Obama's Ongoing Foreign Policy Failure - Putin's Bitch

[Horatio Parker]

A few air strikes, so what. He does the same thing as Obama, yet somehow he's the strong decisive leader and Barry is the wimp. I guess we can figure who identifies with who.

MOSCOW — More than two-thirds of Russians oppose sending troops to Syria to prop up President Bashar al-Assad’s government, while a majority approve of Moscow’s use of diplomatic and political channels to help its embattled ally in the Middle East, according to a respected independent pollster.
At a time when the Kremlin has been ramping up its military presence in Syria, its largest deployment outside the former Soviet Union in decades, the poll by the Levada Center found that only 14 percent of Russians believe Russia should provide “direct military support” for the Syrian government by sending in troops.
The poll results were published on Moscow-based Levada’s website on September 28, the same day that President Vladimir Putin said in New York that sending ground troops into combat in Syria was “out of the question.”

http://www.juancole.com/2015/09/russians-oppose-sending.html

 

[laughing dog]

As long as you don't mind killing some children.

List of children killed by drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen

Collateral damage is inevitable in war. And some of those on that list are older teenagers, age at which jihadis already start being active and one is listed as 19, so not a child by anyone's definition.

According to the OED, a child is "A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority." (source:http://http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/child and  Age_of_majority indicates the Taiwan and New Zealand as well as the State of Mississippi (among other countries) have ages of majority of 20 or 21. Moreover, as the OED link indicates, another definition of a child is "A son or daughter of any age.". Apparently a 19 year is a child by some people's definitions.

More importantly, your implication that it is okay to kill a teenager because he/she might become a jihidist is morally depraved.

 

[Derec]

Apparently a 19 year is a child by some people's definitions.

Then why stop at 19? Under that last definition even a 65 year old would have to listed under "children". The "under the age of puberty" is the most reasonable definition. For "under age of majority" minor is the more precise term. But saying a "minor was killed in a drone strike" does not evoke the visceral reaction that "a child was killed in a drone strike" precisely because people envision a pre-pubescent child when somebody says a "child", and not a strapping young lad of 17 who might well have been a jihadi.

More importantly, your implication that it is okay to kill a teenager because he/she might become a jihidist is morally depraved.

No, what I was saying is that just because somebody is under 18 (or 20) does not mean they were not a combatant. And obviously, not being akin to Mechizedek (who was "Without father, without mother" according to Hebrews 7:3) does not mean that one is not a non-combatant which makes your last definition even more silly in this context.

 

[laughing dog]

Then why stop at 19? Under that last definition even a 65 year old would have to listed under "children". The "under the age of puberty" is the most reasonable definition. For "under age of majority" minor is the more precise term. But saying a "minor was killed in a drone strike" does not evoke the visceral reaction that "a child was killed in a drone strike" precisely because people envision a pre-pubescent child when somebody says a "child", and not a strapping young lad of 17 who might well have been a jihadi.

You made a claim that "one is listed as 19, so not a child by anyone's definition." Unfortunately for you, that claim is abundantly wrong. Furthermore, your assumption that your visceral reaction to the term child is shared by the world at large is very wrong.

No, what I was saying is that just because somebody is under 18 (or 20) does not mean they were not a combatant. And obviously, not being akin to Mechizedek (who was "Without father, without mother" according to Hebrews 7:3) does not mean that one is not a non-combatant which makes your last definition even more silly in this context.

t is morally depraved to justify the killing of someone because they might not be a "noncombatant". Since you offered no evidence that teenager was a child, then your response was either disingenuous or irrelevant or just fucking stupid.

 

[maxparrish]

I'm afraid Obama has dealt the US a losing hand. Many years of feckless foreign policy blunders and indifference regarding Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Ukraine, and Syria has left the US with few options. In particular, his failure to leave boots on the ground in Iraq facilitated the rise of ISIS. His failure to assist the free Syrian Army has resulted in its fall to that of the minor player, and the rise of ISIS. Obama's failure to show spine in the Ukraine has resulted in the Russian military adventure in Syria.

