ADVERTISEMENT

Ok I sort of agree with Putin on this Syrian thing..

Hoosierhawkeye

HB King
Sep 16, 2008
55,304
55,331
113
42
Sort of. . . I'm sure he's a big fan of Assad because they where best buds at evil dictator school.

But the US is trying to back a group of "moderate Syrian Rebels" that are not popular and have no realistic chance of winning. In fact they seem to know that and have turned their weapons over to Al Queda who is actually at this point probably one of the more moderate sides in this conflict (as sad as this is.)

Unless we're willing to commit ground troops we have to either back a proxy that can win this war which for us would mean choosing the least evil option or just bow out and not participate.

Hate to say it but it seems to me that Assad is the least evil option. But perhaps it would be better for us to just not participate.
 
I too agree with Putin - at least he is trying to fight fire with fire when it comes to the terrorists. Asad is the lesser of the evils and I think Russia sees this as a chance to show it's ability in battle. Unfortunately i don't see the US staying out of it, Obama can't be one-upped by Putin.

Was this them at school together?

0.jpg
 
In fact they seem to know that and have turned their weapons over to Al Queda who is actually at this point probably one of the more moderate sides in this conflict (as sad as this is.)

Yeah, I don't want to hear anything about Iran/Contra again.

Now it is our Foreign Policy to sell arms directly to Terrorists.
 
I too agree with Putin - at least he is trying to fight fire with fire when it comes to the terrorists. Asad is the lesser of the evils and I think Russia sees this as a chance to show it's ability in battle. Unfortunately i don't see the US staying out of it, Obama can't be one-upped by Putin.

Was this them at school together?

0.jpg

One of them is Putin for sure, but I think Assad looked like this when he was younger.

images
 
  • Like
Reactions: unIowa
This really stings the Obama admin's a$$. Way to represent the US! We are now looked down upon by so many, with little fear from them as well.

The Russian president showed up at the United Nations on Monday for the first time in a decade, proposing a coup against U.S. global leadership and seeking to wrest control of a coalition battling ISIS away from America's grip.

And he wasn't the only leader of a country challenging the United States to effectively upstage Obama at the annual global meeting, which a U.S. president traditionally uses to command the spotlight.

Speeches by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on the 70th anniversary of the creation of the world body also left Obama defending not only his personal foreign policy legacy, which is already under assault at home from Republican presidential candidates, but the entire concept of a world order based on seven decades of U.S. global leadership.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/obama-putin-un-syria-isis/index.html
 
As the administration said, let Russia knock themselves out:

After circling each other for the past year, President Obama and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia squared off on Monday at the United Nations in dueling speeches that presented starkly different views on the Syrian crisis and how to bring stability to the Middle East.

President Obama made a forceful defense of diplomacy and the system of rules represented by the international body, but in a veiled reference to Mr. Putin, he warned that “dangerous currents risk pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world.”

Mr. Putin talked about mounting a broad effort to support Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, as the best bulwark against the spread of the Islamic State and other radical groups, even though the White House has said Mr. Assad has to leave power if there is to be a political solution in Syria.

Beyond the verbal jousting and steely looks over lunch after the morning speeches, however, the two leaders were still playing a subtle game of diplomatic poker, each trying to maneuver the other into shifting his position.

For the White House, this has meant accepting a Russian role in the region but hoping that Moscow will appreciate the risk of becoming bogged down. That, they hope, will raise the costs of backing Mr. Assad and force Russia to work sincerely on a political transition that will lead to the Syrian leader’s departure.

“Knock yourselves out,” one Obama administration official said, mocking Mr. Putin’s bravado about forming a grand coalition in Syria.

For the Kremlin, it means restoring enough stability to Syria to win acceptance of an expanded role for Russia in the Middle East — not to speak of its expanded military presence. Such a development, in the Kremlin’s view, would also validate Mr. Putin’s contention that toppling authoritarian governments in the Middle East has led only to chaos and sanctuaries for terrorists.

Two speeches, one reception and a meeting later, there was no hint that the two leaders had substantially narrowed the chasm between them on their principal disagreement: the future of Mr. Assad.

“The Obama administration would like to find a way to link arms with Russia on a diplomatic process and not have to tackle some of the less palatable issues like creating safe areas in Syria,” said Andrew S. Weiss, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “But the only road map Putin laid out today was a fuzzy concept of a grand coalition to fight terrorism arm in arm with Bashar al-Assad, the very man the Americans say is the source of the problem.”

