Have you read Putin's Op Ed in the N Y Times?

[base2final]

I thought we were upside down when Reid, Pelosi, and other liberals are calling for bombing Syria and Republicans are opposing the bombing. We have a president who threatened what would happen if Syria crossed a red line, then threatened to bomb them, then said he fdidn't need Congresses approval, then asked for its approval, then said no let's wait when he realized he wouldn't get their approval.

Now we have Obama continuing to lead from behind and Putin leading from the front. What's going on when Russia takes the role as the peace keeper while we are threatening bombing them, well a pin prick attack, well very very small, well no let's wait.

Now did you read what Putin wrote in the N Y Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-fr...

[LoveLife&Laughter]

 Republicans are now against a Syrian strike because Obama is now for it.

[base2final]

It goes deeper than that LLL

[ProblemAgain]

notice all the specific detail....oh and that reminds me....rip cal worthington....

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Deeper?  McCains own word in the Senate bill called for boots on the ground.  Now he wants to impeach Obama if Obama puts boots on the ground.  Obama has never said one thing about boots on the ground, only Republicans.  How shallow can one get?

[base2final]

First there was a chest puffing threat of crossing a red line. Then Obama said he'd go around congress and take action on his own. Then he said he wanted congress to vote, and then he postponed the vote when he realized he'd lose the vote.

Does anyone know what our strategy is? To pin prick bomb? According to Obama we don't pin prick bomb. Kerry said we'd have a very very small campaign, and then said it wouldn't as big as Iraq but it wouldn't be that small either? What happens if we bomb and Assad uses chemicals again? What happens if Assad boms Turkey or Israel? There are too many questions.

We have no strategy, no idea of the what ifs, but to save face we have to do this. You think that the Democrats, Republicans, and a majority of the American people are against this just because Obama's for it? Really, is that what you believe LLL?

[LoveLife&Laughter]

"Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a self-identified Republican who was Gen. Colin Powell's chief of staff during his time as secretary of state, did not take too kindly to a recent accusation -- from Mitt Romney's controversial campaign co-chair John Sununu -- that Powell only endorsed Barack Obama for president because they're both black. Sununu would later backtrack, but the damage was done.

Wilkerson, who is white, didn't mince words on MSNBC'sThe Ed Show Friday night. "To say that Colin Powell would endorse President Obama because of his skin color is like saying Mother Teresa worked for profit," he said. And although he gave Sununu a bit of a pass, blaming his statement on an "unfortunate" choice of words, Wilkerson had much harsher words for the GOP as a whole.

"Let me just be candid," he said. "My party is full of racists. And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander in chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that's despicable."

[LoveLife&Laughter]

The republicans, Rush Limbaugh and others' stated agenda was to stop President Obama from being successful. Not to try to make the country better, to help people or to try to create more jobs, but to stop Obama!

They don't give a damn about the country only about stopping Obama and they proved this by being against anything President Obama is for.

If they were for some proposal and Obama decided to adopt it, they would do an about face and reject a proposal that they previously supported because Obama was now for it!

Are these people really Americans?

Should they even call themselves Americans, if all they care about is stopping President Obama and damn the country?

[LoveLife&Laughter]

BTF expects us to believe the GOP doesn't change their policy depending on whether Obama is for it or not.  

Anyone else want to explain BTF's own posts to him?

[exedir]

There is much that is what could be called reasonable and reasoned in what he wrote.  However, much of what was stated was a restatement of much of what President Obama has already said, and as has others, said about what is the state of the world, the state of security in the world and how it is both preserved and advanced.

The idea and the role of the United Nations has been changed by events over the years since the founding in 1947 and the charter that goes along with it.  What the United Nations embodies is cooperation when those involve want to cooperate. Whereas the UN is weak, and designed to be, in the how and who can enforce what makes the world a peaceful place to live and exist, when violence and conflict breaks out and otherwise deal with the sources of conflict between nations and groups of people that exist and have existed for years beyond counting.

Putin also recognizes the American place and role since World War II as an active, at times, unilaterally active nation in the conflicts and affairs of others both as a matter of American interests both humanitarian and in the self-interests of the United States government.  He calls this American involvement in world affairs, American exceptionalism.  This belief, Putin says, causes the world to distrust and dislike America and what it does.

In fact, what it does do, is make the world accountable to the freest, most democratic and fair country that has, only with great reluctance, taking on the burden on world problems and conflicts, as is what is necessity to provide global stability and accountability, if not relief from the suffering and violence, for those that can't and couldn't defend themselves from others, at great cost at times, to the best interest of the United States and its people.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

There is not a single mention in Putin's article, addressed to the American people, of the egregious crimes committed by the Syrian government and extensively documented by theUN Commission of Inquiry, local and international human rights groups, and numerous journalists: deliberate and indiscriminate killings of tens of thousands of civilians, executions, torture, enforced disappearances and arbitrary arrests. His op-ed also makes no mention of Russia's ongoing transfer of arms to Assad throughout the past two and a half years.

The Russian president strategically emphasizes the role of Islamic extremists in the Syrian conflict. Yes, many rebel groups have committed abuses and atrocities. Yet Putin fails to mention that it is the Syrian government that is responsible for shooting peaceful protesters (before the conflict even started) and detaining and torturing their leaders -- many of whom remain detained -- and that the continued failure of the international community to respond to atrocities in Syria allows crimes on all sides to continue unaddressed.

Putin's plea to use the United Nations Security Council to resolve the conflict sounds great, until you remember that, from the very start of this conflict, Russia has vetoed or blocked any Security Council action that may bring relief to Syria's civilians or bring perpetrators of abuses in Syria to account.

While Russia's proposal for international monitoring of Syria's chemical weapons is a welcome step, it will do nothing to bring justice to hundreds of victims of the latest attack, let alone to thousands of others, killed by conventional weapons. And when Putin squarely blames the opposition for the August 21 chemical attack -- against all available evidenceand without presenting a shred of his own evidence -- one can only wonder why Russia remains so vehemently opposed to referring Syria to the International Criminal Court, an action that would be fully in line with international law, which Putin seems so keen to uphold in his op-ed, and would enable an investigation into abuses by both sides of the conflict.

Finally, the sincerity of Putin's talk about democratic values and international law is hard to take seriously when back home his own government continues to throw activists in jail,threatens to close NGOs, and rubber-stamps draconian and discriminatory laws.

President Putin should give more credit to his audience: Russia will be judged by its actions, both on the international arena and domestically. So far, Russia has been a key obstacle to ending the suffering in Syria. A change towards a more constructive role would be welcome. But a compilation of half-truths and accusations is not the right way to signal such a change.

[A4L]

LLL, I think your reply sounded pretty accurate to me.

I hear republicans that are for going into Syria and many opposed.


I also hear many dems opposed and some for.

My question to you, is what do you believe we can do that will have a positive result? Or the most positive results?


And BTW. What's up LLL my friend?

Hope that you and your lovely wife are doing well!!!


:-)

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Hey Ben, what took you so long Buddy?

Almost all Republicans, and Democrats, thoroughly dismissed Putin's Op-Ed as disgusting.  But obviously some of the crazies have combined their lot with this viper to criticize their own country.  It's also obvious that this isn't their country anymore, in that the "constitutionalists" have no respect for American government, law, or order.