Syria whats really going on

Now this may be a bit of a ramble but I wanted to post some of my thoughts and possibly get some input to see how far off base I may be

I'm getting a little frustrated with the talk show circuit asking why Obama is so bent on
bombing Syria. Let me answer that question quickly and then explain my self. NO HE IS NOT. (This is Obama's PIVOT)
What you have to realize is that Obama is playing a game on a grand scale and I think, and I could
be wrong here, his ultimate goal is Sec. General of the UN.

Lets think about a few things for a moment. What follows are some rhetorical questions and my answers to get you
thinking

Who is going to benefit the most from the current situation in Syria.
That's right Vladimir Putin.

What is Obama's relationship with Vlad?
"Ill have more flexibility after the election"

What would bring about peace and stability to the world right now faster than anything else that could be done.
An allied Russia,USA and China.

What does any dictator really want?
Unquestioned rule.

What will subservience to the UN with an allied US,Russia & China deliver?
Dictatorial power residing with the most powerful, socialist countries on earth.

Why does Obama "NOW" seemed so concerned with Congressional approval for military action?

Well let me kind of explain it a bit more to you.

Its political theater, Obama's administration has been mired in scandal and his policies have been losing ground
with the American people and there are strong indications that the mid term elections are to be a disaster for
the incumbents in general. So lets pull a page from Clinton's book and wag the dog a bit. Let me be perfectly
clear he went fishing for a chem. weapons story in hopes he could run with it. This appears to be where Obama has
really misread the American people but the more I think about it I'm not so sure. If you look at the real aim for Obama its
to survive the midterms so any future threat of impeachment can be squashed. There is one way to do that ensure republicans
do not gain control of the Senate and do not gain a super majority in the house. Obama will leave nothing to chance he needed to
get the scandals off the forefront he needed leverage to squash debt limit debate and he needed the republicans to turn
on each other. With Syria he gets all of that. Of course he has an Ace in the Hole. Vladimir Putin. Obama can bluster and
speak all he wants about punitive strikes on Syria and knee jerk republicans will back him and he knows it. He will face opposition
even from his own party and the debate will continue as long as he threatens to take action on his own. However as soon as
a "no vote" appears to be looming his old friend will offer the compromise. After some more blustering he can "opt" for the diplomatic solution.

This serves 3 purposes.
1 Solidify his supporters as having achieved something significant.
2 Throw the republicans into an infighting blood bath
3 Elevate Russia into relevance status on the world stage. Its this last piece that I want to discuss a bit more.

Obama has read the tea leaves there is probably no way he gets around US term limits in enough time to secure a 3rd term as president but that's not a large loss. He has loftier goals that managing the once great United States. I think his ultimate goal would be to strap the
US with UN treaties then eventually ascend to the position of General Sec of the UN. Where his dictates will have further reach. In order to get there he is going to need friends in Russia and China. He has bought the Chinese and he has helped Putin rise.

I call this his Pivot because I think his earlier path to the chair was linked to his being able to achieve the ever allusive
middle east peace. Mostly by backing the Arab spring. With Benghazi and Egypt showing the true colors of the movement. Obama was stuck holding the leash to some very rabid dogs. He needed a way out. I think the Boston bombers provided that to him in it got him to take a more serious look at how Russia handles its own rabid dogs. I think this is where the genesis of this current play started. (if not earlier)

Do you find it at all interesting that the summit held in Moscow comes right in the middle of this entire affair and that
the solution to it involves Russia taking the lead in negotiating the surrender of the weapons. Obama gets to save face
all the while stirring up Republican/Conservative blood letting. Revisionist history will now commence to make this Obama's plan all
along. Fracturing of the Republican Party will continue and Obama can escape another potential threat to the dictatorship he ultimately wants.

And you want to know the big lie? Russia and China actually get think they can control Obama.

There is a lot to think about in this one post. I do not know whether I agree or disagree with you at this time but allow me to propose an alternate possibility.

Obama is exactly what he claims to be. He is inherently anti war and really doesn't want to get entangled in any more foreign conflicts, however he is also the leader of a country which for better or worse has become increasingly warlike. Since around 2002 we have been in a constant state of conflict and going back as far as the 1970's there has not been a single five year period without involvement in world conflicts. As such Obama is in a precarious position as a person who has expressed in the past his disagreement with our activities in wars. So to respond to Syria is against his very belief system but not to is making him look like a weak leader of a "Hawkish" country. It's a case of darned is he does darned if he doesn't.