After the Russians surprised the Obama administration by deploying warplanes, tanks and marines at an airfield near Latakia, Syria, the White House agreed to hold military-to-military talks to ensure against any accidents leading to a confrontation. But the larger hope, as Secretary of State John Kerry made clear on Sunday, was that the two sides might work out a common political strategy on Syria.

There was no hint of that in the two leaders’ speeches on Monday.

Mr. Obama singled out Russia’s annexation of Crimea as a flagrant violation of the international order. On Syria, he repeated the administration’s insistence that Mr. Assad would ultimately have to step down, though he provided no clues as to what steps the United States might take to pressure him to hand over power.

“The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict,” Mr. Obama said. “But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the prewar status quo.”

Mr. Obama also talked about a “managed transition” in Syria, in which Mr. Assad would be gradually eased out of power. There are intense discussions underway on how long that transitional period should be and how many in Mr. Assad’s close circle would have to go, several United Nations Security Council diplomats said.

Mr. Putin, who was making his first appearance at the United Nations General Assembly in 10 years, was openly dismissive of the United States’ interventions in the Middle East. The United States-led effort to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya, he said, had made each country a haven for terrorists.

And the Obama administration’s attempts to train and equip a moderate Syrian opposition would end up swelling the ranks of Islamic radicals, Mr. Putin insisted. The Kremlin says about 2,000 of the extremists who have joined the Islamic State have come from Russia, fueling concern that they may return and carry out terrorist attacks. Russia has fought two wars against Islamist separatists in Chechnya.

Better, Mr. Putin said, to rally around Mr. Assad. “We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face,” he said.

But he offered no prescription for how the Syrian political crisis might be resolved. Nor did Mr. Putin indicate that the Russian military buildup in Syria — including its first new military base in the Middle East in decades — would be reversed if the Islamic State was defeated.

Russia and Syria are longtime allies, with deeply interwoven personal and military connections that militate against any wholesale abandonment of Damascus by the Kremlin.

“The Russians have consistently said that they are not attached to Assad personally, but they insist his government is legitimate, that it is fighting terrorists, and they have rejected efforts from any outside country or combination of countries to impose a particular person or formation to replace Assad,” Robert S. Ford, a former American ambassador to Syria, said in a recent interview. “And they have stressed they want to preserve the Syrian state and its institutions, many of which it has long had close ties with.”

On Monday evening, the two presidents entered a small room with Russian and American flags and shook hands before their widely anticipated meeting. They ignored shouted questions on Syria. The meeting, the first between the two leaders in two years, was held in a Security Council consultation room.
Before the closed session, the prospects for close cooperation did not appear auspicious. Mr. Putin did not provide notice to Mr. Obama of the Russian decision earlier this month to set up an air hub near Latakia or to conclude an intelligence-sharing agreement on Sunday with Iraq, Iran and the Syrian government.

In recent days, the two sides sparred even over which one wanted the meeting more. Mr. Putin also appears to be coordinating his strategy with Iran, which has been Mr. Assad’s strongest backer.

Still, Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin did manage to work together in 2013 to forge an accord that called for Syria to give up its chemical arsenal. Mr. Putin pursued that accord to head off an American military strike that might have emboldened the Syrian opposition and undermined Mr. Assad, and since then the conflict in Ukraine has soured relations.

After the meeting Monday night, Mr. Putin said the discussions had been “very constructive, businesslike and frank.” American officials, who insisted on anonymity as a condition of briefing reporters, echoed that description, noting that half of the session had been spent on Ukraine and half on Syria.

Still, there was nothing to suggest that the two sides had overcome their differences on the future of Mr. Assad. “I think the Russians certainly understood the importance of there being a political resolution in Syria and there being a process that pursues a political resolution,” an American official said. “We have a difference about what the outcome of that process would be.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/w...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
 
"circling" one another... Obama is NOT close to being Apollo and will never be Rocky.

