It’s a copout!

That bumbling idiot that’s already done enough stupid to make Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy look successful today went on TV to tell us that while he knows he doesn’t need anyone’s stinking permission, he will ask congress to let him bomb Syria. He knows he is gonna lose this vote. Then he can blame congress for being insensitive and act like he would totally have ordered an attack and kicked Assad’s ass, so he can keep pretending he is bad and in charge. How pathetic.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    Why is it that I think the average 15-year old girl can totally kick his limp-wristed little ass? When has this guy EVER acted like he actually a pair?

    Was it when he was out “chooming” with his stoner buddies in high school? Or perhaps when he and his boyfriend went to Pakistan to smuggle drugs? Or maybe when he kicks his heels up like a little girl when he’s out playing golf on his scrawny chicken-stick legs?

    I’m surprised Putin hasn’t just pushed him to his knees, put a gun to head, pulled out his dick, and told him to choose – it’s not like we don’t already know the answer to that question…

    Thumb up 4

  2. Section8

    He knows he is gonna lose this vote. Then he can blame congress for being insensitive and act like he would totally have ordered an attack and kicked Assad’s ass, so he can keep pretending he is bad and in charge. How pathetic.

    Well that’s about his best option right now given that there is no good choice left after he backed himself into a corner with his red line doctrine. So he will likely go this route if he is smart. I agree over all it’s pathetic since he decided to issue ultimatums without considering if he could follow through or not, but it’s his least worst option regarding image and credibility at this point.

    Thumb up 4

  3. Seattle Outcast

    I agree over all it’s pathetic since he decided to issue ultimatums without considering if he could follow through or not

    They were just supposed to look at his Nobel prize and remember that it was Obama talking to them. Remember, he’s not only the perfect president, but will bring peace to the world just by reading it off a teleprompter.

    Thumb up 2

  4. Section8

    They were just supposed to look at his Nobel prize and remember that it was Obama talking to them.

    True, the real shock is that Syrian government might have even used these weapons. Didn’t they know Obama is in charge now and the world of rainbows and butterflies was upon us? Just strange, all of it.

    Thumb up 8

  5. Thrill

    I have to say that I did not expect this. He has already been irrelevant in domestic policy since Obamacare passed. He may now have neutered himself on the foreign stage as well. The fact that he’s doing this is bad enough, but it’ll be a humiliation conga if Congress refuses to approve it.

    Thumb up 6

  6. Mississippi Yankee

    Just one more, in a long line, of distractions.

    His domestic policies, the ones we know about, are drowning in scandals yet the typical uninformed voter can still be lead by the nose with one more call of Squirrel!

    Thumb up 4

  7. Technomad

    Part of his problem IMNSHO is that he’s always been handed victory on a platter, or gained it by sabotaging his opponents. Now that he has opponents he can’t scupper by trying to get their hidden files revealed, and affirmative action is no more help, he’s helpless as a hog on ice.

    Thumb up 5

  8. Kimpost

    He knows he is gonna lose this vote.

    1.) You think he’s going to lose the vote? Is that the general opinion here? My guess is that he wouldn’t have suggested it unless he was fairly sure that he’d win.

    2.) Which course of action/words on Syria would have prompted you to write: “He nailed it. He finally got something right”?

    3.) What’s your general opinion, Alex? Stay away from Syria altogether? Or keep arming rebels? Listen to what Israel wants? What?

    Thumb up 1

  9. Mook

    3.) What’s your general opinion, Alex? Stay away from Syria altogether? Or keep arming rebels? Listen to what Israel wants? What?

    Ahh, got to interject the Joos here, huh?

    Can’t speak for Alex, but from what I’ve read this is a lose-lose situation for the US. The “rebels” are supported by Al Queda including Al Queda fighters sent from other countries, even as the US has trained and armed them.

    Assad is bad news, but it appears the rebels could be even worse. We should stay out of this. There’s no upside for us to become involved here. If the events in Syria are such an urgent concern, then why doesn’t the UN take action? Why does this have to be OUR problem?

    Thumb up 12

  10. Section8

    1.) You think he’s going to lose the vote? Is that the general opinion here? My guess is that he wouldn’t have suggested it unless he was fairly sure that he’d win.

    Perhaps the people here have had enough of the most transparent president ever skirting around the rules at every turn, setting up his own rules, and just the general blatant hypocrisy. There is just no way to criticize Bush at this point and defend this guy at the same time without looking like a complete idiot. Maybe he finally got a clue that going it alone would basically destroy whatever remaining credibility he has left, except for maybe with his last hard core supporters which just look like partisan hacks at this point.

