Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[werty892]

So yeah.

Good job being sane. I live in america, and I think Syrian intervention is stupid. I heard on BBC, they did a interview with people fighting the rebels, and a good majority of them were normal people who liked Assad, and wanted things to go back to normal. I really wish America would stop destabilizing countries on the premise of democracy.

In-case you cant see it(I heard somewhere that the NY times had a paywall, even if I cant see it) full text below.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

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.

[Eagleon]

I'm not a big fan of Putin, being one of the people he'd like to round up, and I still give him massive props for this. Exceptionalism ("You are special! You are unique! You can do anything!" without encouraging the things that encourage someone to become those things) has spread like a goddamned plague, and I'm recognizing some nasty bits of it in myself even.

I think it's a reaction to the way we "handle" kids as "problems" - if you do that, treat your students as undesirables that need categorization in different layers of specialness, you're kind of doing the opposite. Actually, a lot of people I know (including myself) rebelled and went into shit jobs to do what they want with their free time, instead of learning to enjoy learning and doing that at a place where it was possible.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I have a hard time believing Putin actually wrote any of that, and I'm definitely sure he doesn't believe what he's saying, but it is still nice to have some kind of reasonable dialogue about this.

Not that this does anything for the Syrians, who are going to find themselves under the yoke of a group no better than the Taliban if things continue as they are, but at least people are talking about doing something constructive.

[Baffler]

Questions of legitimacy aside, I definitely approve of basically everything written in this. No matter my feelings on Putin on other issues, credit where credit's due.

[misko27]

I have a hard time believing Putin actually wrote any of that, and I'm definitely sure he doesn't believe what he's saying, but it is still nice to have some kind of reasonable dialogue about this.

Not that this does anything for the Syrians, who are going to find themselves under the yoke of a group no better than the Taliban if things continue as they are, but at least people are talking about doing something constructive.

Oh no, not this. This is too well written. Putin has not held total control in Russia for nothing. This is, beautiful. Evil, fiendish, but incredibly well executed meddling. I am always impressed by his ability to play people. Seriously, just beautiful. You'd almost think he wasn't funding the Syrian government since before that was cool (recall Putin was selling Assad Anti-aircraft missiles a while ago. Someone was thinking ahead!), and breaking off Nuclear weapons reduction talks while arguing the US will cause a rise in proliferation. The sheer, level of hypocrisy is so extraordinary. It's pretty damn clear Obama simply doesn't have the leadership and opinion making Putin has. He's been out played. On Snowden, on Arms Reduction, on Gay rights, and on Syria. He's just, too good. Think of it like this, if Putin was where Obama was at the start of this, what would he be doing? And what does he sound like here?

It's truly beautiful, it is. He hits all the notes, sounding quite the determined diplomat facing bumbling, confused and violent american opposition, playing the fears of the right and the left, From Israel, to Civilian casualties. He hit the important points of both the "American intervention is bad" strain to "It's not going to help" strain. He navigates a exceedingly narrow course, too. I mean, it's beautiful, really, from a abstract view of course. If he was a American Politician he'd be incredibly popular. And Obama too, he plays. A convenient offer, a lifeline from heaven it would seem for him, and Putin plays the center stage. From almost a position of being universally hated in American politics, he can brush it aside and paint himself a Peacemaker here. Obama, Obama is, to quote Weiner, "A Imperfect messenger". His recent speech did nothing, and was upstaged by Putin without Putin having to say a single word (and better too, so easy to lose yourself in the words on paper you forget who writes them.)

In conclusion, I can only resignedly look at Obama being out-done in every field Putin puts his mind too, and wait for a more charming, more skilled president. As for the content? Absolutely nothing, nothing there, has not been said before, although imperfectly and in a less constructed and concise manner. There is not one iota of argument there that he himself thought of, and in that sense MSH is right. It doesn't matter though.

I'm not a big fan of Putin, being one of the people he'd like to round up, and I still give him massive props for this. Exceptionalism ("You are special! You are unique! You can do anything!" without encouraging the things that encourage someone to become those things) has spread like a goddamned plague, and I'm recognizing some nasty bits of it in myself even.

I think it's a reaction to the way we "handle" kids as "problems" - if you do that, treat your students as undesirables that need categorization in different layers of specialness, you're kind of doing the opposite. Actually, a lot of people I know (including myself) rebelled and went into shit jobs to do what they want with their free time, instead of learning to enjoy learning and doing that at a place where it was possible.

This, is a perfect example. Putin is by far a worse abuser of Exceptionalism, but people in Russia are not nearly as sensitive to accusations of Exceptionalism as Americans. So he can use that stick whenever he feels like it. This Is Putin, chiding the US for immoral Military involvement. American Exceptionalism has nothing to do with the current discussion. He has the flimisiet of associations, but uses it magnificently. Hell, It's Bush justifying Invading Iraq. Just the mere association with a destructive weapon with a terrorist regime let Bush do as he pleased.

tl;dr Even if he is/was right, the messenger is a messenger of death. The Hypocrisy is so, fundamental, so endemic, I've only seen such playing once before, in the hands of a Career Sociopath. We shouldn't be learning about what's in America's interests from a ruthlessly self-interested party. Putin has been supporting Assad before Al-Nusra, before the civil war, when it was just a Peaceful protest. This man, is the fundamental opposite of anyone on either the American left or right. My only hope is that France and the US push a military authorization clause in the diplomatic agreement, providing some backbone to the deal, and just maybe, ensuring no more Chemical weapons will be used.

