal goes down and strikes don't happen. I mean, a bad UN speech sunk Colin Powell, a guy with a lot more accomplished and with a much more sympathetic rationale. I can't imagine Rice is going to get much work after this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:I mean really, what a incredibly lovely thing to say. Why bring that up AT ALL!? "Yeah, I know kids are puking their lungs out, but my Camero needs petro ASAP." Completely unnecessary and really naive. I'm astonished at how bad they look, and am actually scared they won't back down. "Nope, don't believe you Asaad, incoming anyways." Did Biden scribble some stuff on the speech before it was given or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Was Susan Rice the one who brought up domestic politics in reference to Rwanda or am I thinking of someone else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Was Susan Rice the one who brought up domestic politics in reference to Rwanda or am I thinking of someone else? "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November election?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It'd be ridiculous if the international community allowed a government to gas over a thousand civilians, then just say 'oops we promise not to do it again' and keep going as if nothing ever happened. Oh you mean like all the times the "international community" did just that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Amazing, a diplomatic solution is possible, despite the steady drumbeats of war insisting otherwise. Can Obama accept this solution without being branded Pro-assad by the hawks within
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Not to mention that anyone who uses chemical or biological weapons against the US will get nuked in response. That's not something that's really in question either given that it's been the stated position of the US since 75 when it signed onto the Geneva Protocol and started destroying all it's chemical and biological weapon stockpiles. Uh, no, that is not currently the stated position of the United States. I'm pretty sure I posted this earlier, but here it is again: http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20nuclear%20posture%20review%20report.pdf The US Nuclear Posture Review posted:During the Cold War, the United States reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a massive conventional attack by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. Moreover, after the United States gave up its own chemical and biological weapons (CBW) pursuant to international treaties (while some states continue to possess or pursue them), it reserved the right to employ nuclear weapons to deter CBW attack on the United States and its allies and partners.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
sectoidman posted:Uh, no, that is not currently the stated position of the United States. Well that is a relief. Thank you for the info. Nukes seemed extremely disproportionate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
quote:Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and U.S. capacities to counter that threat. This last line sounds like an insurance policy that if someone attacks with a bio/chem weapon devastating enough the US reserves the right to nuke them. Or am I not reading this correctly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
This move is a diplomatic move by Syria. Diplomatic solutions to crises are always a last resort by the Syrian government when faced by outside pressure, and are seen as a defeat. This was probably formulated by Walid Muallem , the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Lebanon 2005 is probably the best parallel we can draw to the current situation. Back then Syria averted outside intervention, but at the cost of it's withdrawal from Lebanon and it's isolation from the world stage. As always a situation that was engineered by the Mukhabarat failed, and was promptly handed over to the 'civilians' to be sorted out. This is a shrewd diplomatic move by the Syrians and Russians with some surgical timing, but it is still a defeat. The fact that the Syrians were forced into such a position is a defeat, and we will most probably be seeing some suicides via multiple gunshots in the coming weeks or months, or even car-bombs or such against longstanding leaders of the Mukhabarat or Army. Somebody will be scapegoated. But the utterly dismal reaction by the Obama administration is just... awful. They really have snapped defeat from the jaws of victory. This is awful. They have successfully painted themselves into a corner where they have been outplayed by every single person in the world. They should push for the plan, not sabotage it, and call the regime's bluff. This is one situation where the regime will be forced into allowing foreign inspectors into it's military areas, a long standing no-no. They've sabotaged themselves, and I'm skeptical that they have the sensibility to get back on track. Note that the solution is one that does not lead to anything but a defeat of Obama's call for intervention. It solves none of Syria's problems, and only lengthens the conflict and strengthens the regime's position by allowing the anti-rebel crowd in the west push the narrative that we now have nothing more to do with Syria. Muffiner fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Admittedly, I don't think there is any way for Obama to take the deal simply from a beltway perspective, he has already double down on Assad. It is smart for Russia and Assad to pull this off at exactly the worse time for Obama, potentially dividing congress even more when he was already having difficulty finding votes. I do have to say the foreign policy of this administration has been completely reactive with little vision beyond being more aggressive about nuclear disarmament.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
How is Russia securing CW not an ideal solution? We don't have to get involved, and CW "secured" from use. Obviously if they get used again there will be big questions, but this should be considered a diplomatic win for any sane person (because any punishment NATO doles out isn't going to be the reason Syrian Republican Guard stops the use of CW).
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Russian Bear posted:This last line sounds like an insurance policy that if someone attacks with a bio/chem weapon devastating enough the US reserves the right to nuke them. Or am I not reading this correctly? Nothing in that statement mentions chemical weapons at all. As for the rest, you're heavily misreading it. What it's saying is that if we really get into a total-war kinda situation where half the US is dead from weaponized Ebola or something then all bets are off. But even if they didn't put that it's pretty stupid to think that they would abide by those kind of pre-war statements if we were losing World War 3 anyway. It's not saying that if someone manages to knock off a thousand US troops that we're gonna let fly with nukes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Press Secretary Carney is giving a more positive statement on the Russian ideaquote:Q: Has the admin exhausted all diplomatic options with Syria?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
c0ldfuse posted:How is Russia securing CW not an ideal solution? Plus a handy way to save face for both Russia and the US, the CW get removed from the table with Russia being able to keep helping their friend, while the US gets out of unpopular military campaign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
c0ldfuse posted:How is Russia securing CW not an ideal solution? theblackw0lf posted:Press Secretary Carney is giving a more positive statement on the Russian idea
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Muffiner posted:I like how it is now the Kerry-Russia idea. Victory recovered!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Muffiner posted:I like how it is now the Kerry-Russia idea. Snatching credit from the jaws of defeat!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Press Secretary Carney is giving a more positive statement on the Russian idea Since when does Kerry have anything to do with it? Wasn't he the rear end in a top hat who was saying "diplomacy is exhausted" like twenty minutes ago?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
They must be desperate for an opening to go from "this is laughable" to "oh yeah its our plan as well."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Press Secretary Carney is giving a more positive statement on the Russian idea So now congressional republicans no longer have to make a choice between sticking it to the black guy in charge or bombing muslims, but instead sticking it to the black man in charge or bombing muslims and sticking it to
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:34
|
|