The UN? Do something of value? They only see chemical weapons as a way to take more kickbacks. They are more corrupt than our government is, by far. They are a was of time and money and serve no valid purpose.
Well Played Mr. President!
- Thread starter cubansammich
- Start date
cubansammich
Not a Member
It is none of our business if they have them seems to be your current stance anyway.
Obama is a war monger. I do not know where your getting these ideas but they are oh so wrong. Putin played him like a fool there was nothing brilliant about what he did at all.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.
What part of international law makes it our business?
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
I am trying to decipher if you are actually serious with this or are you just baiting the conservatives.
Actually, he clearly stated that he had the authority to strike Syria even if Congress did not approve it.
He didn't even think of the current option on the table. It came from a gaffe by Sec. Of State Kerry.
He has not thrown the ball to Syria. Putin and Assad had to take the ball and force Obama to consider an option that he had not considered.
Thank goodness someone else put this option in his hand as he was obvioisly ready to strike. I don't see how delayed reactions to events can be considered playing this "brilliantly".
One does not require the other in order for the criticism to be valid.
It has actually turned out to be a good thing that the President has been indecisive and unsure regarding a response because during this period of vacillation a diplomatic option fell in his lap.
cubansammich
Not a Member
I assure you that I believe what I say. I realize reading some posts here could make you leery of not so truthful posts.
The fact remains and proven by your statement that he was obviously ready to strike but didn't. He is getting results without striking, hmmm seems like a good poker move. Was he ready to strike? is much like did you have that full house isn't it? They didn't call and he hasn't had to show his hand, the all in threat was enough to win the hand. Again well played Mr. President!
Lets see if the chemical weapons are destroyed first but if they are without a shot then everyone will have to acknowledge that he played it well.
Proper Response?
He didnt need to try picking a fight with Syria...
The correct response is they have been at war for the past six thousand years, if they wanted peace they would have achieved it by now, and he should have opted to stay out of it..
Trust me he is no J.F.K. as J.F.K. said Ask not what your country can do for you but what can you do for your country. Not to mention J.F.K. wasnt a RACIST, BIGGOT, SEPERATIST.
Bob Wolf
The Geneva Protocol of 1925, for one. The General Purpose Criterion for another. Both of these deal with the international laws of the use of chemical weapons. The Geneva Protocol explicitly prevents the use of chemical weapons, and the General Purpose Criterion lays out that you will be punished by a general consensus if you use them. (The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Syria has not signed, deals primarily with production, storage and transfer of chemical weapons, and it only peripherally relevant here.)
The world has decided, through overwhelming agreement by the UN member states, that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. This is the case whether a particular state is a party to the Geneva Protocol and subsequent treaties or not. The world at large simply won't stand for it.
However, contrary to popular belief, the United States is not the world, nor it is the world's police force. While using chemical weapons is a violation of international law and common decency, so is the unilateral invading of a sovereign nation in the absence of a case of self defense, or in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution to "to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Neither of these situation apply here. Therefore, a military attack is not warranted at all, even with Congressional approval. There are other means to deal with whoever let loose those chemicals.
As for "well played, Mr President"... Puhleeze. Yeah, he was ready to strike, and didn't, but he didn't because he had adviser after lawyer say to him, "Mr. President, and Former Part-Time Constitutional Scholar, if you do this, you will be impeached faster than you can say, 'Fist-Bump Me, Mama.'" He didn't have a full house, he had four jokers and a deuce... and got his bluff called.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
When Obama asked my man Bill to become his "Explainer in Chief", not once but twice, It was crystal clear to me he lacks not only the ability to understand and communicate issues to the people but he doesn't have the credibility or the intangible charisma to convince anyone of anything.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
A Protocol is a suggestion, not a law, treaty or rule unless it is ratified in the General Assembly.
cubansammich
Not a Member
This explains my thoughts better than I can myself,
President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize
September 8, 2013
By Wayne Bomgaars
President Obama?s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize | FreakOutNation
As the media interprets recent events as Obama’s march to war, America and the world falls for it hook, line and sinker. Say what you want about Obama but he is a very smart man. He would never ask permission he did not need from Congress to launch a strike on Syria unless he knew beyond a doubt he could get it. That is if his real intentions were to actually carry out military operations. But why on earth does it appear he wants this war?