He has simply sissified the USA. He's throwing snowballs at the devil, it doesn't work.

snowballs_chance_in_h_a_ha.gif
 
By Daniel Drezner:
Let’s just stipulate the following at the outset:

  1. The only accomplishments of the Obama administration’s Syria policy are that (a) Syria gave up some chemical weapons and (b) U.S. ground troops are not in Syria. Besides that, it’s been an unmitigated disaster on every dimension.
  2. It’s really not in U.S. interests for Russia to expand its military presence in Syria.
  3. Russian President Vladimir Putin excels at flummoxing President Obama.
  4. At this point Russian-American diplomacy mostly consists of trolling each other, and Putin is better than anyone at trolling.
  5. It’s not a good sign for U.S. interests in the Middle East when Washington is surprised by Iraqi agreements with Russia.
So, yes, the administration gets an “F” for its handling of Syria and a “D” for its handling of Vladimir Putin.

But when I start seeing stories describing a new axis of evil threatening the United States, well, it’s physically impossible for me not to roll my eyes. Because if you’re going to look at the situation in Syria with an astringent perspective, you also have to stipulate the following:

  1. There is none, zero, nada evidence that a more robust U.S. military posture in Syria would lead to a more favorable policy outcome. As the Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib notes, “Certainly more than a decade’s worth of involvement on the ground next door in Iraq hasn’t produced a happy outcome, and at the cost of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.”
  2. The reason Russia can do what it’s doing is because its local ally in Syria — Assad’s government — actually exists. U.S. efforts to develop a moderate Syrian resistance group have abjectly failed, and let’s not even bother with David Petraeus’s cray-cray suggestion.
  3. Great powers always look the most powerful when they announce expanded activity in a region. It’s what happens next that matters.
Indeed, Michael Gordon and Gardiner Harris’s write-up of Monday’s dueling U.N. General Assembly speeches contained my first reaction to Russia’s expanded Middle East portfolio:

Mr. Putin talked about mounting a broad effort to support Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, as the best bulwark against the spread of the Islamic State and other radical groups, even though the White House has said Mr. Assad has to leave power if there is to be a political solution in Syria. …

For the White House, this has meant accepting a Russian role in the region but hoping that Moscow will appreciate the risk of becoming bogged down. That, they hope, will raise the costs of backing Mr. Assad and force Russia to work sincerely on a political transition that will lead to the Syrian leader’s departure.

Knock yourselves out,” one Obama administration official said, mocking Mr. Putin’s bravado about forming a grand coalition in Syria (emphasis added).

Given Putin’s track record in eastern Ukraine, I’m supremely skeptical of Russia’s ability to impose order in Syria, no matter how much help Iran provides.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...sia-in-the-middle-east/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b
 
I get sick of typing this, but:

All you need to know is Obama was elected because he said we wouldn't fight any more wars in the Middle East. That's what his constituents wanted. That's why we get false "red lines" and are no longer feared, etc. Elections have consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vroom_C14
Putin is now the world's most powerful leader. Obama has given that title to him. Congratulations.


Riiiight. He's presiding over a rickety kleptocracy with an economy that's one third of California's that's being strangled by low oil prices and western sanctions while embroiled in a stalemate in Ukraine and embarking on another ill-advised foreign intervention in the mideast. As the administration said, I hope he knocks himself out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80
Sort of. . . I'm sure he's a big fan of Assad because they where best buds at evil dictator school.

But the US is trying to back a group of "moderate Syrian Rebels" that are not popular and have no realistic chance of winning. In fact they seem to know that and have turned their weapons over to Al Queda who is actually at this point probably one of the more moderate sides in this conflict (as sad as this is.)

Unless we're willing to commit ground troops we have to either back a proxy that can win this war which for us would mean choosing the least evil option or just bow out and not participate.

Hate to say it but it seems to me that Assad is the least evil option. But perhaps it would be better for us to just not participate.
I agree with Putin as well. My brother in law just came back from his 5th deployment in Iraq, and while it the mid-2000's, he was confident we had made a clear positive difference, he now sees no positive outcome to the situation. I say let Russia figure it out. Sure it won't end the way we'd have drawn it up, but so what? How will more people die? If ISIS is in power, or if Assad is killing his own people? Either way, innocents will die (and a whole lot of 'not so innocents').

Sure it's a black eye on Obama and the US, but there are times when you need to take your medicine and move on. Leave it to the next guy (or gal) to figure out. I will say this, if we're ever going to regain clout in that region as a nation, it probably won't be with a female president. Again, it's just how the region works.
 
Riiiight. He's presiding over a rickety kleptocracy with an economy that's one third of California's that's being strangled by low oil prices and western sanctions while embroiled in a stalemate in Ukraine and embarking on another ill-advised foreign intervention in the mideast. As the administration said, I hope he knocks himself out.