    Do you think we should be getting involved? Where’s the commentary on the UN from you guys? There’s not even a resolution yet. The UN doesn’t apply now? Besides, Sweden can handle all this, the EU can handle, take that possibility into consideration. If you can’t, don’t run to us so that you can pretend to keep your hands clean and then continue the cycle of bitching about the US for the way things turn out later down the road.

    Thumb up 7

  11. Seattle Outcast

    He’ll lose that vote it I think, if there even IS one – public opinion is less than 10% in favor of any overt action in Syria, and the GOP congress hates his guts. Making him look even more ineffectual works in their favor in the midterm elections. He might try and make it look like the GOP is “keeping him from acting”, but he knows that there isn’t any support for it. He put his foot knee-deep in the shit and knows it.

    That he’d be doing Al Quaida’s dirty work for them isn’t lost on many people – his support for a terrorist faction (Muslim Brotherhood) hasn’t done his image any favors in the past two years. Even in libtard Seattle he’s fast losing support from everyone except the most “progressive” and the various flavors of marxist/socialist/NAACP groups.

    Thumb up 6

  12. CM

    Where’s the commentary on the UN from you guys?

    The UNSC is horribly compromised, which is why I think resolutions should be able to be passed even with a veto or two. Although none of the permanent members are likely to agree on that (including the US who always vetoes anything related to Israel).

    I think it’s a no win situation for anyone. On balance I don’t favour military action.

    Thumb up 2

  13. Mississippi Yankee

    In an ideal world:

    1. Congress would turn him down (they won’t)
    2. Obungler orders a military strike anyway (he will)
    3. The military will tell him to FOAD (I’m not so sure they will)
    4.
    5. Race riots (and profits)

    Thumb up 2

  14. Seattle Outcast

    The UNSC is horribly compromised,

    The war with the Covenant has been over for some time now, stay up to date with recent developments…

    Thumb up 1

  15. CM

    MY sounds the same ending as this other one of yours:

    1. Mandela steps down (1999)
    2. Mandela leaves public life (2004)
    3. Mandela gets really old and sick (2011)
    4. Mandela dies
    5. Race riots, for no apparent reason

    Race-baiter!

    Thumb up 2

  16. CM

    The war with the Covenant has been over for some time now, stay up to date with recent developments…

    I just knew that acknowledging how fucked up the current UNSC system is would be met with abuse. Thanks for not letting me down.

    Thumb up 1

  17. Xetrov

    You think he’s going to lose the vote? Is that the general opinion here? My guess is that he wouldn’t have suggested it unless he was fairly sure that he’d win.

    Of course he’s going to lose the vote considering public support (or lack thereof) for this. He drew a line in the sand, made tough words, and got called on his bluff. If the public was behind action, he would have acted without asking Congress. He knows Congress will not support action, and that is his out – “I tried to handle this terrible situation, but Congress won’t stand behind me, so I can’t act.” Damn Republicans responsible again for one of his fuckups.

    Thumb up 6

  18. CM

    I think you’ve nailed it Xetrov. I don’t think he’s doing this for any other reason but to give himself cover, and an excuse to back down.

    Thumb up 5

  19. CM

    Obama made a clever political calculation. The Tea Party and the GOP in general had been demanding that he submit the Syria file to them. So he obliged them. If they say ‘no,’ as the British parliament did, then Obama is off the hook. If they say ‘yes,’ then they are full partners in any failures that result. Either way, the issue is taken off the agenda of the 2016 election and Democrats are held harmless.

    Will Congress authorize a missile strike on Syria? I think the odds are fifty-fifty. It is not impossible that the Libertarian Republicans and the left wing of the Democratic Party will ally to defeat the resolution. They came close to derailing NSA spying, after all. And feelings against entanglements in Middle Eastern wars are far more inflamed than on the issue of domestic surveillance.

    It is remarkable how important the Iraq experience has been in the debates on Syria, and how decisive. Even if the US goes ahead with the strike, it is likely to attempt to keep the action narrow and symbolic, and to avoid troops on the ground, and indeed, generally to stay out of the conflict thereafter as long as no more chemical attacks are launched. Whether it is possible to bomb Syria and then walk away like that isn’t clear; but it is the maximal Obama plan. The minimal one is to be able to blame the Tea Party for isolationism and cold disregard of the regime’s violation of international law.

    http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/congress-international-collapses.html

    Thumb up 1

  20. Thrill

    Nobody in America gives a shit about Syria. The Republicans in Congress can safely vote it down and move on. They have far more to lose by approving it.