After agonizing over this question over and over I began to realize there is only one logical explanation. He does not. Only a month ago the GOP was accusing Obama of being weak for not acting when the “red line” was crossed. There was pressure for him not only from the US but from the world as well. The reputation of the great American defender was on the line. Still it was obvious at the time Obama did not want to rush into another quagmire, bogging down the rest of his tenure as our nation’s leader. But the evidence kept rolling in. He had to do something not only for his reputation as a world leader but for the United States as well.
Cue the British Parliament to provide Obama with the perfect out. Just days after Britain’s governing body eliminated any joint action with the US to participate in a coalition to strike the Assad regime, Obama made a surprising and decisive move. Against the advice of all his advisors, he put any US participation in the hands of our do-nothing Congress with no chance they would give him the approval he needed. Not because it isn’t the right thing to do but because Obama was asking for it. The outcome is a given if you just take a step back and look at the situation rationally. And there is no way Obama is going to launch this attack once Congress says no. It would be political suicide. Bush may have gotten away with it but America is not going to let it happen again. The fallout would signal the end of any and all effectiveness the Obama administration for the remaining years of his presidency. And history would place him with the likes of war criminals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Let me repeat this. Obama is not that stupid!
So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago.
If this sounds like an improbable scenario I ask that you to ponder for a moment the potential outcome:
No war
Obama and America look strong and world leaders should not doubt Obama’s willingness to take action
Congress was made to do their job
Congress will take the responsibility of inaction
Republicans have to pretend they are anti-war
Americans comes out against any further wars thereby providing the beginning of the end to our perpetual war
Puts pressure on the UN to take other action
Suddenly the UN is eager to accept other harsh non-military actions against Syria
And there is even the added bonus that the GOP weakening the push to shut down the government over the debt ceiling will not proceed with the intense battle anticipated. Next week Congress returns for only nine days. Nine days to act on the Syrian War, the debt ceiling, immigration, the Voting Rights Acts and many other important issues.
Seeing they can barely rename a post office, Congress will not have the ability to once again play games with by demanding cuts and further tax cuts for corporations. It will have to accept a reasonable offer or be blamed for damage to our nation’s credit rating. Republicans are very aware they will face blame and backlash should this happen.
Tell me this isn’t the best outcome ever. And I honestly think this was Obama’s intention from the beginning. You know **** well if he didn’t do anything, Republicans would be calling him weak because of the corner he had painted himself in when he talked about the red line.
Granted, Obama made a mistake with his “red line” comment, but by acting in a calm savvy manner, he can come out looking the part of the tough guy without even taking a swing. And he smiles as Congress does for him what he wanted in the first place.
If America could just set down their pitchforks and torches for a moment, they would be able to see what brilliant strategy this is..
President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize
September 8, 2013
By Wayne Bomgaars
President Obama?s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize | FreakOutNation
As the media interprets recent events as Obama’s march to war, America and the world falls for it hook, line and sinker. Say what you want about Obama but he is a very smart man. He would never ask permission he did not need from Congress to launch a strike on Syria unless he knew beyond a doubt he could get it. That is if his real intentions were to actually carry out military operations. But why on earth does it appear he wants this war?
After agonizing over this question over and over I began to realize there is only one logical explanation. He does not. Only a month ago the GOP was accusing Obama of being weak for not acting when the “red line” was crossed. There was pressure for him not only from the US but from the world as well. The reputation of the great American defender was on the line. Still it was obvious at the time Obama did not want to rush into another quagmire, bogging down the rest of his tenure as our nation’s leader. But the evidence kept rolling in. He had to do something not only for his reputation as a world leader but for the United States as well.
