Obama administration swooshing to war in Syria?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

This isn't personal Cheesehead.

Of course not -- Ernst's post #81 didn't name me specifically twice and not mention anyone el ... oh, wait, that was what Ernst did in post #81.

chalsal, If post #81 was not intended to apply specifically to me, then to whom, in your analysis, was it addressed?

This is open debate.

... and Ernst could have chosen not to distort and mischaracterize what I posted by substituting phrasing that is what Ernst would choose to negatively characterize President Obama, and then deceptively try to get me to agree that that wording applied to Putin -- but he did go ahead and do that anyway, which was not honest.

It's generally healthy.

... when played honestly, which is not what Ernst's doing in post #81.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Folks,

Note Ernst's false implication that I ever called him "untruthy".

Ernst seems, lately in this thread, unable to write any post related to me in a straightforward honest manner without falsehood, attempted deception, and/or attempted belittlement.

This sounds like you are saying that you have not called him "untruthy" even though you are now describing his posts related to you as untruthy and belittling. This may be a chicken and egg conundrum or not. Please do not look back in detail to establish the order of the chicken, or the egg.

You might feel that you should present a case and if only others would examine the details they would agree. I believe that very few people skim over the words in the threads and the tenor of conversations is already noticed. I do not think that there are aspects of the conversation that need to be raised to our attention but you are the best arbiter of your needs.

[garo]

Putin is just giving Obama a way out to save face. In the process he gets to look good and increases his relevance on the international stage. I do think though that Stratford and cheesehead overstate the fall of Russia. Yes it is nowhere near as important as 30 years ago but it still has a helluva lot of nukes.

And say what you will, if you had read the oped without knowing who wrote it, it would have made complete sense. I was quite surprised at the eloquent way in which Putin stated his case and I find it hard to marshall any argument againt what he says without resorting to ad hominem which is precisely what Stratagainst and cheesehead are doing. Whataboutism is a rather pathetic attempt at discrediting the messenger when you dont like the essentially correct argument being made. Note also that for cheesehead there is Putin and President Obama. Fail on bias!

Yes chicken hawks are going to cite Putin arming Syria but it is not like the "West" - funny how a direction has become a player in international affairs - doesn't supply arms to any unsavoury regimes like say a kingdom that hasn't had any election forever or a bunch of generals who just removed a democratically elected government or say a country that has occupied another illegally in contravention of countless UN resolutions and that used chemical weapons and other banned weapons in the recent past.


Nothing to see here folks, just move along.

[kladner]

Yes it is nowhere near as important as 30 years ago but it still has a helluva lot of nukes.

Exactly! Plus much petroleum.

EDIT: You hit a great deal squarely on the head, Garo. Strange (or not so strange) how the same sorts of acts can be interpreted differently depending on who is doing and who is viewing.

[only_human]

Obama had a bad plan. I do credit him for bucking his echo chamber and choosing not to act on that bad plan.

I think Russia's relevance is greater than a nuclear arsenal and oil capacity and if this latest minuet has shown that to good light, then great. This has been a sticky wicket and face saving all around is helpful.

Sucks to be in Syria though.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by only_human

Obama had a bad plan. I do credit him for bucking his echo chamber and choosing not to act on that bad plan.

"The threat is stronger than the execution."
(Sometimes attributed to Aaron Nimzowitsch, who is said to have applied it to his chess opponent's threat to smoke at the board. It remains a well known truism to chess players and war strategists alike.)

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Wah, wah, wah...

They told me you could punch, George - were they lying?

Richard, I realize it must be immensely frustrating to have the facts-on-the-ground going so squarely and clearly - apparently to just about everyone but you - against your grand lifelong Weltanschauung, the whole now-exposed-as-phoney "partisan good v evil", "freedom lovers v commies", "'Merica as a force for truth and democracy" what-have-you meme. In my experience, people who suffer the cognitive dissonance engendered by such my-worldview-is-crumbling events tend to react in one of two ways:

1. Lash out at the messenger;

2. Engage in a difficult and painful reexamination of one's worldview.

Many people never get to [2], but even the ones who do usually go through [1] first. Hey, it took me over a decade to admit to myself freely that the America I grew up believing in no longer exists, and hasn't in a long while. But while I sympathize with your frustration to some extent, I've simply never been one to treat flagrant hypocrisy with kid gloves.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by xilman

Very well, if you insist. You've got it all wrong.

Yes, that's abundantly clear now.
Sorry, Richard.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by garo

Putin is just giving Obama a way out to save face.

Bull.

it still has a helluva lot of nukes.

Describe how those nukes give Russia power in the sorts of conflicts that have been common in that part of the world in the past two decades.

I don't see anyone here, or elsewhere, describing how U.S. possession of nukes has made a significant difference in its interventions of the past two decades.

And say what you will, if you had read the oped without knowing who wrote it, it would have made complete sense. I was quite surprised at the eloquent way in which Putin stated his case and I find it hard to marshall any argument againt what he says

... without referring to the numerous factors that Putin didn't mention, that is.

without resorting to ad hominem which is precisely what Stratagainst and cheesehead are doing.

More bull.

You apparently don't know the definition of "ad hominem". Please look it up. I've never written any ad hominem attack on Putin. I've not seen Stratfor (your mangling of the name reveals that you don't actually have a serious retort to what they say) make any ad hominem attack on Putin. If you disagree, please quote the exact words used.

Whataboutism is a rather pathetic attempt at discrediting the messenger when you dont like the essentially correct argument being made.

Pointing out real historical factors is perfectly valid analysis. Your use of "whataboutism" again reveals that you have no serious retort to offer.

Yes chicken hawks are going to cite Putin arming Syria but it is not like the "West" - funny how a direction has become a player in international affairs - doesn't supply arms to any unsavoury regimes like say a kingdom that hasn't had any election forever or a bunch of generals who just removed a democratically elected government or say a country that has occupied another illegally in contravention of countless UN resolutions and that used chemical weapons and other banned weapons in the recent past.

Hunh?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Richard, I realize it must be immensely frustrating to have the facts-on-the-ground going so squarely and clearly - apparently to just about everyone but you - against your grand lifelong Weltanschauung, the whole now-exposed-as-phoney "partisan good v evil", "freedom lovers v commies", "'Merica as a force for truth and democracy" what-have-you meme. In my experience, people who suffer the cognitive dissonance engendered by such my-worldview-is-crumbling events tend to react in one of two ways:

Folks,

Ernst has gone psychedelic.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Folks,

Ernst has gone psychedelic.

That's funny. I'm partial to viridian myself.

(No need to the click link. It is a two minute offtopic clip... someone has to fill David's vacuum)
Beetle Juice (1988): Delia-and-otho-renovationg

- Viridian. - Viridian. Why do I know that name?
Blue-green!
Hydrated chromic oxide.
Remember, I'm schooled in chemistry. I was a hair analyst.
- What? - Briefly.