dagblog - Comments for "Putin---don't play me!"

But Pink Floyd, man!

Donal — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:48:30 +0000

In reply to ...and this spelling

But Pink Floyd, man!

Causes bemusement and even

artappraiser — Sun, 15 Sep 2013 01:43:13 +0000

In reply to Amerika fit then and it fits

Causes bemusement and even laughter rather than squirming. Causes whatever else you write not to be taken seriously.

Obama confirms that use of

artappraiser — Sun, 15 Sep 2013 01:38:48 +0000

In reply to looks like we are going to be

Obama confirms that use of force by the U.S. outside of the U.N. will remain on the table (and that will now apparently be without Congressional approval):

Obama welcomes Syria chemical weapons deal but retains strikes option
US and Russia reach Geneva agreement to destroy Syria stockpile by mid-2014 but differ on steps to be taken if plan fails
By Paul Lewis in Washington, theguardian.com, 14 September 2013

[....] However, Kerry argued that military action could still be be taken without the backing of the UN or US Congress. He said such action could be taken "with a decision by the president of the United States and likeminded allies if they thought that was what it came to".

Obama, who was briefed on the talks by his national security adviser, Susan Rice, reiterated that stance in his statement, saying that the diplomatic breakthrough was the result of "credible threat of US military force" and adding: "If diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act." [....]

Amerika fit then and it fits

Peter — Sun, 15 Sep 2013 01:22:13 +0000

In reply to BTW, the spelling comes from

Amerika fit then and it fits now and if my using this little device causes you and some others to squirm it is just as effective now as it was then. I'm sure you thought you were a fiery radical in those long ago days but you seem more like a Love Me I'm A Liberal type. I'll leave the changing of attitudes to the PsyOps teams, I'm merely stating my opinions. You do seem to be showing your insecurities by fixating on my little rhetorical device when you could be advancing your hawkish Syria agenda.

looks like we are going to be

artappraiser — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 23:21:56 +0000

In reply to It looks like we are going to

looks like we are going to be spared a war in Syria after all

I don't really see it like that; not necessarily. For now we are spared what the U.S. Sec. of State called an "unbelievably small" strike on Syria. And the U.S. Congress is spared from voting on it.

But after all kinds of wrangling at the U.N. lasting maybe months, we move on to the trust but verify stage. Where footsie can be played with U.N. inspectors. (I.E.: Sorry, we can't let you go there, there or there, there's rebels threatening your safety.) I'm not predicting he's going to do the same thing, though he has much more reason to play the Saddam playbook with U.N. inspectors, as he has actual WMD's and he has a civil war going on as an excuse. But you will have the McCain Russia hating types and other hawks on Syria screaming all the time that he's evading, Russia's evading, whatever. And calls to lob punishing missiles (like Bill Clinton did at Saddam) when he misbehaves.

That's why Putin wanted the threat of force out of the U.N. agreements. So when/if the dust ups happens, U.S. would have to start with the U.N. (But who will be in our Congress then, and further down the road, who will be the President?)

Then's there's the problems as to actual movement and disposal of the weapons during a civil war. As this NYTimes article explains quite well, that would require lots of "boots on the ground." The U.N. doesn't have those troops. Who is going to offer them, Russia? No way. Not just because others would cry foul, but because the Russian public doesn't want their troops to be involved in another Afghanistan or Chechnya either. So I see a situation where Assad doesn't dare use those weapons, but neither are they secure. Getting them secure is one of the main reasons that all of this is happening, no?

Call my crazy, but I can more easily foresee a situation where Obama and Putin get together on a drone target list for jihadis in Syria (so that they can't access chemical weapons) than I can see them getting all of those chemical weapons secured and destroyed in short order.

I am keeping fingers crossed that all of this leads to a serious downgrade in the civil war there, if not an end to it. (So that it's more like Iraq or Libya, best one can hope for, I think. Where at least some of the refugees risk return.) Otherwise it looks to me like it will be a major international point of extreme argument and threats of a larger war for a very long time.

It looks like we are going to

Aaron Carine — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 22:25:37 +0000

In reply to Putin---don't play me!

It looks like we are going to be spared a war in Syria after all. But the United States is still on shaky legal ground in using the threat of force to change Syrian behavior. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter says you can't use force unless there is an armed attack against a member of the United Nations.

BTW, the spelling comes from

artappraiser — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 22:23:00 +0000

In reply to Why am I not surprised that

BTW, the spelling comes from the '60s

I know hon, I was there, did my share of the SDS meetings as a teenybop. BTW back atcha: there was no such thing as Disco in 1970! (Nor in '71, nor in '72, nor in '73....for that matter; maybe like 10 people were using the term in '74...) There were things happening in 1970 like this, though.

This reply of yours has just made it worse: you sound like poser who doesn't really know the culture you supposedly admire and from whence you borrow. Betcha even have a Che T-shirt. You really don't know how ridiculous you sound to Boomers, do you? It's a slur, it was meant as a slur as used in the late 60's and early 70's, and you are using it as a slur. Ineptly. because it is long past its date of expiration, long past even ironic uses and parody.

Back to my actual point in asking you if you ever thought about how you might get better results for your arguments if you didn't use it. You did answer me here by basically implying that you post on the internet to express contempt and outrage about the U.S., not to communicate with anyone or to try to change anyone's attitudes, but just to shriek and rant in obsolete rhetoric, obsolete rhetoric which sounds ridiculous to many ears.

Many in America, who lived

Resistance — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 21:53:23 +0000

In reply to Why am I not surprised that

Many in America, who lived during the draft period, know for a certainty, America had become and is still unrepentantly, a practicing adulterous, wh..... only the blind, covers over her sins. ...America is like some harlot; who paints herself up as something to behold and when the makeup is removed, she's ugly, As white washed graves, full of worms and disgusting things. "Be prepared to drink the cup of wrath America", The blood of all those you've murdered will be avenged, despite your claims of exceptionalism. Hyprocisy is not a virtue and it is no excuse, to claim you were better than most. So before you try to remove the splinter from the eyes of other leaders, remove the rafter from you own eyes.

...and this spelling

Verified Atheist — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 20:10:36 +0000

In reply to I and others have been

…and this spelling separates the American Continent from the arrogant country…

Oh. that's your reason? I've got a more precise method for you: refer to the country as the United States, the US, or USA.

Glad I could help. (Lecturing people at DagBlog about American Exceptionalism is like going to an Astronomy conference and explaining how there's not actually a dark side of the moon. Sheesh.)

BTW, someone who awoke from a

rmrd0000 — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 18:59:31 +0000

In reply to You telegraph your contempt

BTW, someone who awoke from a coma in 1970 would be stuck with memories of the 1960s..