Cue the British Parliament to provide Obama with the perfect out. Just days after Britain’s governing body eliminated any joint action with the US to participate in a coalition to strike the Assad regime, Obama made a surprising and decisive move. Against the advice of all his advisors, he put any US participation in the hands of our do-nothing Congress with no chance they would give him the approval he needed. Not because it isn’t the right thing to do but because Obama was asking for it. The outcome is a given if you just take a step back and look at the situation rationally. And there is no way Obama is going to launch this attack once Congress says no. It would be political suicide. Bush may have gotten away with it but America is not going to let it happen again. The fallout would signal the end of any and all effectiveness the Obama administration for the remaining years of his presidency. And history would place him with the likes of war criminals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Let me repeat this. Obama is not that stupid!
So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago.
If this sounds like an improbable scenario I ask that you to ponder for a moment the potential outcome:
No war
Obama and America look strong and world leaders should not doubt Obama’s willingness to take action
Congress was made to do their job
Congress will take the responsibility of inaction
Republicans have to pretend they are anti-war
Americans comes out against any further wars thereby providing the beginning of the end to our perpetual war
Puts pressure on the UN to take other action
Suddenly the UN is eager to accept other harsh non-military actions against Syria
And there is even the added bonus that the GOP weakening the push to shut down the government over the debt ceiling will not proceed with the intense battle anticipated. Next week Congress returns for only nine days. Nine days to act on the Syrian War, the debt ceiling, immigration, the Voting Rights Acts and many other important issues.
Seeing they can barely rename a post office, Congress will not have the ability to once again play games with by demanding cuts and further tax cuts for corporations. It will have to accept a reasonable offer or be blamed for damage to our nation’s credit rating. Republicans are very aware they will face blame and backlash should this happen.
Tell me this isn’t the best outcome ever. And I honestly think this was Obama’s intention from the beginning. You know **** well if he didn’t do anything, Republicans would be calling him weak because of the corner he had painted himself in when he talked about the red line.
Granted, Obama made a mistake with his “red line” comment, but by acting in a calm savvy manner, he can come out looking the part of the tough guy without even taking a swing. And he smiles as Congress does for him what he wanted in the first place.
If America could just set down their pitchforks and torches for a moment, they would be able to see what brilliant strategy this is..
Huh? What are you talking about?
A protocol is defined with two primary definitions, one being that of the customs and regulations dealing with diplomatic formality, precedence, and etiquette, and the other being that of a treaty or agreement between states. It is also the draft document from which an actual treaty is derived. It is the set form, usually a rigid one, in which something must be done. In computing it is the specific set form in which data must be presented for handling by a particular computer configuration - deviate from that and the data is unusable and meaningless (TCP/IP and various other Internet protocols). Where you came up with "suggestion," I'll never know. If you must use a euphemism for protocol, then agreement, covenant, contract, obligation, pact and formality are all far more accurate synonyms than is "suggestion."
Ratification is literally a principal's approval of an act of the principal's agent where the agent lacked the authority legally bind the principal. Ambassadors to the United Nations, for example, are agents of their principal home countries and cannot enter into legally binding contracts unless specifically given that authority and power by their principal. I know of no UN Ambassador with such authority and power.
By "General Assembly" I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you mean the General Assembly of the United Nations. If that's so, then the General Assembly can ratify things until they're blue in the face, and it doesn't become a law or a treaty until the signatories to the resolution ratify it in their home countries, such as in the United States when it gets ratified by the Senate (tho-thirds vote). As of May 2013, 138 nation-states have ratified, or agreed to, the Geneva Protocol, thereby making it a law, a treaty, a rule (see also: agreement, covenant, contract, obligation, pact, formality).
If you want to debate something, the least you could do is come prepared. A good start would be getting a dictionary. A really thick and heavy one. The next time you think you know what something means, look it up, and read the definitions, before posting about it.
Now, slowly, put the cork back on the end of the fork before you poke your eye out.
The reason no one recognizes it is because it's not there. I could almost buy it (not really, but for the sake of argument) if at any time in his entire presidency he showed a hint, a scintilla, a gossamer's wing of brilliance. But he hasn't. He's been either bumbling like a fall-down drunk, or going after those who leak information that make him look bad, or launching drone strikes like he's playing a video game.
As was noted in the Washington Post four days before Wayne Bomgaars posted his love-is-blind Ode to Dreamy Obama, Capitol Hill aides have privately joked, very tongue in cheek, that "everything is going exactly to President Obama’s plan. It’s just that that plan is to stay far, far away from Syria."
