General Discussion

sibelian

(7,804 posts) Tue Sep 10, 2013, 02:17 AM Sep 2013

So why weren't you all saying "Russia should take responsibility" two days ago?

Why were you all saying: "waaaaaah, we need to bomb Syria?"

Do you understand that your position changes with the wind? That it's blatantly tarnsparent that your position changes with the wind? That you don't really HAVE a position?

That you can't be trusted any more than he can?

That you know he can't be trusted, and neither can you? Which is why you have colossal "trust" thing in every single one of your silly "Won't somebody please think of the president" posts?

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So why weren't you all saying "Russia should take responsibility" two days ago? (Original Post) sibelian Sep 2013 OP

Russia has been mentioned during this entire thing JI7 Sep 2013 #1

Other than the people who were? Recursion Sep 2013 #2

Wow you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Obama. I was saying it two MONTHS ago. Zen Democrat Sep 2013 #3

Big ol Cha Sep 2013 #4

I'm so sorry. Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #6

I'm one who said "Russia should take responsibility" 11 days ago. Waiting For Everyman Sep 2013 #7

JI7

(89,250 posts)

1. Russia has been mentioned during this entire thing

Reply to sibelian (Original post)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 02:19 AM

Sep 2013

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

2. Other than the people who were?

Reply to sibelian (Original post)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 02:22 AM

Sep 2013

I can't speak to the hypothetical of a situation where people weren't saying that.

Zen Democrat

(5,901 posts)

3. Wow you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Obama. I was saying it two MONTHS ago.

Reply to sibelian (Original post)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 02:27 AM

Sep 2013

Russia has always been the glitch in fixing Syria.

Cha

(297,254 posts)

4. Big ol

Reply to Zen Democrat (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 02:52 AM

Sep 2013

freakin' chip.

And, yes.. I've seen that on DU over the weeks on end of the debate on Syria.

Good for you, Zen Dem. It makes sense since Putin is Assad's ally.

Summer Hathaway

(2,770 posts)

5. I'm so sorry.

Reply to sibelian (Original post)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 02:59 AM

Sep 2013

Your Poutrage Parade has obviously been rained on, and now you're all wet.

Yes, there were people who were prepared to support Obama if push came to shove, and they felt he needed to shove back. Despite not wanting to see military action taken in Syria, I was one of those people who would support the president if he made that decision.

Why? Because I trust his decision-making capabilities. He's more than earned that trust.

Those of us who were willing to stand behind Obama's decision in this matter are quite relieved to know that as things have played out, no military intervention is likely. That is not a matter of changing one's position - it is a matter of heaving a sigh of relief that when push actually DID come to shove, the other side blinked.

On the other hand, there are some here who are actually enraged that "war" is not imminent. They had their OPs all ready - along with their graphics of Obama with blood on his hands, their photo-shopped images of Obama landing on an aircraft carrier, their outraged posts about how many children were dying as a result of the Bloodthirsty Warmonger whose only goal all along was to entangle the nation in another quagmire like Iraq.

What is evident about a certain contingent here on DU is that while holding themselves out as the ultimate peaceniks, they are actually disappointed that their golden opportunity to hold Obama out as a warmonger has been snatched from their sweaty little palms.

And for a small, but very vocal group, if a few thousand dead Syrians was the price to be paid for having that opportunity, they'd be more than willing to see that price paid.

Response to sibelian (Original post)

Summer Hathaway This message was self-deleted by its author.

Waiting For Everyman

(9,385 posts)

7. I'm one who said "Russia should take responsibility" 11 days ago.

Reply to sibelian (Original post)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 04:45 AM

Sep 2013

I hadn't posted on the subject of Syria before then. Also was wondering if Putin might cave and give up Assad.

(A few wondered that too, while some assured me I was wrong and my sources were crap... I think some here think they're in a courtroom.)

8/31/2013
I think this should be Russia's responsibility.

Syria is their ally. The world community should put pressure on the Russians to do something this time, instead of us.
...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023567748#post18

9/3/2013
...
Also, where is the pressure on Russia and China, Syria's friends, to do something to discourage Assad? For those who believe "looking bad" is a big thing, why don't we put a focus on making Russia look bad for doing nothing about this?
...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586203

[div class="excerpt"
]9/4/2013 OP
Russia "doesn't exclude" the possibility of supporting a UN resolution against Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023593284

9/4/2013
...
Although I believe the attack happened and I think it's extremely likely that Assad did it, I will be very interested in the UN's objective analysis of what evidence it found.

Apparently Putin is too. Maybe he already knows that it will be too conclusive for him to plausibly stonewall, and is "hedging his bets". It reads as if he wants to create another option for himself, in case ones is needed. Just a guess, we'll see. I thought it was very interesting that he included these little comments in his interview though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023593284#post4

9/4/2013 OP
Vladimir Putin 'doesn't exclude' backing military force on Syria if evidence proves 'beyond doubt'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014585014

9/4/2013
Certainly it's most likely that at least one of them (China or Russia) would veto.

I'm wondering though, if it came to a point where the evidence was well-proven objectively and their veto was all that stood in the way of a resolution, if that technicality would matter very much to the rest of the world. If it didn't matter, the vetoing country could be left feeling a bit naked. And that could possibly lead to standing aside in the face of a losing battle to uphold Assad. That's very hypothetical, but you never know.

Some say that Russia and China are more concerned about arrangements regarding the gas pipeline than their loyalty to Assad. Again, that's speculative. Time will tell, I guess.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014585014#post4

But then, I'm probably not who you're referring to because I'm not always on Obama's side; I'm very opposed to his handling of the NSA/DoJ etc., among other things.

Reply to this discussion