    Thumb up 7

  21. Xetrov

    Nobody in America gives a shit about Syria.

    *cough*

    But for tens of thousands of Syrian immigrants in America, the deadly conflict has hit closer to home, via phone calls and messages from family and friends who are still in Syria and worried about their own safety as the civil war threatens to get worse.

    Thumb up 1

  22. Thrill

    And? Your own article notes that Syrian-Americans are ambivalent about US intervention. Hell, that’s the title of the article.

    But there have also been protests against the prospect of a military strike, including one held Thursday night in Allentown, Pa., a city home to one of the largest Syrian immigrant populations in the country.

    There, participants waved signs that read “Hands Off Syria” and argued that Assad is not responsible for last week’s chemical attacks and that the U.S. should stay out of the conflict.

    So I guess I should amend my comment to say that even those who do give a shit don’t exactly favor US military action?

    The percentage of Americans who believe that the US should attack is about the same as the number of Americans who believe in 9/11 Trutherism. My point stands that the GOP can safely vote this down without fear.

    Thumb up 5

  23. Kimpost

    Our foreign minister seems to side with US intelligence. I don’t think that we would want US to do anything without solid evidence.

    As almost always I’d prefer a political solution. I’d prefer a working UN that wasn’t tied down by the P5 veto powers. The world needs an actual police. A working legitmate one.

    I’d prefer it if UN called Assad up and said:

    “This is what’s going to happen. You are going to step down. You will be able to keep the billions you have stolen from your people. We’ll also grant you immunity for whatever crimes you have committed. Syria will be ruled by some form of fucked up coalition for the next 5-10 years, at least. The UN will stay around long term. 10 years, 20 years. 100 years, whatever it takes.

    If you don’t accept these generous terms and step down, you will die.

    /The UN (including Russia and China)”

    Thumb up 3

  24. CM

    What is curious about the past week is the extent to which so many, especially the media and the British Government, misjudged the continuing rawness of the wounds inflicted by the Iraq war. I was in Baghdad for much of the conflict but I was always struck on returning to Britain by the lasting sense of outrage over the decision to go to war expressed even by the most conservative and non-political. As with the Munich Agreement in 1938, it has entered a deep layer of British historic memory, perhaps because people feel they were not only misled but lied to by their own government.

    The parliamentary vote and opinion polls show that British governments have exhausted whatever capital of public trust they possessed when it comes to military ventures in the Middle East. Intelligence reports confirming that Assad used chemical weapons simply jog memories of past deceptions such as the “dodgy dossier” of 2003. Credibility lost then has never been regained. The government is like the little girl Matilda in Hilaire Belloc’s poem of that name who, having previously called the fire brigade falsely claiming her house was ablaze, burns to death when it does indeed catch fire:

    Every time she shouted ‘fire!’

    They only answered ‘little liar!’

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/in-syria-its-a-case-of-all-or-nothing-8792975.html

    Thumb up 1

  25. InsipiD

    While I believe that there is evidence there of the use of chemical weapons, I don’t believe that there is (yet) a compelling national interest reason to intervene. If Obama is able to make political gain by punting the football to congress, who in turn take a knee, then I’m ok with that. If the right thing happens for the wrong reason, sometimes it’s best to let that be.

    Thumb up 0

  26. Section8

    I’d prefer it if UN called Assad up and said:

    “This is what’s going to happen. You are going to step down. You will be able to keep the billions you have stolen from your people. We’ll also grant you immunity for whatever crimes you have committed. Syria will be ruled by some form of fucked up coalition for the next 5-10 years, at least. The UN will stay around long term. 10 years, 20 years. 100 years, whatever it takes.

    If you don’t accept these generous terms and step down, you will die.

    Me too! Let’s wait for that! In the meantime, the US should stay out entirely.

    In the near term of reality, if this is such a concern, Italy could step up, Germany could step up, France can step up, Sweden can step up. Britain is out, France will likely bail.

    What is curious about the past week is the extent to which so many, especially the media and the British Government, misjudged the continuing rawness of the wounds inflicted by the Iraq war

    Italy could step up, Germany could step up, France can step up, Sweden can step up. Britain is out, France will likely bail.

    Oh but I’m sure they’d all be rushing in if it wasn’t for the Iraq war. lol.

    Thumb up 2

  27. hist_ed

    As almost always I’d prefer a political solution. I’d prefer a working UN that wasn’t tied down by the P5 veto powers. The world needs an actual police. A working legitmate one.