I now understand why you only copy and paste articles when posting.
 
I agree with Putin as well. My brother in law just came back from his 5th deployment in Iraq, and while it the mid-2000's, he was confident we had made a clear positive difference, he now sees no positive outcome to the situation. I say let Russia figure it out. Sure it won't end the way we'd have drawn it up, but so what? How will more people die? If ISIS is in power, or if Assad is killing his own people? Either way, innocents will die (and a whole lot of 'not so innocents').

Sure it's a black eye on Obama and the US, but there are times when you need to take your medicine and move on. Leave it to the next guy (or gal) to figure out. I will say this, if we're ever going to regain clout in that region as a nation, it probably won't be with a female president. Again, it's just how the region works.

I just think we're at a place where there is no good side that could morally be supported. So you either support the less evil side or you just bow out of the conflict entirely.

The only third option is to invade the entire country and make it a US territory. But I'm guessing most people would find that action to be the worst possible one.

But we can't just keep trying to support people who arn't going to win. If I thought the rebels where going to come in and institute a democracy with basic protections for people's civil rights I'd be all about supporting them. But that's not whats going to happen and that's not what has happened historically in that region. Ultimately it just leads to another civil war and another evil dictator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thewop
A powerful leader can lead a govt that not intrusive and does what it is suppose to do. We don't have this.

Wow, thank goodness. And all this time I though you wingnuts were complaining about Obama's tyrannical leadership!
 
As the administration said, let Russia knock themselves out:

After circling each other for the past year, President Obama and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia squared off on Monday at the United Nations in dueling speeches that presented starkly different views on the Syrian crisis and how to bring stability to the Middle East.

President Obama made a forceful defense of diplomacy and the system of rules represented by the international body, but in a veiled reference to Mr. Putin, he warned that “dangerous currents risk pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world.”

Mr. Putin talked about mounting a broad effort to support Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, as the best bulwark against the spread of the Islamic State and other radical groups, even though the White House has said Mr. Assad has to leave power if there is to be a political solution in Syria.

Beyond the verbal jousting and steely looks over lunch after the morning speeches, however, the two leaders were still playing a subtle game of diplomatic poker, each trying to maneuver the other into shifting his position.

For the White House, this has meant accepting a Russian role in the region but hoping that Moscow will appreciate the risk of becoming bogged down. That, they hope, will raise the costs of backing Mr. Assad and force Russia to work sincerely on a political transition that will lead to the Syrian leader’s departure.

“Knock yourselves out,” one Obama administration official said, mocking Mr. Putin’s bravado about forming a grand coalition in Syria.

For the Kremlin, it means restoring enough stability to Syria to win acceptance of an expanded role for Russia in the Middle East — not to speak of its expanded military presence. Such a development, in the Kremlin’s view, would also validate Mr. Putin’s contention that toppling authoritarian governments in the Middle East has led only to chaos and sanctuaries for terrorists.

Two speeches, one reception and a meeting later, there was no hint that the two leaders had substantially narrowed the chasm between them on their principal disagreement: the future of Mr. Assad.

“The Obama administration would like to find a way to link arms with Russia on a diplomatic process and not have to tackle some of the less palatable issues like creating safe areas in Syria,” said Andrew S. Weiss, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “But the only road map Putin laid out today was a fuzzy concept of a grand coalition to fight terrorism arm in arm with Bashar al-Assad, the very man the Americans say is the source of the problem.”

After the Russians surprised the Obama administration by deploying warplanes, tanks and marines at an airfield near Latakia, Syria, the White House agreed to hold military-to-military talks to ensure against any accidents leading to a confrontation. But the larger hope, as Secretary of State John Kerry made clear on Sunday, was that the two sides might work out a common political strategy on Syria.

There was no hint of that in the two leaders’ speeches on Monday.

Mr. Obama singled out Russia’s annexation of Crimea as a flagrant violation of the international order. On Syria, he repeated the administration’s insistence that Mr. Assad would ultimately have to step down, though he provided no clues as to what steps the United States might take to pressure him to hand over power.

“The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict,” Mr. Obama said. “But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the prewar status quo.”

Mr. Obama also talked about a “managed transition” in Syria, in which Mr. Assad would be gradually eased out of power. There are intense discussions underway on how long that transitional period should be and how many in Mr. Assad’s close circle would have to go, several United Nations Security Council diplomats said.

