The Russian/Syrian connection thread

[Brasscasing]

Well Brass, we do differ in our opinions. But that's okay. 

It's happened before on occasion, lol.

I keep hearing of this power vacuum because we are not going in guns ablaze. Is it really?

It's not that simple, imo. A leadership vacuum encompasses other aspects as well. Failure to enforce agreements/treaties, creating a red line then backing off when it's crossed, allowing a belligerent nation (Russia) dictate fly zones in a coalition run combat operation then standing idly by while our guys (US/Coalition) backed Free Syrian Army factions are getting pummeled by said Russians. Giving away the farm with some totally unenforceable nuc deal with a country that's motto is 'Death To America, Death To Israel'. That kind of thing...Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

You have a gangster who is doing everything possible to hold on to power. Completely alienated and the country in taters. Is that the so-called leader? What I see is a gangster fighting for territory and we know from past experience, they don't last long.

Putin or Assad? Doesn't matter, both are gangsters. Putin is a leader, yes. He leads thru lies, bullying, threats and propaganda but he is leading. Assuming that he's going to step on his d*ck at some point isn't good enough. In this world the good guy doesn't always win. In fact, in matters of war and geopolitics the good guy rarely wins.

That some idiot will pull the trigger and start WWIII? Even the gangsters are not that stupid.

I disagree. The Turks'll squeeze the trigger if they believe it's justified (and that doesn't take much when their territory is involved or adherence to a no fly order isn't heeded).

Israel, Saudi Arabia the same.

We still own the world's most formidable army. That still scare the shit out of gangsters and they tread carefully. Just because we don't have a cowboy in the WH dumb enough to listen to unscrupulous cowards profiteering from war should label our POTUS a ninny.

The world's biggest gun is useless if you have someone who refuses to use it. Once the gangsters figured that out they had a free run. Obama could have told Putin "Stay out of my sandbox (Syria literally is a sandbox) or we'll shoot you down. Putin would not have argued. Instead we have Obama stating he's working with the Russians while his US backed fighters are abandoned and annihilated. Do you think the next time the US needs local support in a situation the volunteers are going to be flooding in? I think not.

Meanwhile, I'd let Putler exhaust everything he has, sit down and watch how his country collapse. Just like Nicholas II. They have no desire to be a civilized society, but then again, did gangsters ever did?

We agree here. I've stated this may be the best thing strategically for the west as far a Putin overextending himself goes but it does open those other doors we've been talking about above.

Keep in mind, the Middle East is using a religious crusade as an excuse to forward a geopolitical land grab. Do we really want to get in the middle of that mess? Are we really trying to christianize them so we can claim a moral victory? Is that leadership? Sounds more like Putler. I say they should sort things out before we waste our human assets in a war so far away. After all, we have our own oil. Once the dust settles you will see claims of another Ottoman empire. That's when we go in and kick ass if they have designs of conquering, which I see is the inevitable conclusion.

We are already in the middle of it. And to that end we need to meet our stated objectives or it'll be seen as a loss and embolden further aggression.

You see, Putin doesn't have to win to claim a victory, he just has to stop the US/West from achieving their objectives and it's a victory for the gangsters, that's the difference.

Yes, you could adopt the isolationist stance. However, eventually, after the gangsters have raped Eastern Europe and the Middle East they'll start or go after something too big to ignore and we'll be in it, regardless...Pay now or pay more later.

The gangsters are getting stronger and more emboldened with every perceived victory. Rome burns and we fiddle.

Brass

[mendeleyev]

That would be the same government that just this week released photos to Russian media of Orthodox tent chapels set up for use of soldiers in Syria. It was a ploy, much like Stalin's of years gone by, to use religion to warm the hearts of the people to whatever fighting needed to be done.

All was being accepted swimmingly, until someone noticed that the tents were photographed surrounded by trees, freezing conditions and snow, in an environment obviously having nothing to do with Syria, especially as the temperature at the main base was 70F/21C yesterday. So, today the government is backpedaling fast and furious by explaining that these were mere examples of military chapels.

It does sicken me that Russian soldiers in Syria are suddenly being labeled as holy warriors by the Russian media.

[mendeleyev]

I couldn't find it now, but yesterday there was a doctored photo on Russian social media showing a Russian plane dropping bombs. Each bomb was labeled with names like "children's garden" and "pensions" and "utilities" and "medical clinics" and etc. It was a protest of sorts that each bomb is taking money away from home where the Russian economy is in decline.

[fathertime]

In Obama's defense, from what I've read about that telephone call he didn't acknowledge guilt. However, it wouldn't be the first time someone in uniform has been thrown to the wolves doing their job for political expediency/optics.

Yeah, but I don't think Obama is throwing anybody to wolves in this case...our people probably did make that error that cost all those innocent lives...trying to get out in front of the story is probably what he is doing.

That's an overly generalized statement. If you look at the stats you'd find probably 70% of the civilian casualty rate is due to Taliban/insurgent operations/bombings and terrorism not Coalition/ISAF operations. In other words Afghans killing Afghans.

I'm certain you are correct in that Afghans have killed Afghans...and how much of that are we fostering?  Who is supplying or has supplied the weapons?

Oh, I don't know about that. It's relatively hard to substantiate a 'war crime' designation (legally). However, the phrase is thrown around a lot for shock value.

Yup it is thrown around for shock value.

Expenses, yes. The attacks, no. They'll simply switch to civilian targets of opportunity, diplomats, NGO's, foreign business, etc. They don't stop unless they're made to stop.

Pretty much everything we are involved with can be a target.  They will not stop, nor should they as long as we are interfering, or the effects of our interference are in place.

Well, if you want to read why the US was attacked in 2001 (and the other terrorist acts), read on and learn from the horse's mouth then tell me if the terrorists were justified in their crimes...

Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'

None that we're getting (other than whatever trade and business arrangements a have been put in place but right now I still believe that's a one way street of investment and infrastructure by the west). The Afghans remain relatively safe though and that's a good thing.

The rest of your comment are ideology, they're not based in fact or history and I utterly reject it's premise as it pertains to my quote. If you want to discuss the 'tactical' aspects of a limited occupation as opposed to a long term occupation we can do that. Keep in mind though that a common error is to assume that Afghanistan remains a belligerent occupation, it is not and has not been since late 2001. ISAF remained(s) at the behest of the Afghan government.

Brass

This is probably a discussion for another time. 

[fathertime]

Putin or Assad? Doesn't matter, both are gangsters. Putin is a leader, yes. He leads thru lies, bullying, threats 

Through the years, the US leadership has done all these things....and we support other regimes that do the same when it is in our interest.  .


Fathertime! 

[BillyB]

It was a protest of sorts that each bomb is taking money away from home where the Russian economy is in decline.

If Russia helps keep Assad in power, they will be handsomely rewarded and Russia will keep Syria as a business partner instead of losing them to the West. Of course if Putin fails to keep Assad in power, Russia will have to eat up the costs of getting into the war. Putin seen Obama's lack of willingness to get involved in the Middle East. I think Putin will succeed in keeping Assad in power.


If the West shown real strength in Ukraine last year, I seriously doubt Putin would be in Syria right now. Putin will only participate in events he has a chance at winning at.

[mendeleyev]

Russia will be rewarded whether or not Assad stays in power because a newly enriched Iran will reward Russia. Win or lose, Assad's Syria will likely change in borders and be a far poorer nation for a long time.

What Mr Putin is doing, if he succeeds, is to replace America as the regional power. I am not so confident that he will be successful, but you are right in that he is walking thru a wide open door left that way because a traitor is in the White House.

Long term however, Putin risks losing Russia. The Muslim republics in the Caucasus region have never lost hope of someday throwing off the Imperial yoke. They would love to send Moscow packing. It is not lost on those folk that Russia is bombing fellow Muslims, regardless of what stripe of Islam to which they belong.

Russia's military is stretched pretty thin when you consider the number of professionals, and the threatres to which Moscow is committed. That is in part why Russia often operates at the front with contract troops (mercenaries). There are four primary areas to which the Russian Defense Ministry is committed to troop placement:

- The Kremlin feels strongly about maintaining a certain percentage, around 50,000 troops, in Russia's Far East. They are not concerned about an invasion from NK, but a very large country with a shared border still harbors claims about certain areas of land now controlled by Russia.

- Although official numbers are over 800,000 the reality is that Russia's active and ready professional land force is closer to 310,000. With 50,000 to 60,000 stationed at various points along the border with Ukraine, with 31,000 troops needed to take Crimea, with significant numbers stationed along the Eastern Military District (previously known as the Far Eastern Military District), with a large number of troops comprising the new Central Military District (Urals and on into Siberia), and with Russia feeling the need to maintain troop strength in the Western and Southern Military Districts, that doesn't leave many foot soldiers left to go to Syria.

- The Defense Ministry and Security Council currently identify NATO/USA, and China as the top threats to Russia's security. However, the top internal security threats are seen as: Caucasus republics, the Central and Eastern borders, and terrorism in the two capitals (Moscow and Peter) conducted by Islamic groups. Despite all the public propaganda, the Defense Ministry does not view any of the former Soviet vassals as threats.

Russian military doctrine allows for nuclear options even in limited regional conflicts. That is enough to scare off the USA and China, but it doesn't seem to make Moscow any less nervous. The greatest threat is the one that seems to plague Moscow and/or Peter every couple of years--terrorism from the conquered Caucasus regions. You cannot "nuke" that threat away with the push of a button. So, as Russia props up Assad by killing Muslims who oppose him, Russia unwittingly opens the door to retribution back home.

[mendeleyev]

Every once in a while, Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov likes to stir the pot. Earlier this year he ordered than any Russian law enforcement personnel (non-Chechen) were to be detained and executed on sight. Curiously, he was not reprimanded by Moscow.

This week the Grozny government has made some changes to wedding rules. The new rules forbid the bride from dancing, couples who dance together must hold each other at arm's length, suggestive dance moves are outlawed, wedding participants and guests may not get drunk, nor are they allowed to dress indecently. As to who gets to set the indecency standards, that will likely be left to local officials and clergy. In addition, weapons may not be fired in celebration, and President Kadyrov has told wedding dress shops that they must cease the sale of European style dresses that are revealing.

While some of these new rules violate the Constitutional rights of Russian citizens, Islamic culture in general demands that the laws of a land must conform to Islam, and not vice versa.

The more that Moscow does to eliminate client state's opposition in the Middle East, the threat of long term revenge to be exacted on Moscow may well escalate over time.

[fathertime]

What Mr Putin is doing, if he succeeds, is to replace America as the regional power. I am not so confident that he will be successful, but you are right in that he is walking thru a wide open door left that way because a traitor is in the White House.

 

Obama is a traitor?  Why is he a traitor?


Fathertime! 

[mendeleyev]

Well, for starters, try the Iran deal. If that isn't enough, consider the actions an Imperial president who sidelines Congress using Executive orders for something he can't get from the Representative branch of government. There is a reason, even when sometimes we find it slow and frustrating, for the separation of powers.

[fathertime]

Well, for starters, try the Iran deal. If that isn't enough, consider the actions an Imperial president who sidelines Congress using Executive orders for something he can't get from the Representative branch of government. There is a reason, even when sometimes we find it slow and frustrating, for the separation of powers.

The Iran deal does not make him a traitor.  Why would you say it does? 


Obama hasn't executed as many executive orders as other presidents, does that make all the other presidents traitors too?   I get the feeling you don't particularly agree with his policies, therefore he is a traitor, because thus far the reasons you have provided are weak, considering the charge you made. 


Fathertime!   

[2tallbill]

Russian Military Uses Syria as Proving Ground, and West Takes Notice
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ERIC SCHMITT New York Times

WASHINGTON — Two weeks of air and missile strikes in Syria have given Western intelligence
and military officials a deeper appreciation of the transformation that Russia’s military has undergone under President Vladimir V. Putin, showcasing its ability to conduct operations
beyond its borders and providing a public demonstration of new weaponry, tactics and strategy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/world/middleeast/russian-military-uses-syria-as-proving-ground-and-west-takes-notice.html?_r=0

[2tallbill]

Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b8234932-719b-11e5-ad6d-f4ed76f0900a.html#ixzz3odrTHScK

Estimates by local traders and engineers put crude production in Isis-held territory at
about 34,000-40,000 bpd. The oil is sold at the wellhead for between $20 and $45 a
barrel, earning the militants an average of $1.5m a day.

“It’s a situation that makes you laugh and cry,” said one Syrian rebel commander in
Aleppo, who buys diesel from Isis areas even as his forces fight the group on the front
lines. “But we have no other choice, and we are a poor man’s revolution. Is anyone else
offering to give us fuel?”

Oil as a strategic weapon


Isis’ oil strategy has been long in the making. Since the group emerged on the scene
in Syria in 2013, long before they reached Mosul in Iraq, the jihadis saw oil as a crutch
for their vision for an Islamic state. The group’s shura council identified it as fundamental
for the survival of the insurgency and, more importantly, to finance their ambition to
create a caliphate.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b8234932-719b-11e5-ad6d-f4ed76f0900a.html#axzz3odqmQ3sA

[2tallbill]

Putin Calls U.S. `Weak' on Syria
Andrey Biryukov  Dana Khraiche Bloomberg


Russian President Vladimir Putin said U.S. policy on Syria is weak and lacks objectives,
though he remains open to direct talks as Russia’s bombing campaign continues in
support of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

“I don’t really understand how the U.S. can criticize Russia’s actions in Syria if they refuse
to have direct dialogue,” Putin told reporters Thursday during a visit to Astana, Kazakhstan.
“The basic weakness of the American position is that they don’t have an agenda, though
we’re keeping the door open” for talks, he said.

Amid growing friction over Russian airstrikes in Syria that began Sept. 30, the U.S.
rejected Putin’s offer to send a delegation led by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to
Washington to explain the campaign against Islamic State and other militants, Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday. Putin accused some states of having “oatmeal
in their heads” on Tuesday for failing to understand that Russia’s intervention seeks to
defeat terrorism. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov expressed “regret” on Wednesday
over the American rejection of high-level talks.

There is a lot more read all about it here
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-15/putin-says-u-s-position-on-syria-is-weak-lacks-objectives

[2tallbill]

For the Obama apologists, why would he leave troops in Afghanistan if it
was such a great idea to remove all of them from Iraq? Is it possible that
Obama learned something from his past mistakes? It hardly seems likely
since he almost always does the wrong thing.


Officials: Obama to keep troops in Afghanistan beyond 2016
Associated Press By LOLITA C. BALDOR and JULIE PACE
http://news.yahoo.com/officials-obama-keep-troops-afghanistan-beyond-2016-100139289--politics.html?nf=1


Obama abandons pledge to pull troops from Afghanistan
AFP By Andrew Beatty
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-halt-us-troop-withdrawals-afghanistan-111039488.html?nf=1


Obama Flips On Afghanistan Withdrawal Plan
Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-afghanistan-withdraw-droops_561f7bebe4b0c5a1ce6217e2?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics&section=politics

[Brasscasing]

Yeah, but I don't think Obama is throwing anybody to wolves in this case...our people probably did make that error that cost all those innocent lives...trying to get out in front of the story is probably what he is doing.

I'm certain you are correct in that Afghans have killed Afghans...and how much of that are we fostering?  Who is supplying or has supplied the weapons?

Yup it is thrown around for shock value.

Pretty much everything we are involved with can be a target.  They will not stop, nor should they as long as we are interfering, or the effects of our interference are in place.

This is probably a discussion for another time.

Through the years, the US leadership has done all these things....and we support other regimes that do the same when it is in our interest.  .

In light of the events of the last 24 hours including Bill's links above your arguments have been pretty well made redundant.

Events are moving quickly now and your President's trying to play catch up. Even Obama's clued in to the obvious...

Nope. It's because ISAF remains that these attacks are minimized. When the draw down is complete that's when the attacks will increase just as in Iraq...

Now, I have two questions for you.

Do you think all those sage countries and Democratic Senators and Representatives knew about these Iranian assets before signing on with Mr. Obama's great nuc giveaway deal?...

Iran broadcasts rare images of underground missile bases

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/middleeast/iran-missile-facilities/

France says Iran missile test 'worrying' violation of U.N. resolution

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/15/us-iran-france-missiles-idUSKCN0S91A620151015

Inside Iran's tunnels used to store ballistic missiles

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34538583









'Cause if Obama did. He, those countries that signed the deal and all those Democratic Senators and Representatives who voted for it, disregarded an already existing UN resolution barring Iran from developing nuc capable missiles...

Iran reveals huge underground missile base with broadcast on state TV

..."This is a sample of our massive missile bases,” he said, adding that “a new and advanced generation of long-range liquid- and solid-fuel missiles” would start to replace existing weapons next year.

The commander seemed to suggest the show of strength was in response to western powers, especially the US, which despite the nuclear deal, have said options against Iran, including a military one, remained on the table.

“Those who pin hope on options on the table, should only have a look at the Islamic republic’s army options under the table.”

Hajizadeh said Iran would not start any war but “if enemies make a mistake, missile bases will erupt like a volcano from the depth of earth”.

The US on Tuesday said Tehran may have breached a Security Council resolution during Sunday’s test of the new Imad missile.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said there were “strong indications” that Tehran “did violate UN Security Council resolutions that pertain to Iran’s ballistic missile activities”.

Under a resolution passed days after the nuclear deal was reached, Iran was barred by the Security Council from developing missiles “designed to carry nuclear warheads”...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/iran-reveals-huge-underground-missile-base-with-broadcast-on-state-tv

If Iran has (evidently) broken the already existing UN resolutions and have just threatened the West - who've pinned their hopes on Iran's compliance to the nuc deal with options against Iran, including a military one, if they don't comply - by retaliating with "options under the table." What "options under the table" do you think the Iranian Commander is alluding to?

Brass
 

[Muzh]

Russian Military Uses Syria as Proving Ground, and West Takes Notice
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ERIC SCHMITT New York Times

WASHINGTON — Two weeks of air and missile strikes in Syria have given Western intelligence
and military officials a deeper appreciation of the transformation that Russia’s military has undergone under President Vladimir V. Putin, showcasing its ability to conduct operations
beyond its borders and providing a public demonstration of new weaponry, tactics and strategy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/world/middleeast/russian-military-uses-syria-as-proving-ground-and-west-takes-notice.html?_r=0

What are you doing quoting from a liberal paper? 

[2tallbill]

What are you doing quoting from a liberal paper? 

Almost all of them are liberal

[2tallbill]

Obama ignores generals’ advice on troop levels for unprecedented sixth time
By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times

In the end, President Obama was forced to listen to his generals — not his political
instincts — on Afghanistan troop levels, and he decided to split the difference.

Mr. Obama is keeping 5,500 troops in Afghanistan beyond his presidency, about half
the strength recommended by his top general in-country. It marks the sixth time he
has rejected the advice of a ground commander on the force size in the long Iraq and
Afghanistan wars. Military experts call that streak unprecedented for a commander in
chief.

There is more read all about it here
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/obama-ignores-generals-on-troop-levels-for-unprece/

[2tallbill]

Opinions

By Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates  Washington Post
Condoleezza Rice was secretary of state from 2005 to 2009.
Robert M. Gates was defense secretary from 2006 to 2011.


One can hear the disbelief in capitals from Washington to London to Berlin to Ankara
and beyond. How can Vladimir Putin, with a sinking economy and a second-rate
military, continually dictate the course of geopolitical events? Whether it’s in Ukraine
or Syria, the Russian president seems always to have the upper hand.

The fact is that Putin is playing a weak hand extraordinarily well because he knows exactly
what he wants to do. He is not stabilizing the situation according to our definition of stability.
He is defending Russia’s interests by keeping Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power.
This is not about the Islamic State. Any insurgent group that opposes Russian interests is
a terrorist organization to Moscow. We saw this behavior in Ukraine, and now we’re seeing
it even more aggressively — with bombing runs and cruise missile strikes — in Syria.

Putin is not a sentimental man, and if Assad becomes a liability, Putin will gladly move on
to a substitute acceptable to Moscow. But for now, the Russians believe that they (and the
Iranians) can save Assad. President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry say that
there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis. That is true, but Moscow understands that
diplomacy follows the facts on the ground, not the other way around.

Russia and Iran are creating favorable facts. Once this military intervention has run its
course, expect a peace proposal from Moscow that reflects its interests, including securing
the Russian military base at Tartus.

There is more read all about it here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-counter-putin-in-syria/2015/10/08/128fade2-6c66-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html

[2tallbill]

Turkey downs drone near Syrian border; Russia denies aircraft lost
By Loveday Morris Washington Post

BEIRUT — Turkey said its warplanes shot down a drone Friday near its border
with Syria, underscoring heightened hostility in the region’s increasingly crowded
airspace.

The aircraft was warned three times to turn back before being fired on by Turkish
jets patrolling the border, the Turkish military said in a statement. It gave no further
details on the drone or its origins.

Russia, which sent military aircraft into Syria last month, said none of its planes in
Syria was hit. But the United States suspected that Turkish fighters targeted a
Russian drone, the Reuters news agency reported, citing a U.S. official speaking
on condition of anonymity.

The incident occurred during a period of escalating tension along the Syrian border
since Russia began an air campaign in support of President Bashar al-Assad two and
a half weeks ago.

Turkey, a NATO member, has accused Russia of intentionally violating its airspace
on two occasions since then. The incidents have drawn sharp rebukes from Turkey’s
NATO allies.

There is more read all about it here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/report-turkey-downs-drone-near-syrian-border/2015/10/16/c4e9a2c2-73f5-11e5-8248-98e0f5a2e830_story.html


Turkey shoots down unidentified drone near Syrian border
Sources suggest drone is of Russian origin but Ankara keen to avoid
blaming Moscow as tensions simmer over airspace violations
There is a detailed story at the Guardian see link below




read the entire detailed story here
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/16/turkey-shoots-down-drone-near-syrian-border#img-1

[Boethius]

After the clusterf##k that occurred under Condoleeza'a watch, she should hardly be commenting on foreign policy.

For the Obama apologists, why would he leave troops in Afghanistan if it was such a great idea to remove all of them from Iraq? Is it possible that Obama learned something from his past mistakes? It hardly seems likely since he almost always does the wrong thing.

As noted previously, it was Bush who negotiated the troop withdrawal, and timetable.  Not Obama.

[fathertime]

In light of the events of the last 24 hours including Bill's links above your arguments have been pretty well made redundant.

Events are moving quickly now and your President's trying to play catch up. Even Obama's clued in to the obvious...

Now, I have two questions for you.

Do you think all those sage countries and Democratic Senators and Representatives knew about these Iranian assets before signing on with Mr. Obama's great nuc giveaway deal?...



If Iran has (evidently) broken the already existing UN resolutions and have just threatened the West - who've pinned their hopes on Iran's compliance to the nuc deal with options against Iran, including a military one, if they don't comply - by retaliating with "options under the table." What "options under the table" do you think the Iranian Commander is alluding to?

Brass

I really wound't know what the Senators/Representatives knew beforehand....  I'm not surprised that Iran has all sorts of stuff we don't know about or seek our approval for, obviously they don't care if we approve or not....  I imagine that is part of the reason they were being so heavily sanctioned, especially by the US. 


I didn't read all your links (Yet) and have been out of the news loop for a few days...  Haven't we been threatening them with the 'military option' again?  Looks like they are letting us know it won't be easy-peasy. 


So if they indeed have all this stuff, which they probably do...why haven't they used it?  That is what the hardliners say they are going to do.    If it is in place and ready to go and Iran  hasn't done anything with it, doesn't that indicate that they are likely to be used as a defensive measure if attacked first?


Fathertime! 

[2tallbill]

After the clusterf##k that occurred under Condoleeza'a watch, she should hardly be commenting on foreign policy.

As noted previously, it was Bush who negotiated the troop withdrawal, and timetable.  Not Obama.

1% of the clusterf#ck happened under Condi's watch as it did with Hillary.
Condi was a Russian specialist promoted to Secretary of State after 2 years
into the 2nd Iraq war. What exactly is the clusterf#ck that Condi presided
over and what possible foreign policy do you think you know more about than
she does?

Bush put together some guidelines for troop withdrawal predicated on the fact
that Iraq was ready to take care of themselves. They weren't ready, Obama didn't
care. You keep bringing up the fact that Bush set the guidelines and you keep
forgetting the fact that the guidelines weren't set in stone. Obama wasn't handcuffed
by the Bush administration guidelines, but Obama likes to blame Bush for his own
faults, incompetence and errors in judgment.

[Gator]

As noted previously, it was Bush who negotiated the troop withdrawal, and timetable.  Not Obama.

You keep bringing up the fact that Bush set the guidelines and you keep
forgetting the fact that the guidelines weren't set in stone. Obama wasn't handcuffed
by the Bush administration guidelines, but Obama likes to blame Bush for his own
faults, incompetence and errors in judgment.

2tallbill,

Boethius is not forgetting.  This is repeat finger pointing.  This is how Obama lovers see the world - if there is bad news, it was caused by somebody else.  Conversely, if there is good news, Obama caused it to happen.   

Obama as  President has been the most powerful person in the world for seven  years, and he was handcuffed all this time by guidelines...........GIVE ME A BREAK!!!