    The problem, of course, is that the UN has so many members run by criminals and/or assholes.

    I’d prefer it if UN called Assad up and said:

    I think the average Syrian should have more say in Assad’s fate than, say, the UN representative of Robert Mugabe. And that’s what is happening. The Syrians are figuring it out the way humans have almost always figured out these problems: by slaughtering those who disagree with them (and the wives and children).

    The best outcome for the United States would be for a very long civil war that saps the strength of the Syrian/Iranian alliance and the Muslim Brotherhood/AL Qaeda alliance. Maybe in ten years both sides will be exhausted and Syria can be partitioned into two or more states that are so fucked up that they won’t make trouble. I’m guessing that the average Lebanese, while worried, is pretty happy that the Syrians are fucking up their own country instead of Lebanon.

    I don’t know why we care so much. Something like 6 million people have died in the various civil wars in The Congo over the last couple of decades and no one in the US gives a shit. 100,000 Syrians are killed and we are at the brink of a useless attack that will solve absolutely nothing.

    Thumb up 10

  28. CM

    Oh but I’m sure they’d all be rushing in if it wasn’t for the Iraq war. lol.

    You’re suggesting what happened then has no bearing how how governments (and their populations) are acting now? Really?

    Thumb up 2

  29. Section8

    Yep. That’s what I’m suggesting. Britain affected by the Iraq war very much probable, but other Euro countries were not really involved in Iraq so that’s quite a cop out you’re pursuing. Besides, what do you care you don’t want military action anyhow. Shouldn’t the real focus be on passing UN resolutions and UN diplomacy? The “responsibility to protect” lies with the UN and not with the Brits, us or anyone else. Why isn’t the world pushing harder for resolutions? Why? Where are the protests on lack of UN progress over such crimes? Why should you be spinning the down vote by the British as unfortunate due to all the lies in 2003, and instead hailing this as coming to their senses and not using bombs to interfere in conflicts that are not their concern? Oh that’s right, you guys tend to spin yourselves so hard you don’t know what direction you’re heading in.

    Thumb up 5

  30. CM

    Yep. That’s what I’m suggesting. Britain affected by the Iraq war very much probable, but other Euro countries were not really involved in Iraq so that’s quite a cop out you’re pursuing.

    I think it’s complete denial to think that people and politicians in countries that didn’t take part weren’t also affected by how that all developed, and the aftermath. Most certainly in terms of appetite for involvement in an extremely volatile and unpredictable situation.

    Besides, what do you care you don’t want military action anyhow.

    What do you mean “what do I care”? I entered the discussion in response to your question (“Where’s the commentary on the UN from you guys?”). Make your mind up – do you want “us guys” involved in the discussion or not? If I’m not involved, you’ll have a go at me for caring. If I stay out, you’ll come up with some way of calling me a hypocrite or similar for not caring.

    Shouldn’t the real focus be on passing UN resolutions and UN diplomacy?

    Yes but, as I said, the UNSC system is compromised. As you know, it only takes one permanent member veto.

    The “responsibility to protect” lies with the UN and not with the Brits, us or anyone else. Why isn’t the world pushing harder for resolutions? Why?

    Because it’s almost certain to be met with failure. I’m sure there is plenty going on behind the scenes.

    Where are the protests on lack of UN progress over such crimes?

    And yet I get accused of being obtuse.

    Why should you be spinning the down vote by the British as unfortunate due to all the lies in 2003,

    I never said it was ‘unfortunate’, and neither did I say the result of the vote was “due to all the lies in 2003″. However it’s important context. It can’t possibly NOT be.

    and instead hailing this as coming to their senses and not using bombs to interfere in conflicts that are not their concern?

    Never even remotely said that.

    Oh that’s right, you guys tend to spin yourselves so hard you don’t know what direction you’re heading in.

    You’re the one spinning here mate (and blatantly making shit up). Apparently when we’re in agreement you’ll just go find some other stick to try and beat us with. That’s lame.

    Thumb up 2

  31. Kimpost

    I don’t want the US to take military action even if congress gives a green light. Whether it does or not, I want Obama, the french/brits etc to produce convincing evidence linking Assad to the gas attack. Make it so convincing that the russians have to agree.

    If that happens (and it’s a huge if), military action is still probably out, however it would likely be possible to get China and Russia in on a strong condemnation – with another line in the sand. This is as far as I can see, the best case scenario. Pretty lame, but that’s the system we have. (*sounding like an old Hans Blix*).