[alexandertnt]

Even if he is/was right...We shouldn't be learning about what's in America's interests from a ruthlessly self-interested party

If he is right, then you should be at least not automatically dismiss what he has to say. After all, being a Hypocrite does not make you wrong, nor does having a selfish motivation.

[Eagleon]

misko I have to confess that I made an opinion without reading the article, largely because I do think that pushing kids to succeed, and telling them that they're exceptional puts them between a rock and a hard place when they fail. I in no way respect the man beyond seeing what most Americans for some reason can't.

It's easy to forget that No Child Left Behind was introduced at the same time as 9/11 and the internet came into widespread use. That many drastic shifts at once was bound to send shockwaves through our culture, and the introduction of 9/11 was a catalyst of the kinds of fears we can't get rid of.

We need to stop telling ourselves that we're scared. Fear makes us powerless. It's also incredibly contagious if stated from a position of authority. Journalists used to know that and do their best to avoid bias from fear, but it's become bloated beyond its initial purpose - to inform the public on critical matter. Not to give them all of the information at once and let them decide which is more important, to make a reasoned response to current events and do one's best to avoid nonsense.

Journalism is inherently self-censoring, unless you remove any penalty for accuracy. Remember when we had 'rags'? Yeah. Those spread more rumors and focused more of our attention on shit that didn't matter than was entirely reasonable, because we had TV feeding off of itself. No one wanted to censor TV. It became the goto spot for journalism without checks from the people. And then it slowly started to collapse into garbage.

Notice how we all sort of looked towards the New York Times as a respectable source of journalism? It's not because of some manipulation, it's because it's actually good journalism, read by a physical viewer-base, checked by real-world factors. They would not publish Putin's Op-Ed if they did not see merit in presenting his view. There are certain things that people occasionally have to see, and one of them is when the government is doing something bad.

If you hadn't heard, the US has been funneling weapons into Syria. This is the opposite of diplomacy - it fuels much of the problems in the middle east, making their wars bloodier and destroying any chance to heal relations and move towards peace. If we are perpetuating warfare by giving people weapons, y'know, well, maybe we shouldn't be doing that.

All of this is fed by this weird, pervasive fear of terrorism. Why are we no longer talking, after 12 years? We are still afraid. We need to let go of that. "Never forget" comes to mind - in an age where absolutely everyone gets every message we want to send them at any time, why are we telling each other not to forget terrorism? Isn't there some better treatment than reminding ourselves constantly that we're afraid?

I think this was planned from the beginning. We wanted so desperately to believe that we were free to do anything that we wanted to the world that it failed was ideologically weakened simply through the destruction of two buildings. The World Trade Center was a symbol of - guess what - world trade. They struck at the heart of capitalism, and capitalism has been fighting back to spite its nose.

... I don't think there's some conspiracy or political play here. I think we're just frozen in a state of fear, thanks to careful, ruthless planning. Yes, maybe Syria is fighting, but who exactly are we bombing? The rebels? The 'established regime'? Not everywhere is fighting for democracy right now. Egypt was an exceptional case, because it showed that the internet was a tool to unite people used properly, but we've made a tremendous mistake in surrendering our source for journalism to the untrained throngs of the internet, and this is the culmination point - we can turn back and examine the situation more carefully, or we can blunder into another useless war.

[Max White]

Sad times when I have to agree with the crazy homophobic guy. Is this just very carefully written propaganda? Oh heck yea, you bet it is! But the message is important, and it is a message of unity and peace.

Although I'm sure if it was a country that Russia doesn't get along with Putin would be singing a different tune, that doesn't mean Syrian civilians who just want to live their lives deserve to take an America to the face.

[penguinofhonor]

I think Putin was just like "Let's write whatever makes me look way smarter than Obama."

[Twi]

I think ___ was just like "Let's write whatever makes me look way smarter than ___."

The meaning of life in a nutshell. Or at least a newspaper.

[Dutchling]

I think Putin was just like "Let's write whatever makes me look way smarter than Obama."

Well it's not like Obama mad that a very challenging thing to accomplish

[Jelle]

Wow, say what you will about the man, but you got to give it to him for having the balls for being so direct about it. Honestly to me it seems he's voicing reason, so props to him for advocating peaceful resolution through the un over escalation.

[Max White]

say what you will about the man

I would... But I only know so many abusive words.

[burningpet]

I like how the guy who destroyed georgia over natural gas is preaching about peaceful resolutions and giving a mandate to the U.N. hilarious.

[LordSlowpoke]

show me a single leader from after ussr's dissolution who had their values and stuck to them

bonus points: africa, yugoslavia and north korea banned from picking