Mr. Putin, who was making his first appearance at the United Nations General Assembly in 10 years, was openly dismissive of the United States’ interventions in the Middle East. The United States-led effort to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya, he said, had made each country a haven for terrorists.

And the Obama administration’s attempts to train and equip a moderate Syrian opposition would end up swelling the ranks of Islamic radicals, Mr. Putin insisted. The Kremlin says about 2,000 of the extremists who have joined the Islamic State have come from Russia, fueling concern that they may return and carry out terrorist attacks. Russia has fought two wars against Islamist separatists in Chechnya.

Better, Mr. Putin said, to rally around Mr. Assad. “We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face,” he said.

But he offered no prescription for how the Syrian political crisis might be resolved. Nor did Mr. Putin indicate that the Russian military buildup in Syria — including its first new military base in the Middle East in decades — would be reversed if the Islamic State was defeated.

Russia and Syria are longtime allies, with deeply interwoven personal and military connections that militate against any wholesale abandonment of Damascus by the Kremlin.

“The Russians have consistently said that they are not attached to Assad personally, but they insist his government is legitimate, that it is fighting terrorists, and they have rejected efforts from any outside country or combination of countries to impose a particular person or formation to replace Assad,” Robert S. Ford, a former American ambassador to Syria, said in a recent interview. “And they have stressed they want to preserve the Syrian state and its institutions, many of which it has long had close ties with.”

On Monday evening, the two presidents entered a small room with Russian and American flags and shook hands before their widely anticipated meeting. They ignored shouted questions on Syria. The meeting, the first between the two leaders in two years, was held in a Security Council consultation room.
Before the closed session, the prospects for close cooperation did not appear auspicious. Mr. Putin did not provide notice to Mr. Obama of the Russian decision earlier this month to set up an air hub near Latakia or to conclude an intelligence-sharing agreement on Sunday with Iraq, Iran and the Syrian government.

In recent days, the two sides sparred even over which one wanted the meeting more. Mr. Putin also appears to be coordinating his strategy with Iran, which has been Mr. Assad’s strongest backer.

Still, Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin did manage to work together in 2013 to forge an accord that called for Syria to give up its chemical arsenal. Mr. Putin pursued that accord to head off an American military strike that might have emboldened the Syrian opposition and undermined Mr. Assad, and since then the conflict in Ukraine has soured relations.

After the meeting Monday night, Mr. Putin said the discussions had been “very constructive, businesslike and frank.” American officials, who insisted on anonymity as a condition of briefing reporters, echoed that description, noting that half of the session had been spent on Ukraine and half on Syria.

Still, there was nothing to suggest that the two sides had overcome their differences on the future of Mr. Assad. “I think the Russians certainly understood the importance of there being a political resolution in Syria and there being a process that pursues a political resolution,” an American official said. “We have a difference about what the outcome of that process would be.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/w...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Wow.
No mention of the real fight. ISIS.
That is why Putin is headed to Syria. Because the JV team is looking like the Patriots and BHO has got every step wrong. The rest of the MEast is starting to look to Putin vs. the US also for solutions to ISIS.
Putin vs BHO looks like a community organizer vs a KGB agent. Oh wait....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vroom_C14
I just think we're at a place where there is no good side that could morally be supported. So you either support the less evil side or you just bow out of the conflict entirely.

The only third option is to invade the entire country and make it a US territory. But I'm guessing most people would find that action to be the worst possible one.

But we can't just keep trying to support people who arn't going to win. If I thought the rebels where going to come in and institute a democracy with basic protections for people's civil rights I'd be all about supporting them. But that's not whats going to happen and that's not what has happened historically in that region. Ultimately it just leads to another civil war and another evil dictator.
Your third option is exactly what Russia is doing...taking over Syria. Make no mistake, Assad will remain as a Russian puppet and Russia will be in control. Hate to see Russia get all the oil goodies, but it will be a better situation than what now exists.
 
I just don't like how Putin is taking over as the leader of the world, because we have a moron in charge of the US right now.
Why don't you like it? Why do you want to be in charge of the world? I personally like it very much because I want to focus internally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk and Awe
So let ISIS run the table in the Mideast?
Sure or Russia or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or any of the rest. An ISIS state would be much easier to attack than an ISIS insurgency and could be useful. But even that juicy target I'd a long ways off. Patients little one, there is no reason to get excited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Besthawkfan
Sure or Russia or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or any of the rest. An ISIS state would be much easier to attack than an ISIS insurgency and could be useful. But even that juicy target I'd a long ways off. Patients little one, there is no reason to get excited.

