I would have but didn't get home in time. Would have liked to see the spin live.

I watched the end, and went back to watch from the beginning--

I thought, if he didn't accomplish his task, he at least did the best he could in that speech.

I think it's a terrible idea to let Putin take the lead here, and I maintain support for a strike; that being said, if they can work out a diplomatic solution--preferably one which doesn't involve Syria simply handing weapons over to a Russian regime that will just sell them back to them--then all the better for all of us.

A diplomatic solution is impossible. Assad cannot go on ruling Syria, too much of the populace won't accept that. He also can't be removed easily, since Iran and Russia back him to the hilt. The only way this ends is when one side loses the war. That's still not even close to happening.

Rand Paul makes me SICK.

...And that's a general statement, but his response--feh!

You know, for someone who claims to love small government so much, he was riding the coattails of the Ghost of Reagan preeeeetty hard right there...

Which is its own issue (really, Republicans...get over Reagan already, I mean, even if you want to argue he was the best president of the last 30 years, the way you invoke him over and over almost comes off as creepy, as if you want a necromantic presidency! lol) but I digress.

Libertarians...I can agree and disagree with.

Ron and Rand Paul? HATE THEM.

You're being irrational. Ron and Rand Paul are very different politicians. If they weren't related we wouldn't connect them at all. Who links Ted Cruz and Ron Paul?

There's plenty to disagree with in his response, but nothing to inspire such venom.

Ron Paul is appealing in a lot of ways. Can't say the same for Rand.

"Ron Paul is appealing in a lot of ways"

And there lies the problem with US politics in a nutshell, there are people that find Ron Paul "appealing".
That's a bad place to start.....

You know, I think there are merits in handing this off to Putin. Putin craves world attention and craves legitimacy. With the world spotlight on him now, he *can't* renege on any agreement that will be forged in the next few weeks. And Syria will finally sign a treaty that would prevent them from using or possessing chemical weapons.

So, if Syria were to possess chemical weapons in the future, it would 1) Provide a causus belli for world action against them and 2) Utterly humiliate Putin, who is their more important supporter.

If Putin cared about world opinion, he wouldn't have made talking about homosexuality a crime. He wouldn't have waged a war of territorial expansion (de facto) against Georgia. Putin is the consummate realist. All he cares about is advancing Russia's interests, and keeping Assad in power is in Russia's interests. Since Assad can't stay in power without having the deterrence of chemical weapons, this deal is probably just a mirage. Putin didn't present this offer to actually try and disarm Syria, he presented it to embarrass Obama and make an America strike impossible as long as the "negotiations" on transferring the weapons to international control go on. It's a brilliant Machiavellian chess-move on Putin's part, and our president fell for it completely.

@Invictus:

I dislike Ron and Rand Paul for some similar reasons (that shared insistence on the Jeffersonian Ideal, and I think both are far, FAR too isolationist, if not overtly than implicitly) and some different reasons (among my issues with Ron, I dislike his stance on the Civil Rights Act and, well, too libertarian for my tastes--and liberalism and libertarianism CAN share similar interests, but they differ as well, so that's maybe less against the man than the fact that I simply disagree with a strong libertarian bent...and then of course there's Rand and his NRA and Bible-Banging leanings...among other things...that and I just hate his attitude, he has a smugness I hate in Nancy Pelosi, I hate in Marco Rubio, and I hate in him--

I don't care WHAT you think of Bush or Obama...you DO NOT get up there and act like you're a smug asshole who can do better before you've sat in that chair and had to make the decisions...whatever you think of the men, being POTUS is one of if not the hardest job on Earth...so don't act like it's obvious you could do better--

GIVE ME A BREAK. I think Bush was, after 2003, a TERRIBLE President...but I wouldn't say I could do better! Who the hell knows??? This is the man who has to bail out economies, sort out hurricane damages, deal with North Korea, China, Russia and the Middle East on a daily basis, deal with civil rights issues, balance what's moral with what's ethical with what's actually feasible...

DON'T, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, DON'T act like it's a forgone conclusion you could do better--criticize Obama all you want, but the fact he, in your mind, fouled up doesn't mean YOU would've avoided that foul up..or something worse.)

What the hell does that post even mean and how the hell did you get from Ron and Rand Paul to whatever the fuck those last three paragraphs are...? ^

So you hate people who criticize the president, even when it's over the Syria crisis, which he's bungled root and branch. Good to know you're still a liberal hack.

"And there lies the problem with US politics in a nutshell, there are people that find Ron Paul "appealing".
That's a bad place to start....."

That awkward moment when you actually AGREE with Nigee...

I mean, the man took issue with the Civil Rights Act!

...I'm sorry, I don't care if you're a Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian or Tea Partyer...

There are some things you don't attack, and one is the damn Civil Rights Act!

I get that he's attacking it more on the philosophical sentiment of it being a big government action than the actual content itself (at least I hope he doesn't take issue with the content itself) but still...even if you're a stringent believer in small government and the Jeffersonian Dream of Agrarian Self-Reliance...

You have to admit there ARE instances where big government actions HAVE worked out nicely for us!

Hell, Jefferson HIMSELF arguably pulled off the biggest big government act of them all when he bought the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon!

I'll end my digression there, as I can--and have, lol!--go on about this for pages here...

But yeah--I can't say I view either Paul, Ron or Rand, as a direction in which I'd like to see American politics go.

Ditto Mark Rubio.

Hillary's my favorite so far for 2016, if she runs, but a Christie/Hillary matchup would be interesting...Christie isn't the type of bland compromise pick that only gets worse with time, ie, he's not another Mitt Romney...

There are some genuinely-likable qualities to the man.