There is not much that can be done, and what can be done is too difficult for Obama.

Among the options: boots on the ground in Iraq to integrate air strikes with combat units, arming the Kurds an aggressive bombing campaign to shut down ISIS refineries, and a US dictum to the Russians that any air-strikes on anti-Assad US allies will result in retaliation on Assad and/or engage the Turks to create a US imposed no-fly zone over said allies.

Either that or tell Putin he won and walk away.

So your alternatives are war, more war or give up. When was the last time our boots on the ground or bombing created a lasting peace in that region or the world?

It may not, but it will likely expel ISIS from most of Iraq and keep them in check. It will also keep the hopes of the Free Syrian Army alive, keep ISIS on the ropes, and check the re-establishment of Assad.

Sometimes a continuing war is the best, and least expensive, option.

 

[Ford]

Sometimes a continuing war is the best, and least expensive, option.

Anything that causes the deaths of more non-whites, huh?

 

[Derec]

You made a claim that "one is listed as 19, so not a child by anyone's definition." Unfortunately for you, that claim is abundantly wrong.

And using a completely irrelevant definition has what exactly to do with what we are discussing here?

Furthermore, your assumption that your visceral reaction to the term child is shared by the world at large is very wrong.

Then why use "child" instead of "minor" for older teenagers if not for emotional manipulation?

t is morally depraved to justify the killing of someone because they might not be a "noncombatant".

Again, you are getting it backwards. I was not saying that alone justified it. But neither does somebody being under 18 (or 20) mean they are automatically non-combatants as these "children killed in drone strikes" imply.

Since you offered no evidence that teenager was a child, then your response was either disingenuous or irrelevant or just fucking stupid.

Huh?

- - - Updated - - -

Anything that causes the deaths of more non-whites, huh?

Syrians are white.

 

[laughing dog]

And using a completely irrelevant definition has what exactly to do with what we are discussing here?

You're not fooling anyone here. 19 years old is a minor in many regions using a standard definition. You were wrong.

Then why use "child" instead of "minor" for older teenagers if not for emotional manipulation?

Because they are children as well as minors. Why are you so afraid of the truth?

Again, you are getting it backwards. I was not saying that alone justified it. But neither does somebody being under 18 (or 20) mean they are automatically non-combatants as these "children killed in drone strikes" imply.

You are not fooling anyone with your mischaracterization of my point. Until you can show the child was a non-combatant, there is no reason to point it out. Just applying the, "assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty" - you know, the one you continually point out whenever any man is accused of rape.

Huh?

Thanks for narrowing the choice down to one.

 

[laughing dog]

So your alternatives are war, more war or give up. When was the last time our boots on the ground or bombing created a lasting peace in that region or the world?

It may not, but it will likely expel ISIS from most of Iraq and keep them in check. It will also keep the hopes of the Free Syrian Army alive, keep ISIS on the ropes, and check the re-establishment of Assad.

Sometimes a continuing war is the best, and least expensive, option.

Please answer the question "When was the last time our boots on the ground or bombing created a lasting peace in that region or the world?"

If your tacit answer by omission is "There is no time", why would you think this time is any different?

 

[Derec]

You're not fooling anyone here. 19 years old is a minor in many regions using a standard definition. You were wrong.

No, it isn't. Calling a 19 year old a 'child killed by a drone' is deliberately misleading to inflate numbers and your reaching for obscure definitions doesn't make it any better.

Because they are children as well as minors. Why are you so afraid of the truth?

Those who feel the need to use emotional language and obscure definitions are the ones afraid of the truth.

You are not fooling anyone with your mischaracterization of my point. Until you can show the child was a non-combatant, there is no reason to point it out.

Again, you are getting it backwards.

Just applying the, "assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty" - you know, the one you continually point out whenever any man is accused of rape.

I did not say they were guilty, just not "children" and certainly not automatically innocent as is the clear implication of such lists.

 

[untermensche]

Please, give us the easy solution that Obama can't see.