    Meanwhile individual countries can and should be generous granting asylum to syrians. Unfortunately Fort Europe is pretty bad in that regard. We should do much better.

    (Sweden can’t do much. We are tiny nation, with a tiny military. Besides, we love the UN.)

    Thumb up 1

  32. Poosh

    Ahh, got to interject the Joos here, huh?

    I heart you.

    Isn’t this the UN’s business !? Let the UN frak everything up yet again and let the world see, again, how useless it is.

    Anyone gonna stop the slaughter of Christians in Egyp, no? Move along? Nothing to see here. Ok.

    Thumb up 3

  33. Poosh

    Unfortunately Fort Europe is pretty bad in that regard. We should do much better.

    Thought experiment. Would you happily let one of these chaps live in your home for a few years, non-vetted? And at random (actually, can’t be a hot female, let’s say…).

    Unless you’re saying isolate them into secure camps with no freedom outside it, in which case, I can’t argue with that.

    _ And isn’t this – does anyone think – Obama showing yet again how much of a master politician he is? He is having his cake and eating it, if this vote fails.

    Thumb up 4

  34. Xetrov

    And?

    Just pointing out that “Nobody in America gives a shit about Syria.” is a false statement. Somebody gives a shit about just about every subject here. Just because you don’t give a shit, or I don’t give a shit, or Washington doesn’t really give a shit doesn’t mean that “Nobody” gives a shit. To some it’s a very important subject, whether they support attacking or not.

    Thumb up 2

  35. Kimpost

    Thought experiment. Would you happily let one of these chaps live in your home for a few years, non-vetted? And at random (actually, can’t be a hot female, let’s say…).

    Sweden is not my home, it’s the country where my home happens to be. A syrian which has been granted asylum is as important to me as a random swedish dude in a neighbouring town. That is, pretty much not at all. Live and let live. Help them if they are in need etc. Bla bla…

    Thumb up 2

  36. ilovecress

    Thought experiment. Would you happily let one of these chaps live in your home for a few years, non-vetted? And at random (actually, can’t be a hot female, let’s say…).

    Nope. Strawman. No one is suggesting that Asylum seekers want to share your breakfast table, no matter what the Daily Mail says. I’d let them live in my country/town/neighborhood though.

    Thumb up 3

  37. Section8

    What do you mean “what do I care”? I entered the discussion in response to your question (“Where’s the commentary on the UN from you guys?”). Make your mind up – do you want “us guys” involved in the discussion or not? If I’m not involved, you’ll have a go at me for caring. If I stay out, you’ll come up with some way of calling me a hypocrite or similar for not caring.

    The “what do you care” was based on your random link with no commentary of your own about the British down vote. As for the commentary regarding the UN yes you did put in your comments and thanks for answering, but that’s not what my comment was about.

    As for me on the UN.

    The UN is a flawed concept from the beginning in resolving most issues of conflict between nations. It’s not just the UNSC, but the fact that basically like it or not the world is an us vs them most of the time. Every country has their own interests and tends to team up with those that have like minded interests, thus the inevitable stalemate ensues in the committee. Sure we can keep passing resolutions and draw lines until the end of time, and pulling stunts like propping up dictators to oversee human rights for feelgood purposes, but in the end it resolves nothing. It’s all show and kicks the can down the road until it’s time to kick the can again. Now I’m not advocating the US as the world cop to solve the problems. Far from it. I just think there is a misguided notion that the UN, which will be driven or ignored by ALL major power players when it suits them regardless of how its structured, is not a reliable cure for the world’s ills.

    Thumb up 4

  38. CM

    I just think there is a misguided notion that the UN, which will be driven or ignored by ALL major power players when it suits them regardless of how its structured, is not a reliable cure for the world’s ills.

    I would agree (strongly) that it’s “not a reliable cure for the world’s ills”. But remember, the vast majority of the work the UN carries out, day in and day out, isn’t political and isn’t even remotely controversial. The UN has many many functions.

    The UN is a flawed concept from the beginning in resolving most issues of conflict between nations. It’s not just the UNSC, but the fact that basically like it or not the world is an us vs them most of the time. Every country has their own interests and tends to team up with those that have like minded interests, thus the inevitable stalemate ensues in the committee. Sure we can keep passing resolutions and draw lines until the end of time, and pulling stunts like propping up dictators to oversee human rights for feelgood purposes, but in the end it resolves nothing. It’s all show and kicks the can down the road until it’s time to kick the can again.