@nvictus I remember people who said during Bush's residency that anyone who criticizes the President was a traitor and should be shot. It's not just a liberal thing.

You'll always have assholes, Celticfox.

obiwanobiwan is a walking argument against universal suffrage.

You know I'm sure people would make the same arguement against you because you would vote differently.

And yeah there'll always be assholes so then call him an asshole versus making it a liberal/conservative thing.

"What the hell does that post even mean and how the hell did you get from Ron and Rand Paul to whatever the fuck those last three paragraphs are...? ^"

I first said why I disliked Ron...
Then Rand...
And one reason I dislike Rand--his attitude that he can do this most difficult of tasks better than Obama when he's NEVER had to face the spotlight or scrutiny or decisions--led to the end.

"So you hate people who criticize the president, even when it's over the Syria crisis, which he's bungled root and branch. Good to know you're still a liberal hack."

No, criticizing Obama is fine, I said so--

I take issue specifically with the "I can do better attitude."

Obama has so far avoided bombing Syria and has brought the Russians to the table to discuss a solution, I think this is what politicians should do, that is their job.
No war will be ended as a result of 'strategic bombing', that is just the beginning.
It's good to see a politician take time before making a big decision like this, David Cameron was the opposite, was desperate to show the world what a great international statesman he was by calling back parliament to vote on a subject that he had very little information on, he ended up embarrassed and defeated. If he had waited 24 hours until after Kerrys speech the vote would have been different.
Also it's notable that the US have avoided the Syrian issue for two years, there are now millions of refugees and a deepening humanitarian crisis, it's a bit Johnny-cum-lately to forget the first 100,000 deaths and then worry about the next 1400.
There is so much more the international community could have done in the last two years to work towards a solution, apart from supply the rebels with stockpiled weapons and create a proxy war with the Russians and Iranians.
At this time it is hard to think about but there could be worse leaders than Assad.
All wars end with diplomacy and compromise, if the USA really want an end to the war in Syria that seems like a great place to start.

I called him a liberal hack because he is one. Someone like Syvl36 I'd call a conservative hack. I won't alter the truthful things I say to fit in with your standards of political correctness.


obiwanobiwan, when it comes to Syria I think an "I can do better attitude" is pretty understandable. This is a historic humiliation for the presidency over the planned intervention, and the whole civil war has been handled stupendously badly since it began two and a half years ago. Don't try to spin this away. It's been a debacle and Obama deserves all the criticism he gets.

obi, is it safe to say, then, that you are horrified at Obama's claims, during Bush's Presidency, that he could do better?

(Claims that are more laughable each passing day, obviously).

"All wars end with diplomacy and compromise, if the USA really want an end to the war in Syria that seems like a great place to start."

No wars end with diplomacy and compromise. They end with one side winning and the other losing. We're nowhere near that point in Syria. And what could a diplomatic solution even look like? A huge segment of the Syrian population cannot live with Assad staying in power, but if there's one thing the Syrian regime won't give in on it's that. Talks in Geneva are just to keep the United States from getting more embarrassed than it already is. They will solve nothing.

"No wars end with diplomacy and compromise. They end with one side winning and the other losing." - you are truly an idiot, engage brain before typing on keyboard.

"No wars end with diplomacy and compromise"

Then explain Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 2 and Afghanistan.

Korea is still going on, we lost Vietnam, we militarily won Iraq but left no forces behind since Obama didn't want them there, we won Afghanistan but have stayed so long it will become a loss when the Kabul government is overthrown after we leave.

If Korea is going on, then how come there hasn't been any fighting since '53 other than an occasional incident?

I also rather doubt that we truly lost Vietnam. We lost the political will to be in Viet Nam, but the Tet offensive was one of the largest disasters for the Viet Cong in the course of the war.

And Obama wanted troops in Iraq. 25,000 if I'm correct. But Iraq didn't want them there, so it ended diplomatically.

And in Afghanistan there are talks with the Taliban now about peace. Another example of diplomacy ending it.
A

There is of course a beautiful irony here, people on a diplomacy forum indignant about Obama using diplomacy as opposed to military force ...... do some of you ever read back what you wrote and realize how crazy you are.
How can bombing Syria advance the cause of world peace?
If it's to teach Assad a lesson what lesson will that be?
Maybe a discussion with the Russians and Iranians about the escalation of arms into the country might be a bit more productive, US aggression will probably lead to an increase in arms supplies into Syria.

I don't think American bombings will solve anything. I also don't think diplomacy will solve the conflict, either. This will only end when either Assad beats the rebels or the rebels kill Assad. And even that won't be the end, since the rebels could very well try and exterminate the Allawites in a post-Assad era to avenge all the suffering the regime has inflicted on much of the Sunni Arab population, and Assad would do the same to rebel areas should he ever recover the whole of the country. Syrian society has melted away, and no amount of talking in Geneva will put it back together again. This country cannot be fixed. The fighting will go on indefinitely.

You also seem to really misunderstand the game we're playing here, NigeeBaby. Diplomacy the game is a game of war. We don't spend our times sending messages to each other on how best to avoid one player moving his units into another's supply centers.

CNN's Instant Poll on Obama's Speech on Syria:

67-to-37%, responders favored Obama's approach...
But 47-to-50% they said he did NOT make a convincing case for military action.
(So you favor his militaristic approach but you don't feel convinced about that approach?)
Pre-Speech, 30-to-60% responders said the US does not have a national interest in Syria (I say we do), and Post-Speech that number moved slightly to 39-to-60%.

SO. Are we just afraid to take action on what we claim to favor morally, or is there another reason for these seemingly-conflicting results?