Basically, ever since the rough and tough "red line" blabber blunder when he immediately found himself faced with a Congress (including many of his ardent supporters) and an American public who wanted no part of it, he's been back-peddling, side-stepping and walking his way back to CYA like we've never seen before in the Most Powerful Man on Earth and the Leader of the Free World. It's like he got his political prowess from Baghdad Bob. "I never said that. See what I did there? I meant to do that."
According to the brilliant 12-dimensional chess interpretation of the Obama administration’s Syria strategy, after being boxed in by red-line rhetoric and the Sunday show warriors, the Obama administration needed to somehow mobilize the opposition to war in Syria, despite there already being overwhelming opposition.
The arguments were lengthy and unclear. The White House expressly admitted that their strikes wouldn’t save Syrian lives or topple Assad or making anything better in any way, and they were instead asking Americans to bomb Syria in order to enforce some bizarre abstract international norms of warfare, despite the fact that this is a civil war. It would be the first military action in American history that wasn’t meant to save lives or win a war, but rather to slightly change the mix of arms a dictator was using to slaughter his population. That's a hard sell, and he didn't.
Sure, all this was helpful in creating opposition. But then Obama turned on a dime and decided to go to Congress at the last minute, making his administration look indecisive and fearful of shouldering the blame for such an unpopular intervention, putting the decision in the hands of a body famous for being unable to make decisions, giving the argument for strikes more time to lose support, and giving an American public that opposes intervention in Syria more time and venues to be heard. He passed the buck, pawned it off on Congress to CYA.
But, after all that, Obama goes to Congress with a ridiculously broad force authorization, so broad that it doesn’t specify when it ends, or even really limit which countries can be hit. The force authorization offended even Obama’s closest allies in Congress, left many questioning his motives, and has now been thrown out on its ear by the Senate. Many members of Congress are shocked, and a little ticked off, that Obama chose to come to Congress and then handed them that document.
The we have Secretary of State John Kerry, who stepped up before the Senate and, when asked to forswear ground troops, said, “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be on the table.” On the heels of that absurd broad force document that Obama handed Congress, that was an "Oh, Crap!" moment for Kerry and Obama. He later walked the comments back as “a hypothetical,” but they led the nightly news, and pushed the possibility of escalation further into the discussion.
But those who are blinded by love, like Bomgaars, and who are buying into and don't have a problem with history being revised in real time right before their eyes, believe that Obama's strategy is to cool the country on this war without expressly backing away from his various and sundry red lines has been brilliant (just look at the polls showing overwhelming opposition!). Except they forget that the opposition was even more pronounced before he started his back-stepping, especially with Democrats.
No, he's not brilliant at all. What he's doing is what he always does - trying to orchestrate and spin things to make him look as good as possible, at the expense of everyone else, including the American people.
In late June thousands of U.S. service members wrapped up a 14-day annual multilateral military training exercise in Jordan known as “Eager Lion.” At King Abdullah’s "request," more than 900 of these American soldiers, a squadron of F-16s, and a Patriot Missile Battery, have (according to President Obama) remained behind to support “the security of Jordan,” a state increasingly threatened by spillover from the war in Syria. Look at your maps. Jordan and Syria are really, really close. And should reinforcements be required, the Marine amphibious assault ship, the USS Kearsarge, is steaming off the coast of Aqaba. What is not as well known is that among those who stayed behind is a special Air Force unit who deals exclusively with the latest and generation of brand new drones. These are very high tech drones, stealthy, and have yet to be used in the field. Obama likes drones. Back in June there was really no reason to leave behind 900 troops, a squadron of F-16s, and a Patriot Missile Battery, much less an elite drone team (a member of which is a daughter of a friend of mine). No reason, unless Obama.... well, you know.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Huh? What are you talking about?