I'm afraid Obama has dealt the US a losing hand. Many years of feckless foreign policy blunders and indifference regarding Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Ukraine, and Syria has left the US with few options. In particular, his failure to leave boots on the ground in Iraq facilitated the rise of ISIS. His failure to assist the free Syrian Army has resulted in its fall to that of the minor player, and the rise of ISIS. Obama's failure to show spine in the Ukraine has resulted in the Russian military adventure in Syria.

There is not much that can be done, and what can be done is too difficult for Obama.

Among the options: boots on the ground in Iraq to integrate air strikes with combat units, arming the Kurds an aggressive bombing campaign to shut down ISIS refineries, and a US dictum to the Russians that any air-strikes on anti-Assad US allies will result in retaliation on Assad and/or engage the Turks to create a US imposed no-fly zone over said allies.

Either that or tell Putin he won and walk away.

Oh, you mean exactly what the US did that led to ISIS gaining power.

Good plan. Good feckless plan.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it isn't. Calling a 19 year old a 'child killed by a drone' is deliberately misleading to inflate numbers and your reaching for obscure definitions doesn't make it any better.

As I have shown, your position is simply based on ignorance: you are wrong.

Those who feel the need to use emotional language and obscure definitions are the ones afraid of the truth.

I agree, which is why I proved you were wrong.

Again, you are getting it backwards.

Just applying the, "assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty" - you know, the one you continually point out whenever any man is accused of rape.

I did not say they were guilty, just not "children" and certainly not automatically innocent as is the clear implication of such lists.

You are not fooling anyone here with your emotional rhetoric and counter-factual claims.

 

[braces_for_impact]

This thread is about as predictable as a Limbaugh heart attack.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh such wishful thinking after the fact. Face it, Putin caught the US flat-footed and now has both the will and the means to give the edge to Assad.

Russia needs Syria for their warm water port. They want Status Quo in Syria. Obama says he wants Assad out, but much like the Cleveland Browns, firing the Head Coach doesn't solve the major problems. We have nothing to replace Assad with, and in general US head of state replacements in the Middle East have a rather poor record, like the Cleveland Browns.

While Obama half-heartedly supports what is left of the Free Syrian Army with a pathetic nine 'trained' fighters, and indirect air support, Putin has provided the Assad government forces with close Russian air support against US clients, a ready supply of advanced war material, and 1000 Russian "boots on the ground" troops (so far) to assist.

One minor thing Obama did do was coordinate with Russia to keep ISIL from getting chemical weapons to use in Russia, Israel, and Europe. To most people who aren't blind from partisan rage, would consider that a global security victory.

The US is helpless, and should Putin decide to crush the US supported free Syrians he will do so. And given that the Russian aircraft in Syria are much superior to the US inventory of archaic fighters, it would be suicide for the US to oppose their work.

And what would be the gain for the US to oppose Russia here? Removing Assad destabilizes the area even more than it is now. Obama is stuck in a world of pragmatism while you are stuck within the delusions of American might can magically make things better.

So it won't be a quagmire for Russia, it will be whatever Putin wants it to be (as in the Ukraine).

Umm... it will be a quagmire for the Syrians, the Russians just continue to have access to the Syrian warm water port.

Eventually pushing the US backed free Syria forces to extinction is not a problem for him. And then he will assist Assad directly in killing ISIS in Syria...something that Obama has avoided.

Military v Terrorist groups doesn't work out. Has almost never worked out. You could do a little research on it.

The bottom line is that Putin has told Obama to get out and to kiss his ass. He knows that Russia need not husband its forces and worry over an Obama sponsored military pushback in the Ukraine...Obama has been such a wimp that no one takes him seriously.

What is funny is that the Right-Wing from both sides of their mouths whines about Obama getting us into too many wars and not into enough wars. And through what I can only assume is a lot of practice, they do so with a straight face.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Garry Kasparov's commentary in the WSJ makes several points that are self-evident.

Boris Nemtsov, my longtime friend and colleague in the Russian opposition, was murdered in the middle of Moscow on Friday night. Four bullets in the back ended his life in sight of the Kremlin, where he once worked as Boris Yeltsin’s deputy prime minister. ...