I am not claiming this to be the fact and I will admit to not having enough information to make a fully formed opinion. But I am suggesting that there are many alternative possibilities which exist based on the information currently available to us.

Or he really is the bungling idiot.

Seriously either way Obama isnt really interested in bombing Syria he is just caught in his own political theater. If the really wanted to bomb them he would have done so without the media fanfare.

Also let me state I'm not 100% convinced of my own thoughts here but I do think there is something going on here that is political theater. Obama has never really shown any true political courage before why would he be willing pick this hill to die on so to speak. Something else is going on. Obama is fundamentally lazy and generally disinterested in the actual "hard work" of politics. He has bypassed congress any number of times to do, frankly unconstitutional, things so why now? Things don't add up. Politicians are great at revisionist history I'm fairly certain that once this has all blown over and Obama is looking for his next campaign (the only office that he might consider more powerful than the US presidency would be Sec. Gen. of the UN.) he will spin his apparent weakness into something of a heroic stand and equate this action to Reagan's Berlin Wall moment, or something similar.

I am just reminded of the statement by Joe Biden after 2008 election.

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right."

I was not brave enough to put forth the bungling idiot scenario after considering your first post so I am glad you are a far more courageous man than myself.  
I do agree that some form of political theater is going on, I am not convinced as to who is the perpetrator.

aammondd wrote:What will subservience to  the UN with an allied US,Russia & China deliver?  
Dictatorial power residing with the most powerful, socialist countries on earth.

There is a lot I don't agree with whatsoever with your post, but this I couldn't let slide without commenting on. Frankly, statements like these scare me with what people truly "believe." Your comments remind me of the person who theorized (he truely "believed"), that if Obama won re-election, he would hand over the US's soverignty to the UN. Though it looks like you also agree with this...

In no way is the US even close to being in the top 3 "Most Socialist" countries on earth. We're not even close. I can agree with the 3 most powerful, but not the most socialist. Heck, off the top of my head I can name at least 10 MORE socialistic countries than the US (not including China (I'm not even sure Russia is that socialistic anymore): (in no particular order) Canada, Israel, almost the entire UN, Vietnam, India, New Zealand, North Korea, Australia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Costa Rica (oh well I've gone over 10 now).

Just because the US has some socialistic policies that you might not agree with, does in no way make us a socialist nation.

Scarlett I know its a bold statement (and not accurate in that sense) the sentiment was that in general the US has stood as a bulwark against the interests of China and Russia what would happen if we suddenly were allied with them instead of opposing them. As to the socialism aspect while China and Russia have moved away slightly from outright communism we are moving more and more towards a European socialist model. China and Russia represent the other 2 strongest military's on the globe it was more about the power than the socialism. However socialism , for as long as it works, tends to bring about peace because the vast majority of humanity likes "free" stuff. That was my main point.

Like I said I'm not convinced (to the point of conspiracy theorist) but it seems really odd for Obama to look so bad politically on this, and Putin to come out smelling like the rose.

A number of people on the talk circuits keep saying "Obama really wants to bomb Syria" and I couldn't accept that in the face of such overwhelming opposition, and his apparent disregard for Congress in general that he would be taking this "red line" course. Something else is going on.

A number of people were saying that Israel and Saudi Arabia were making him do it because they want a pipeline through Syria. When has Obama shown any support for Israel? (Saudi's maybe but they are no better than Syria when it comes to the "reasons" why regime change was necessary)

I just dont buy the cover story.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I don't have enough background information to address everything in your post and I don't have the time to do the research, but I will comment on one point.

I don't think Obama really wanted to bomb Syria. Doing such would've actually put him on the bad side of China and Russia, as they seemed to be the only nations supporting Assad. I think Obama made the pledge to step in if chemical weapons were used, thinking that no way would Assad ever go that far, not with the world looking at him to see what he'd do next. And then when he did, Obama felt cornered, because he had made that statement (no matter how hard he tried to back out of it). I think he was really happy when Russia proposed that Syria hand over all of their chemical weapons, because that meant the US might not have to use weapons against Syria. I think he feels caught between a rock and a hard place and this option seems the lesser of all evils (at this point).

As an aside, I just have to comment on the use of chemical weapons. Its one thing for a country to wage civil war (I think other nations should let it run out), but its another to bomb and gas children wantonly. As someone who's had family members gassed in another war, and to know that everyone just sat back and watched without interfering, I STRONGLY feel like we have a moral requirement to interfere. I DO NOT want another war, but my moral compass says we need to stop the killing of the children. Adults fighting adults is one thing, killing the helpless is a whole other level of evil.