A protocol is defined with two primary definitions, one being that of the customs and regulations dealing with diplomatic formality, precedence, and etiquette, and the other being that of a treaty or agreement between states. It is also the draft document from which an actual treaty is derived. It is the set form, usually a rigid one, in which something must be done. In computing it is the specific set form in which data must be presented for handling by a particular computer configuration - deviate from that and the data is unusable and meaningless (TCP/IP and various other Internet protocols). Where you came up with "suggestion," I'll never know. If you must use a euphemism for protocol, then agreement, covenant, contract, obligation, pact and formality are all far more accurate synonyms than is "suggestion."
Ratification is literally a principal's approval of an act of the principal's agent where the agent lacked the authority legally bind the principal. Ambassadors to the United Nations, for example, are agents of their principal home countries and cannot enter into legally binding contracts unless specifically given that authority and power by their principal. I know of no UN Ambassador with such authority and power.
By "General Assembly" I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you mean the General Assembly of the United Nations. If that's so, then the General Assembly can ratify things until they're blue in the face, and it doesn't become a law or a treaty until the signatories to the resolution ratify it in their home countries, such as in the United States when it gets ratified by the Senate (tho-thirds vote). As of May 2013, 138 nation-states have ratified, or agreed to, the Geneva Protocol, thereby making it a law, a treaty, a rule (see also: agreement, covenant, contract, obligation, pact, formality).
If you want to debate something, the least you could do is come prepared. A good start would be getting a dictionary. A really thick and heavy one. The next time you think you know what something means, look it up, and read the definitions, before posting about it.
Now, slowly, put the cork back on the end of the fork before you poke your eye out.
A Protocol is a suggestion. I stated it simply because it's a simple concept. I don't need a dictionary. I don't need to paraphrase a wiki page. I know what the term means and can state it in simple terms. It is not binding in any way. It is a suggestion, glorified though it may be...
Last edited:
Syria did sign the 1925 convention. That treaty, however, does not allow for unilateral military action as far as I know. I may be wrong on that. I was never involved with that particular treaty.
No, it is not.
Maybe it is, if you've created your own language. But if you're going to communicate with people who speak English, it's probably best to use it's words correctly. It's not like we're talking about some obscure or arcane term. Sometimes it's best to just admit to having a brain fart and move on rather than reinforce one's level of ignorance.
pro·to·col
[proh-tuh-kawl, -kol, -kohl] Show IPA
noun1.the customs and regulations dealing with diplomatic formality, precedence, and etiquette.
2.an original draft, minute, or record from which a document, especially a treaty, is prepared.
3.a supplementary international agreement.
4.an agreement between states.
5.an annex to a treaty giving data relating to it.
Protocol | Define Protocol at Dictionary.com
Brisco
Expert Expediter
Do What??
With NO Experience in Life whatsoever...whether it be Politics, Management, or Executive Experience, he managed to get Elected as POTUS...Not only once......But TWICE.
Are you actually confessing to being one of those Ignorant Fools that fell for his line of Bull HooHaH and is now regretting it??
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Maybe it is, if you've created your own language. But if you're going to communicate with people who speak English, it's probably best to use it's words correctly. It's not like we're talking about some obscure or arcane term. Sometimes it's best to just admit to having a brain fart and move on rather than reinforce one's level of ignorance.
pro·to·col
[proh-tuh-kawl, -kol, -kohl] Show IPA
noun1.the customs and regulations dealing with diplomatic formality, precedence, and etiquette.
2.an original draft, minute, or record from which a document, especially a treaty, is prepared.
3.a supplementary international agreement.
4.an agreement between states.
5.an annex to a treaty giving data relating to it.
Protocol | Define Protocol at Dictionary.com
It is a suggestion, or perhaps a Gentleman's Agreement, but not binding.. #2 in your list of definitions says as much and applies to the context in which I was using it. An agreement is not necessarily binding upon anyone. For instance, there have been countless agreements between drivers to not haul cheap freight. They are still doing it. There is no legal penalty for doing it. An agreement with no teeth is a suggestion.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Do What??
With NO Experience in Life whatsoever...whether it be Politics, Management, or Executive Experience, he managed to get Elected as POTUS...Not only once......But TWICE.
Are you actually confessing to being one of those Ignorant Fools that fell for his line of Bull HooHaH and is now regretting it??
I don't see where your response relates to my post.