Mr. Obama has already decided to continue his policy of disengagement from the Middle East...Of the conflict in Syria, he said, “we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the prewar status quo.” But every listener was aware that Mr. Obama had no intention of backing his words with action.

Mr. Putin, speaking about an hour later in the same room, included his usual NATO-bashing and obvious lies. ...He spoke of national sovereignty—which is very important to Mr. Putin, unless it’s the sovereignty of Georgia, Ukraine or another place where he wishes to meddle.

In other words, Mr. Obama’s speech was routine because he knows he will not act. Mr. Putin’s speech was routine because he knows he will act anyway.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/garry-kasparov-putins-culture-of-fear-and-death-1425249677

Today the news is that Russian aircraft are now bombing - not Isis, but the Free Syrian Army. Obama's 'disengagement' and empty red-lines have only led to greater Russian aggression and the filling geostrategic vacuums. And Putin's most recent message to Obama is: 'Get out and, in the meantime', don't get in our way'.

And sadly, we have to hear Kerry and Obama yammer on with empty and laughable warnings to the Russians.

Crap that sucks! Does that mean that we should cancel our vacation to Iraq next year?

- - - Updated - - -

I say we let Putin and Assad waste their resources fighting this one out. There is nothing worth fighting for in that war torn country. All the productive people left ages ago. You have ISIS right next door who will conduct regular suicide bombings. We should've ended our involvement ages ago. The place is nothing more than a dung heap at this point.

Totally agree. We don't even need their oil anymore.

 

[barbos]

Just want to repeat, Pentagon denied that Russia bombed FSA.

 

[maxparrish]

Sometimes a continuing war is the best, and least expensive, option.

Anything that causes the deaths of more non-whites, huh?

Actually anything that causes the deaths of more white Russians, members of ISIS, and Assad's Army. I have great respect for the tradition of Realpolitik, and the belief that nation-states must move the chess pieces without the nuisance of incoherent emotions - as Putin seems to appreciate. Support of years or decades of a modest level warfare might be the optimal solution to checking the ambitions of ISIS, Assad, Russia, and Iran.

By the way folks: today the Russians continued a second day of air strikes against non-ISIS rebels. Putin has announced that ISIS will only be one of the targets.

In the meantime Kerry blathers on about coordinating with the Russians - is this guy on drugs?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anything that causes the deaths of more non-whites, huh?

Actually anything that causes the deaths of more white Russians, members of ISIS, and Assad's Army. I have great respect for the tradition of Realpolitik, and the belief that nation-states must move the chess pieces without the nuisance of incoherent emotions - as Putin seems to appreciate. Support of years or decades of a modest level warfare might be the optimal solution to checking the ambitions of ISIS, Assad, Russia, and Iran.

By the way folks: today the Russians continued a second day of air strikes against non-ISIS rebels. Putin has announced that ISIS will only be one of the targets.

In the meantime Kerry blathers on about coordinating with the Russians - is this guy on drugs?

No, he is a diplomat and clearly diplomacy is a little more reserved than you appreciate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Please, give us the easy solution that Obama can't see.

I'm afraid Obama has dealt the US a losing hand. Many years of feckless foreign policy blunders and indifference regarding Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Ukraine, and Syria has left the US with few options. In particular, his failure to leave boots on the ground in Iraq facilitated the rise of ISIS. His failure to assist the free Syrian Army has resulted in its fall to that of the minor player, and the rise of ISIS. Obama's failure to show spine in the Ukraine has resulted in the Russian military adventure in Syria.

There is not much that can be done, and what can be done is too difficult for Obama.

Among the options: boots on the ground in Iraq to integrate air strikes with combat units, arming the Kurds an aggressive bombing campaign to shut down ISIS refineries, and a US dictum to the Russians that any air-strikes on anti-Assad US allies will result in retaliation on Assad and/or engage the Turks to create a US imposed no-fly zone over said allies.

Either that or tell Putin he won and walk away.

While I'm not impressed with Obama's foreign policy handling I don't think there was any good answers with Syria.

