1. ratbastard says

    They want a war. Why? And why now? Same thing with Libya. It’s obvious powerful special interests are itching for a war in Syria, and want to ‘regime change’. Why? I assume it’s about oil, oil pipe lines, denying Russia the opportunity to build a pipeline and denying China access to affordable energy sources. I also think ultimately Putin knows he is powerless to militarily stop any action the U.S., NATO take. They have done nothing up to now and allowed Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, soon [?] Syria than most likely Iran to be attacked. China also has it’s hands tied. We live in interesting times.

  2. simon says

    What all this fuss is all about? He is not the president of the world or Syria. There are more important things to do at home. No sane person will believe that Assad purposely used chemical weapons on civilians. These victims may be rebels or “human shields”. If he strikes Syria, similar thing could happen and innocent people killed. Does it mean someone should punish the US?

  3. Joe in SF says

    That speech was a home run: a clear, persuasive presentation on why the US has the moral responsibility to stand up when chemical weapons are used. I want Syria to turn over their chemical weapons for the safety of everyone, but they will not do so unless they think the US might strike them if they don’t. Murderous regimes in Syria, North Korea and other places only respect power and might, not appeasement.

  4. Mike Ryan says

    I think you’re all being too harsh on the man. Here’s what will happen – Russia and Syria will agree to pack up Syria’s chemical weapons and then stall stall and stall. It will never happen. Months will go by, Syrians will continue to be slaughtered but we’ll do nothing because we don’t care – hell, we’ve got better things to do. Who cares about the people of Syria or any other country for that matter. Let’s keep it all right here at home.

    Obama could have said screw you to Russia/Syria and proceeded to bomb the crap out of Assad but he didn’t. He came before all of us tonight and said we should do something and has hopes for a diplomatic solution. That doesn’t absolve that pinhead Assad from what he has done and if he can get away with it – why can’t Iran fire off a nuke and annihilate Israel or some other country?

    I’ve never been a war monger but in this case I believe we should take Assad out completely. Send a drone at the guy and wipe him off the face of this earth – whether he gassed his own people or not he has lead his forces to kill many man innocent citizens.

  5. Mike Ryan says

    Correction: “…he has lead his forces to kill many man innocent citizens…” should read, “he has led his forces to kill many many innocent citizens and for that alone he himself should die.”

  6. anon says

    His claim would make more sense if the US gave up its chemical weapons, but that’s not going to happen. The ICC should indict Assad first, then at least an international police action won’t seem completely unilateral. Libya was about various European states fighting over oil contracts. There’s no oil in Syria. There are foreign actors in Syria: Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea. Each has it’s own agenda. The pan-national Muslim Brotherhood (which is mostly Egyptian) also has a huge role in the civil conflict as does Al Queda. The Assad regime is mostly a relict of the Cold War as a longtime USSR ally.

  7. Gary says

    Yeah, it was a home run for Putin. I hope the President can function for the next three years with no balls. His credibility is gone. But Andy’s isn’t. He finally ran the story.

  8. Bill Perdue says

    The Obama regime failed miserably with it’s plans to attack Syria and further isolate Iran. It’s as big a failure and as Afghanistan where they’re going to be kicked out the same way the US left Vietnam – defeated. Their handling of the economy is nothing short of disastrous and their attempts to put the finishing touches on a police state are meeting with widening opposition, as is their plot to gut Social Security and Medicare.

    Then Putin ran an end run around the Obama regime and played them as fools in an effort to protect their investments in the region centered around arms sales. For a while war is averted.

    That’s the good news.

    The bad news is that not much will change. We’ll see but I suspect that the rich, who buy and sell political hacks like Obama, will invest in a Republican lesser evil next time around. They’ll forgot all he’s done for them – trillions in gifts via qualitative easing, TARP, ACA and other scams. massive union busting and fighting to gut Social Security and Medicare.

    The lesser evil scam is the only option for the rich if they want to pretend to be democratic and it’s failing. “A report estimating the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots in Tuesday’s election shows the rate was lower than in the past two presidential contests, though it surpassed the rate from 2000. Thursday’s report, from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, put 2012 voter turnout at 57.5% of all eligible voters, compared to 62.3% who voted in 2008 and 60.4% who cast ballots in 2004. In 2000, the turnout rate was 54.2%.” People, fed up with an endless string of Republicans and Democrat lesser evils are not voting in the tens of millions. That’s the other good news.

  9. Geoff says

    Domestically (at this point: Classic case of “You’ve got me right where I want you” says Barack. Now it’s time for Congress to actually DO something…other than just say “NO”. Internationally it’s a lose/lose situation. Russia, Iran, Israel – everyone – war is wrong. Use of chemical weapons is wrong, too. Aaaarrrgggggg!!

  10. MaryM says

    The Russian proposal makes a lot of sense.

    Are we seriously expected to believe that NO-ONE in the US administration thought of it?

    Why does Obama WANT to engages in another illegal war before even considering diplomatic solutions; against the will of the US population?

    Who is pulling his strings?

    Is it AIPAC?

    Is it Halliburton?

    Why was my original comment censored?

  11. MaryM says

    It truly is shocking that Obama seems as bloodthirsty as George W. Bush was (more even considering that Obama uses unmanned drones in civilian areas of Pakistan).

    I guess it just proves what we all know – whoever gets elected is utterly irrelevant – as the President represents money and vested interests. Representing the will of the American people is way down the president’s list of priorities.

  12. BRAINS says

    Many of you, especially THOR, are simply too unsophisticated to know that this was deal hashed by President Obama and Putin when they met. The game is bring up the big guns, threaten to bomb, and then just-by-chance, your Secretary of State lets it slip that securing the chemical weapons would be a deal in the offing. Putin jumps on it, and look where we are now!

    Some of you just need to wash-out that innate BIGOTRY, and get-educated!

  13. simon says

    To further your “theory”. Actually Syria government didn’t have chemical weapons. (remember WMD under Bush?) Now Syria has to manufacture some quickly to complete this drama.

  14. simon says

    It is nothing new. Bush, Kennedy, khrushchev (or even Hitler) employed the same tactics. They may not want wars. It is just the threat of it that by chance is sufficient to achieve your goals. While you think you may have overwhelming advantages over your enemy, it is very tempting to start one especially when your enemy call your buff and crosses your “red line”.

  15. simon says

    It is kind of phony. Chemical weapons are not that sophisticated like the nuclear bombs. Even if they destroy them now. It may not be that difficult to acquire them again.

Leave A Reply