    As flawed as it is, I’d still rather have it as opposed to not have it. The whole reason it came into being was to put in place some sort of mechanism to stop aggression (world wars and regional wars). Of course you could argue that’s it made no difference, but I’m not sure that’s true. Of course nobody can ‘prove’ anything because we’re comparing it to a hypothetical.
    Resolutions are passed often – it’s just you don’t get to hear much about those (much like you don’t hear about 99% of the day to day work done by the various UN bodies). A lot actually gets resolved. That Syria is a tricky situation in which there is no good course of action doesn’t negate that.

    Thumb up 0

  39. CM

    Unless you’re saying isolate them into secure camps with no freedom outside it, in which case, I can’t argue with that.

    I hope some can come here. I’ll welcome them, and certainly wouldn’t want them in camps/prisons.

    no matter what the Daily Mail says

    That was right out of the Daily Fail indeed.

    Thumb up 0

  40. hist_ed

    Make it so convincing that the russians have to agree.

    This is one of the most naive statements I have seen in a long time. Of all the UN security council members and/or big dog nations, Russia is in the best position to know what the Syrian government is doing. You seem to think that Putin cares whether or not Assad gasses Syrian civilians. You could have a video of Assad personally spraying children with sarin and Putin would be against any action.

    If that happens (and it’s a huge if), military action is still probably out, however it would likely be possible to get China and Russia in on a strong condemnation

    “Oooohhh noooooo” (said Assad), “Not a strong condemnation from Russian and China as they continue to sell me weapons. What will I do?”

    Thumb up 3

  41. Kimpost

    This is one of the most naive statements I have seen in a long time. Of all the UN security council members and/or big dog nations, Russia is in the best position to know what the Syrian government is doing. You seem to think that Putin cares whether or not Assad gasses Syrian civilians. You could have a video of Assad personally spraying children with sarin and Putin would be against any action.

    There’s no naiveté. Evidence can be so strong that Putin has to back down. It’s not about really convincing him, because he doesn’t give a shit. It’s about convincing the world, so that Putin can go so far as to agree on a condemnation.

    Again, I don’t think that the russians or the chinese would go along on military action in any circumstances. It’s about this…

    “Oooohhh noooooo” (said Assad), “Not a strong condemnation from Russian and China as they continue to sell me weapons. What will I do?”

    … yes, and that the best case scenario in my book. The best that could possibly happen in this situation, still being in accordance with international law. One day, decades or centuries from now, when the veto has been removed, things will be better. But now, this is what we’ve got.

    As it is, the US, will not go through the UN. You guys will start bombing soon. Obama doesn’t mind bombs. I (still) think that the vote in congress is a formality. It might never have been a lock, but I think that the administration knew that they’d be backed by leaders from both parties.

    But yes, if it by some odd chance should fail in congress, it’s on them. Win-win for Obama.

    (I’m not entirely sure that he wouldn’t bomb even if congress should say no – now that would be interesting. He’d probably have to bomb. If he wants to do anything the next three years.)

    Thumb up 0

  42. Kimpost

    This is one of the most naive statements I have seen in a long time. Of all the UN security council members and/or big dog nations, Russia is in the best position to know what the Syrian government is doing. You seem to think that Putin cares whether or not Assad gasses Syrian civilians. You could have a video of Assad personally spraying children with sarin and Putin would be against any action.

    There’s no naiveté. Evidence can be so strong that Putin has to back down. It’s not about really convincing him, because he doesn’t give a shit. It’s about convincing the world, so that Putin has to agree on a condemnation (not more).

    Again, I don’t think that the russians or the chinese would go along on military action under any circumstances. It’s about this…

    “Oooohhh noooooo” (said Assad), “Not a strong condemnation from Russian and China as they continue to sell me weapons. What will I do?”

    … yes, and that the best case scenario in my book. The best that could possibly happen in this situation, still being in accordance with international law. One day, decades or centuries from now, when the veto has been removed, things will be better. But now, this is what we’ve got.

    As it is, the US, will not go through the UN. You guys will start bombing soon. Obama doesn’t mind bombs. I (still) think that the vote in congress is a formality. It might never have been a lock, but I think that the administration knew that they’d be backed by leaders from both parties.

    But yes, if it by some odd chance should fail in congress, it’s on them. Win-win for Obama.

    (I’m not entirely sure that he wouldn’t bomb even if congress should say no – now that would be interesting. He’d probably have to bomb. If he wants to do anything the next three years.)

    Thumb up 0