Patients? WOB alert?
Right - them controlling oil , $$ and possibly buying WMD is fine with you I guess.
Putin is basically headed to Syria to help fight ISIS because BHO screwed the pooch.. Obviously he'll get Syria control.
 
Patients? WOB alert?
Right - them controlling oil , $$ and possibly buying WMD is fine with you I guess.
Putin is basically headed to Syria to help fight ISIS because BHO screwed the pooch.. Obviously he'll get Syria control.
Ok, let him. That's fine with me. Let Russia turn the whole Mideast red and deal with decades of strife while we rebuild our middle class and cement our position as the leading economy with access preferitially granted to those who play by our rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Besthawkfan
I too agree with Putin - at least he is trying to fight fire with fire when it comes to the terrorists. Asad is the lesser of the evils and I think Russia sees this as a chance to show it's ability in battle. Unfortunately i don't see the US staying out of it, Obama can't be one-upped by Putin.

Was this them at school together?

0.jpg
BHO will stay out. It's what he does best. Putin is in the process of setting up an iron clad arrangement between Russia,Iran & Syria. We will sit on the side lines. Putin will then tell all our allies in the region, he is the only one they can depend on.
 
BHO will stay out. It's what he does best. Putin is in the process of setting up an iron clad arrangement between Russia,Iran & Syria. We will sit on the side lines. Putin will then tell all our allies in the region, he is the only one they can depend on.
Cool, Russia is going to take over subsidizing Israel and Egypt? Thats more good news. BHO might just turn out to be the best Prez. ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
Cool, Russia is going to take over subsidizing Israel and Egypt? Thats more good news. BHO might just turn out to be the best Prez. ever.
Unfortunately the subsidizing will be all theat BHO will be able to offer and he will double down on it.
 
BHO will stay out. It's what he does best. Putin is in the process of setting up an iron clad arrangement between Russia,Iran & Syria. We will sit on the side lines. Putin will then tell all our allies in the region, he is the only one they can depend on.

Again, he was voted in to office BECAUSE he promised to "stay out". That's all he can do now anyway. He hasn't a clue what to do even if he did want to act.
 
Why don't you like it? Why do you want to be in charge of the world? I personally like it very much because I want to focus internally.

Let me first say that I don't actually think that Putin's taking over as leader of the world. People seem to forget that no one in the western world likes him.

However your statement struck me as odd.

Really you are ok with Vladimir "Jail you for gay propaganda" Putin to be the the world's leader? I can understand the desire to fix internal problems but Putin's not the guy you want to hand the reigns to.
 
Valerie Jarrett will go down in history as a Benedict Arnold. She playing for the other team - in both sense of the phrase.
 
Let me first say that I don't actually think that Putin's taking over as leader of the world. People seem to forget that no one in the western world likes him.

However your statement struck me as odd.

Really you are ok with Vladimir "Jail you for gay propaganda" Putin to be the the world's leader? I can understand the desire to fix internal problems but Putin's not the guy you want to hand the reigns to.
Its because I'm not a fool and consequently agree with your first point that the second becomes moot. Mine is an argument to the opposite extreme with the intent of pointing out the error in reasoning of the initial premise that Putin is the world leader. But on the issue of gay rights, Putin is hardly the worst guy in the mideast which makes your appeal on that ground very shaky.
 
We agree, but it's complicated.

Lets just call a spade a spade. Obama isn't very good at Middle East politics, his foreign and military policy in that region has been pretty awful for some time.
 
Lets just call a spade a spade. Obama isn't very good at Middle East politics, his foreign and military policy in that region has been pretty awful for some time.
Are you kidding? That's the one place he is "not intrusive and does what [he] is suppose to do".
 
Its because I'm not a fool and consequently agree with your first point that the second becomes moot. Mine is an argument to the opposite extreme with the intent of pointing out the error in reasoning of the initial premise that Putin is the world leader. But on the issue of gay rights, Putin is hardly the worst guy in the mideast which makes your appeal on that ground very shaky.

I was looking at it from the whole perspective of being the leader among leaders in the world and not on the perspective of "leader of the mid-east situation."
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT