Op-Ed By Vladimir Putin for the American People

[Alfalfa]

we didn't have UN approval for iraq or afghanistan iirc....

Why lie about it when the truth is out there? Why did have approval for Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan was a response to an attack, which made it legal.

we're talking about the UN...please cite where we had UN authority for invading iraq. i agree with afghanistan, but we still did not have UN approval. and the UN was not destroyed.

We were attacked by the country of Afghanistan? How many afghans were among the hijackers?

 

[Annie]

Simple forum context?

Russia trolls President Obama and the US.

Vlad's targeting American supremacy and this gives him an an opportunity to gain the center stage in an attempt to reset the world stage more to Russian terms. Clearly he wants Russia to help fill the vacuum of President Obama's stepping back in retreat(s).

Obama didn't 'step back' he was pushed back. He's still being pushed here and likely little he can do about it.

He could try another SOS, but he'd have to find someone with experience and the ability to tell him, "No, it's not done that way..." Not going to happen.

Unlike Kerry, it's ok for me or you to say things like this, whether we mean them rhetorically or not. LOL!

He stepped back when he devised his leading from behind strategy.

He devised this strategy before he was President.

No, he went to where he thought the country should be. US was an aggressor and tyrannical to lesser powers and he meant to stop it. I guess he would call that 'success.' Bet it doesn't feel so great right now, with Putin on NYT editorial page.

Wonder if we'll see the President respond to the Times or through WaPo? LOL! Nah, he'll go on Leno, maybe Saturday Night Live!

 

[Ropey]

Obama didn't 'step back' he was pushed back. He's still being pushed here and likely little he can do about it.

He could try another SOS, but he'd have to find someone with experience and the ability to tell him, "No, it's not done that way..." Not going to happen.

Unlike Kerry, it's ok for me or you to say things like this, whether we mean them rhetorically or not. LOL!

He stepped back when he devised his leading from behind strategy.

He devised this strategy before he was President.

No, he went to where he thought the country should be. US was an aggressor and tyrannical to lesser powers and he meant to stop it. I guess he would call that 'success.' Bet it doesn't feel so great right now, with Putin on NYT editorial page.

Wonder if we'll see the President respond to the Times or through WaPo? LOL! Nah, he'll go on Leno, maybe Saturday Night Live!

Yes he did.

And you want China or Russia to take over as Russia clearly is responding and China builds its first blue water navy in 1000 years.

OK

They're going to be so much better.

 

[Annie]

He stepped back when he devised his leading from behind strategy.

He devised this strategy before he was President.

No, he went to where he thought the country should be. US was an aggressor and tyrannical to lesser powers and he meant to stop it. I guess he would call that 'success.' Bet it doesn't feel so great right now, with Putin on NYT editorial page.

Wonder if we'll see the President respond to the Times or through WaPo? LOL! Nah, he'll go on Leno, maybe Saturday Night Live!

And you want China or Russia to take over as Russia clearly is responding and China builds its first blue water navy in 1000 years.

OK

They're going to be so much better.

Well unless something else happens, he's got another 3+ years to go. That is what we're all stuck with. I like the book though.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.

Anyone surprised by this statement coming from the president of Russia?

Let's look back at the statements of obie...

"In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world."

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

"You didn't build that!"

I don't see much difference between the two. Our piece of shit president is on the same page as the Russian dictator, the only difference between the two is the Russian has full control here. Our president is never going to support American citizens, he agrees with Putin.

It's extremely dangerous to think of yourself as exceptional and therefore not in the need of government. Obie and Putin both agree, why that doesn't make you un-nerved I can't tell. Why that would make you support obie is f*cking mind boggling.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

we didn't have UN approval for iraq or afghanistan iirc....

Why lie about it when the truth is out there? Why did have approval for Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan was a response to an attack, which made it legal.

we're talking about the UN...please cite where we had UN authority for invading iraq. i agree with afghanistan, but we still did not have UN approval. and the UN was not destroyed.

Do you remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait ant the entire world rose up in outrage?

 

[Moonglow]

problem is, there is more evidence that the Syrian govt. did the attack, than the rebels.

even so, i don't want a war as it will only help the Islamist rebels.

The real problem is that Putin is right, if Obama attacks without the approval of the UN he will destroy it.

Horse hockey

 

[Moonglow]

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.

Anyone surprised by this statement coming from the president of Russia?

Let's look back at the statements of obie...

"In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world."

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

"You didn't build that!"

I don't see much difference between the two. Our piece of shit president is on the same page as the Russian dictator, the only difference between the two is the Russian has full control here. Our president is never going to support American citizens, he agrees with Putin.

It's extremely dangerous to think of yourself as exceptional and therefore not in the need of government. Obie and Putin both agree, why that doesn't make you un-nerved I can't tell. Why that would make you support obie is f*cking mind boggling.

your not on the mark.

It's extremely dangerous to think of yourself as exceptional and therefore not in the need of government. Obie and Putin both agree,

Both are restricted to actions by the very government you claim they do not need.

 

[Annie]

problem is, there is more evidence that the Syrian govt. did the attack, than the rebels.

even so, i don't want a war as it will only help the Islamist rebels.

The real problem is that Putin is right, if Obama attacks without the approval of the UN he will destroy it.

I disagree on proof regarding which of the bad actors used the WMD. I also don't think that Putin is correct about an attack for the WMD, would harm the UN, anymore than it is by its own devices.

USSR went into any number of countries without UN approval. I'm pretty sure they've done things in Chechnya that aren't in agreement with UN rules and all sorts of treaties. That part he's just turning the screws a bit.

The Security Council by its make up leads all those players to go without UN, when any one or two of them wish to block.

What Obama did NOT do though, which the US traditionally has, was build a coalition of partners before taking such action. Contrary to their own beliefs, France is not a coalition of allies. Bush went to Congress and got approval. He and his staff went to the UN time and again, for months attempting to get approval. Eventually the 40 allies and Congress decided enough.

Here's the deal though, even with all the work Bush put into getting the significant backing of others and the successful invasion of Iraq, the failure came in the aftermath.

Obama hasn't even a plan B for what 'could' happen. Just like his announcing 'he was going to do it,' and being shocked that no one lined up behind him; this lack of consideration of a result he was not suspecting is just appalling to any friend or foe. That Kerry seemed as inept in UK as Obama had at G20 helped not a bit.

It's going to be a long 3 years.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.

Anyone surprised by this statement coming from the president of Russia?

Let's look back at the statements of obie...

"In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world."

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

"You didn't build that!"

I don't see much difference between the two. Our piece of shit president is on the same page as the Russian dictator, the only difference between the two is the Russian has full control here. Our president is never going to support American citizens, he agrees with Putin.

It's extremely dangerous to think of yourself as exceptional and therefore not in the need of government. Obie and Putin both agree, why that doesn't make you un-nerved I can't tell. Why that would make you support obie is f*cking mind boggling.

your not on the mark.

It's extremely dangerous to think of yourself as exceptional and therefore not in the need of government. Obie and Putin both agree,

Both are restricted to actions by the very government you claim they do not need.

They are the government you simpleton. Obie is making the controlling moves that align him perfectly with the same logic that Putin is using. Do we need a side thread to educate you here?

 

[jon_berzerk]

There is more to Putin and Russia's position than he is letting on. He is like the Russian dolls inside of dolls.

i see prezbo putin forgot to mention that he moved thr carrier killer moskva missile cruiser

into the theater today

 

[Annie]

On those long 3 years:

Barack Obama?s misguided approach to Syria: The president?s strategy for confronting Bashar al-Assad?s chemical weapons has confused everyone. - Slate Magazine

Dazed and Confused
If your foreign policy has to be rescued by a dictator, you are doing it wrong.

By William J. Dobson|Posted Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2013, at 6:19 PM

Give President Obama credit: He has done such a good job of acting unpredictably in the lead-up to his proposed military strikes on Syria that no one knows what he will do next. He has successfully confused ally and enemy alike. Sun Tzu would be proud.

But President Obama cannot take all the credit for sowing confusion. Secretary of State John Kerry also has the unique distinction of becoming the first chief American diplomat whose offhand quip at a press conference launched a last-minute, global diplomatic initiative to disarm a murderous dictator. Kerry never thought that he was making a bold bid to avert military strikes that his president’s party and public had no interest in supporting. He simply suggested that if Bashar al-Assad handed all of his chemical weapons over in a week, that might stave off an impending U.S. attack—and of course, Assad wasn’t going to do that. The State Department rushed forward to clarify that Kerry wasn’t floating an actual proposal—he was just speaking rhetorically. You know, riffing. To say that the Obama administration is freelancing when it comes to foreign policy is an insult to freelancers.

...

But if your foreign policy has to be rescued by a dictator, you are doing it wrong. That’s where President Obama finds himself today. Putin is providing Obama an out he couldn’t find for himself.

Of course, Syria has not yet pledged to hand over its chemical weapons. If it does, it would truly be one of the happiest accidents of this entire episode. (Whatever the administration says about its threatened use of force, this outcome was unforeseen.) Never mind that the United States has no idea where Assad has squirreled away his chemical munitions. For now we will engage the likely fiction that Assad will self-disarm his most potent weapon for ensuring his future survival—the only thing a dictator craves—because it allows all sides to stand down. The argument will now turn to how credible the Russian plan truly is, whether any agreement can be backed by a future use of force, and whether Assad will comply.

If Putin’s maneuver doesn’t pan out, Obama’s foreign policy will still likely fall victim to the vicissitudes of a dictator. Because one message is already clear in Damascus: The Obama administration will do everything in its power to do nothing at all. If Assad finds himself up against the wall, he will likely gas his fellow Syrians again. Maybe he will reduce the scale and scope, but it is doubtful that he will abandon the weapons. How will President Obama respond then? It is hard to say. Because no one knows what the president is doing. At least he has the element of surprise.

Now I AM going to bed. Night all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

problem is, there is more evidence that the Syrian govt. did the attack, than the rebels.

even so, i don't want a war as it will only help the Islamist rebels.

The real problem is that Putin is right, if Obama attacks without the approval of the UN he will destroy it.

I disagree on proof regarding which of the bad actors used the WMD. I also don't think that Putin is correct about an attack for the WMD, would harm the UN, anymore than it is by its own devices.

USSR went into any number of countries without UN approval. I'm pretty sure they've done things in Chechnya that aren't in agreement with UN rules and all sorts of treaties. That part he's just turning the screws a bit.

The Security Council by its make up leads all those players to go without UN, when any one or two of them wish to block.

What Obama did NOT do though, which the US traditionally has, was build a coalition of partners before taking such action. Contrary to their own beliefs, France is not a coalition of allies. Bush went to Congress and got approval. He and his staff went to the UN time and again, for months attempting to get approval. Eventually the 40 allies and Congress decided enough.

Here's the deal though, even with all the work Bush put into getting the significant backing of others and the successful invasion of Iraq, the failure came in the aftermath.

Obama hasn't even a plan B for what 'could' happen. Just like his announcing 'he was going to do it,' and being shocked that no one lined up behind him; this lack of consideration of a result he was not suspecting is just appalling to any friend or foe. That Kerry seemed as inept in UK as Obama had at G20 helped not a bit.

It's going to be a long 3 years.

Even if there is proof that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons it would still violate the UN charter for us to attack them without going to the UN and making a case for the action. You might recall Bush doing that, and building a coalition to make sure he didn't violate the ease fire and the UN resolutions again.

We are supposed to be the good guys, pointing out that the bad guys broke the rules does not justify us doing the same.

Then again, a coalition of one apparently works for Obama.

 

[Yurt]

Why lie about it when the truth is out there? Why did have approval for Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan was a response to an attack, which made it legal.

we're talking about the UN...please cite where we had UN authority for invading iraq. i agree with afghanistan, but we still did not have UN approval. and the UN was not destroyed.

We were attacked by the country of Afghanistan? How many afghans were among the hijackers?

lol...the taliban and AQ were in bed together and they harbored them

 

[Yurt]

Why lie about it when the truth is out there? Why did have approval for Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan was a response to an attack, which made it legal.

we're talking about the UN...please cite where we had UN authority for invading iraq. i agree with afghanistan, but we still did not have UN approval. and the UN was not destroyed.

Do you remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait ant the entire world rose up in outrage?

i thought we were talking about 2003 iraq war, not the gulf war

 

[auditor0007]

Op-Ed Contributor
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013 239 Comments


MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.


Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0

Ronald Reagan would tell Vlady to go suck an egg, pretty much the exact thing Obama has done to date. Here's the funny thing; without the threat of attack, Putin never would have offered up his plan to have Syria turn over their chemical weapons to the international community to be destroyed. So many of you are acting like Putin is this great savior when in fact he's trying to save his own ass. It's incredible that you cannot see this.

 

[Interpol]

Obama is good on foreign policy, actually. It's his greatest strength. He's been real tough with the drones, and has overseen the overthrow of dictators our country used to prop up and defend.

By threatening to use force, President Obama has gotten the Syrians and the Russians to admit to the chemical weapons that Syria had. The both of those countries really don't need the Americans to be bombing Syria, because then we begin to control the narrative then and not anyone else.

By threatening to bomb them, we'll get them to agree to everything we want them to do, and if they break the deal, we get to bomb 'em.

Sounds pretty good to me.

I'm tired of morons who seem to like Putin more than Obama. Go fucking live in Russia if you like Putin so much.

 

[Sallow]

And the commiecon lovefest with their leader continues..

 

[ba1614]

Sadly, our president, therefore us, are being played like a fiddle.

 

[JoeB131]

I'd never thought I'd live to see the day when a Russian leader is dictating foreign policy to our own president. It is reprehensible how far our country has fallen. I for one am not going to sit here and take this.

You mean after years of watching Russia claim they had NO INFLUENCE over Syria, the threat of bombing got Russia to force Syria to give up her chemical weapons... without a shot being fired.

And you think this is a bad thing because...

Oh. The Black Guy Did It.