- - - Updated - - -

Collateral damage is inevitable in war. And some of those on that list are older teenagers, age at which jihadis already start being active and one is listed as 19, so not a child by anyone's definition.

According to the OED, a child is "A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority." (source:http://http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/child and  Age_of_majority indicates the Taiwan and New Zealand as well as the State of Mississippi (among other countries) have ages of majority of 20 or 21. Moreover, as the OED link indicates, another definition of a child is "A son or daughter of any age.". Apparently a 19 year is a child by some people's definitions.

More importantly, your implication that it is okay to kill a teenager because he/she might become a jihidist is morally depraved.

That's not what he was saying. Rather, he was saying "child" and "jihadist" are not incompatible terms. Showing that a casualty was a "child" does not prove he was a noncombatant.

We see a lot of this in Gaza--a lot of the "child" deaths are 16 and 17.

 

[maxparrish]

Actually anything that causes the deaths of more white Russians, members of ISIS, and Assad's Army. I have great respect for the tradition of Realpolitik, and the belief that nation-states must move the chess pieces without the nuisance of incoherent emotions - as Putin seems to appreciate. Support of years or decades of a modest level warfare might be the optimal solution to checking the ambitions of ISIS, Assad, Russia, and Iran.

By the way folks: today the Russians continued a second day of air strikes against non-ISIS rebels. Putin has announced that ISIS will only be one of the targets.

In the meantime Kerry blathers on about coordinating with the Russians - is this guy on drugs?

No, he is a diplomat and clearly diplomacy is a little more reserved than you appreciate.

If "reserved" means he has nothing in his diplomatic quiver, and chooses to humiliate himself and his country pretending the 'bad guy' is really a cooperative 'good guy', you are correct. Just hours after Russia insultingly gave the US an hour's warning to remove its military forces, and filling the skies of Syria with bombers attacking CIA supported forces, John Kerry holds an embarrassing joint press conference burbling drivel about their mutual cooperation and constructive engagement.

Totally ignoring reality, Kerry said that the U.S. and Russian militaries might have talks as early as today to ensure that they do not inadvertently come into conflict in their respective air strikes in Syria. Kerry, like the emperor, had no clothes...and everyone in the room was polite enough to ignore it.

Sadly, the diplomatic rule for this administration is that it’s just too rude to point out that another country is blatantly lying and bombing your friends. Rather one should pretend that country is making a genuine effort to fight extremist forces, instead of carrying out a crude and deadly effort to prop up a brutal and oppressive regime through brute force. To confront them with reality might worsen “the relationship” - the supposition being that implies there actually is a working relationship to salvage.

This is the contemporary state of 'liberal-progressive' backbone, and the elevation of 'bend over' politeness as being far more important that confrontation and truth.

Perhaps you should recall Kerry's democratic ancestors (cold war liberals) were not the fearful weasels of today. Remember Adlai Stevenson calling out Zorin on the floor of the UN? "Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the U.S.S.R. has placed and is placing medium- and intermediate-range missiles and sites in Cuba? Yes or no? Don’t wait for the translation, yes or no!?” And after Zorin declined to answer, Stevenson unveiled aerial photography demonstrating that yes, Russia was doing exactly what they had just denied doing.

Nope, that sort of realism and backbone is gone. The Obama administration has been in psychological denial about Putin's intentions and capabilities since their “reset button” ceremony. They just can't get it through their heads that some State actors cannot be brought to reason by "being reserved" and "polite", or by reminding them that they are on the wrong side of history. ( Sadly, Kerry echoed the anecdote of Senator William Borah saying, in September 1939, after Germany invaded Poland, “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler -- all this might have been averted.”)

Let's face it, Obama is afraid of Putin. He is soiled underwear afraid. And when Putin approves the shooting down of US drone, or provokes with manned fighter or AA response...what will Obama do? Nothing.

Like all of Putin's previous actions be assured he knows this. He will do it because he can, and Obama and Kerry will be left stuttering and rationalizing, jabbering about "cooperatition".