Yesterday Russian President Valdimir Putin stood in front that tacky green granite wall at the United Nations general assembly and delivered a powerful speech. So who was this speech directed to?
Was Putin’s speech directed personally against Obama?
In other words, did Putin not get the memo? Obama is history’s greatest orator. Putin shouldn’t grandstand.
CNN thought so. Their headline was Vladimir Putin steals Barack Obama’s thunder on the world stage. CNN wants you to think the UN assembly is a talk radio show. And Putin called in first. And so Obama takes the podium and he’s like, “Hi, guys, many time/long time. Listen, Putin kinda stole my thunder.”
No, guys. Putin went right over Obama’s head on this one.
So was Putin’s speech directed to the Republican freedom fighters who oppose the Obama regime?
No. Putin’s speech wasn’t in english. So dolts like me couldn’t be his target audience. Remember, according to Obama, I’m a bitter clinger. I’m not multi-lingual like my erudite former Senator, John F. Kerry. A non-english speaking speech make no sense to me.
But it’s worth noting here that Obama’s speech at the UN was directed against Republicans.
Obama reminds me of my dog Jick. Don’t tell him this, but he’s not that big. So when my pit bull, Leona, comes in the room, Jick attacks his sister Shiela so he doesn’t feel like the runt.
That a good picture of Obama attacking the Republicans at the United Nations. (Yes, I admitted that Putin is a pit bull and the American president is a yappy Chihuahua.)
So was Putin’s speech directed straight to the leaders of the countries represented at the United Nations?
That seems plausible, right? Ostensibly, Putin casted a vision for an anti-terrorist alliance against muslim ISIS forces. As a leader, he’s forming a plan and recruiting allies.
That’s what real leaders do. You know, such as George W. Bush for example.
Guys, I don’t think that Putin directed his speech to the other nations. He doesn’t need their help!
Russia dedicates a unhealthy portion of their budget toward its military. Yea, its citizens may be barely getting by on a potato, vodka, and a refurbished Nokia phone. But their military has the finest Soviet surplus tanks and weapons in the world.
So Putin doesn’t need to ask for help or to form a coalition to engage in a war in Syria.
In fact, the countries at the UN cannot even afford to help out! Any country that may otherwise have the military resources to lend a hand has its hands full with Syrian refuges.
All these European democracies are liberal. If Angela Merkel for example committed German bombers to fly beside Russian Migs to blow up ISIS stuff in Syria, the Liberals in Berlin would FLIP OUT.
They’d say the exact same thing as the American Democrats on twitter: “You can’t bomb your way out of this humanitarian crisis.”
Liberals treat the Syrian refugee crisis like they are innocent bystanders to a freak weather incident. Instead of a massive storm rising out of the southeast, it’s a people storm.
To liberals its a flood of people that they just need to build enough storm drains to channel all these people into the correct welfare program.
So is that why Syrians are flocking to Europe? Did the wind suddenly shift and blow human beings northward?
No. The problem is justice. (or lack thereof)
There is no justice in Syria. If you weren’t fighting for ISIS or Syrian President Assad you were getting the flip out of that country at the first reasonable chance you got.
Putin’s speech was directed at Justice
All the world leader know that justice must be reestablished in Syria. So when Russian President Vladimir Putin appeals to the cause of justice to act in Syria, the world leaders sigh in relief that someone else will bomb their way out of the refugee crisis.
And Obama – the fool – makes Putin’s case for him. Read this quote below. (Obama uses the term retrenchment while engaged in yet another straw man fallacy that I don’t care to sum up.) Anyways here it is:
We’re told that such retrenchment is required to beat back disorder; that it’s the only way to stamp out terrorism, or prevent foreign meddling. In accordance with this logic, we should support tyrants like Bashar al-Assad, who drops barrel bombs to massacre innocent children, because the alternative is surely worse.
– Obama (transcript from politico)
So Obama’s up there like. “Guys, Assad is a meanie. You want to put your money on him just because the alternative is worse?”
I’m surprised the UN General Assembly didn’t just erupt in thunderous applause.
YES! Of course they want to pick the lesser of two evils. That’s what international politics is all about!
And as nasty as Obama claims that Assad is, how about ISIS?!
Blood literally flows through the streets under ISIS control. They routinely behead innocent people like a mobile slaughterhouse. They commit terrible acts of genocide trying to annihilate non-muslims and sub-muslims. They destroy countries, cultures, law, order, and priceless ancient artifacts.
So on one side, a barrel bomb. On the other, wholesale destruction. Which one is it? Remember, Assad actually runs a country.
Putin made an appeal to Justice in the United States of America where fairness is quickly eroding the concept domestically. Along those same lines, liberal world leaders may not appreciate the nobility of Putin’s claim, but thinking pragmatically, they have a problem that Putin can fix and Obama won’t.
For Further Study
Guys, there’s another world leader who made a more substantial appeal to Justice in our country. He made it at the joint sessions of congress. Remember who? Read my post, Who Was Netenyahu’s Speech Directed To?