Print

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

[RedKing]

show me a single leader who had their values and stuck to them

ftfy


I know it's ad hominem but seriously....getting lectured by Putin about being a unilateral destabilizing bully is like getting a course in racial sensitivity from Paula Deen. 

[Dutchling]

show me a single leader who has post-election/coup values

ftfy

:v

[Darvi]

I'm pretty sure every leader had their values that they stuck to.

Just, ya well, not the ones the public ones.

[Zangi]

Despite what people think of Putin, despite the hypocrisy of Putin being the one who conveys the message...  It makes sense, it hits the right buttons and it actually reflects what many Americans think about the Syrian situation.  Opposed to what our current administration is/was trying to do.

[10ebbor10]

This entire situation has completely jeopardized the US's influence in the Middle East. They dropped their allies (after all, let's remember that most of the deposed "dictators" were US allies), and are now busy replacing them (See, situation in Egypt, which is rapidly evolving to a US sponsored military dictature). Also remember that all of the most restrictive nations in the area are US allies. (And major oil states, hence why the revolution is extremely limited).

Russia has gained quite a lot of credibility in the region, as they're one of the major purveyors of diplomacy. (And well, nobody trusts the US about WMD's anymore)

[10ebbor10]

He doesn't count as post cold war though.

[Darvi]

Some mammoths and neanderthals would disagree with you there.

[misko27]

We have a lot of leaders who stick to their values, they just usually don't get elected to higher office. Their usually either not aggressive enough, or they're demagogues. You know the people who never, ever compromise? They are doing what their constituents tell them.

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.

They already took a Iran, Hezbollah, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Al-Nusra, Syria, and Russia to the face. The US up until now has done absolutely nothing. Even the recent "selling weapons thing" hasn't even happened yet. We've been sitting on the sidelines. God forbid missiles hit military units. Do you remember how many casualities there were from Libya? Mali? Kosovo? A 78 day massive bombing campaign had 450 casualties. That's a average of 5.7 a day. Are you telling me 2 days of missiles (which, I should mention, have about a fifth to a third the bomb load of a dropped explosive), would be the end of the world? That we'd kill more then they would?

Journalism is inherently self-censoring, unless you remove any penalty for accuracy. Remember when we had 'rags'?

We still have rags. Let me send you a New York Post, please.

No, if nothing else, no matter how much I disagree with libertarians, the doves and the like, I can imagine they're doing it because of what they believe in, and what they think is best for the US and the world respectively. Putin's sole interest is the protection of Assad and the limiting of US influence. He knows strikes would hurt, and he'd do anything to stop it.

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.

And yet...

Has anyone here read any of Anthony Weiner's proposals? Any of them, at all, ever? In between all the talk about his scandal, and all the late-night comedy jokes, and all the goddamned puns, has anyone actually looked at what he ostensibly is being voted for or rejected? They're perfectly fine. A good plan, with numerous well-thought out ideas and certainly a lot of experience implementing ideas. But it doesn't matter, at all. Because the man we're dealing with has proved himself immoral, and willing to put himself above others. Putin's sole aim is to weaken American Hegemony and increase his own, and any endorsement by him is pretty damning evidence against it.

Simply put, you are not agreeing with Putin. Putin is agreeing with you. He doesn't believe anything, not one word, he said. You, you have your own beliefs about this, he supports your view solely to undermine the US. He's trying a Manchurian Candidate. Hell, if not for even the threat of American involvement, Syria wouldn't even admit they have weapons. Today, they joined the rest of the entire world in signing the Chemical Weapons Convention. Putin wants only the existence of Assad, he simply couldn't care less about the morality behind it.

[werty892]

-Snip-

What you don't seem to understand, is why would the US even support the rebels AT ALL? Most of the rebels are Islamic extremists. While the current government is not that great, would you rather have known terrorists in control of Syria?

[10ebbor10]

quote author=Max White link=topic=131058.msg4600525#msg4600525 date=1379057380]
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.

They already took a Iran, Hezbollah, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Al-Nusra, Syria, and Russia to the face. The US up until now has done absolutely nothing. Even the recent "selling weapons thing" hasn't even happened yet. We've been sitting on the sidelines. God forbid missiles hit military units. Do you remember how many casualities there were from Libya? Mali? Kosovo? A 78 day massive bombing campaign had 450 casualties. That's a average of 5.7 a day. Are you telling me 2 days of missiles (which, I should mention, have about a fifth to a third the bomb load of a dropped explosive), would be the end of the world? That we'd kill more then they would?
[/quote]
Directly,no. Indirectly, maybe. A missile attack on Assad would serve no use. (Safe for validating Obama's threat with the cheapest attack they could get away with). It won't have decisive (or any) effect in the war, won't have any effects on poison gas supplies (You're not firing at poison gas storage tanks in residential areas, are you?) and will complicate the already slim chance of a democratic solution.

Furthermore, attacks might motivate Assad to further distribute Chemical weaponry amongst his troops, increasing proliferation of WMD's across the region. An attack on the chain of command would have similar effects. You don't want chemical weaponry lying around in this situation. Even if the Russian deal only manages to secure 50% of the supplies; that's a significant amount of weaponry we no longer have to worry about.

Edit: Saudi-Arabia; and quite a few other nations in the region (Qatar, for example) which have become involved in the conflict are US allies.

Journalism is inherently self-censoring, unless you remove any penalty for accuracy. Remember when we had 'rags'?

We still have rags. Let me send you a New York Post, please.

No, if nothing else, no matter how much I disagree with libertarians, the doves and the like, I can imagine they're doing it because of what they believe in, and what they think is best for the US and the world respectively. Putin's sole interest is the protection of Assad and the limiting of US influence. He knows strikes would hurt, and he'd do anything to stop it.

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.

And yet...

Has anyone here read any of Anthony Weiner's proposals? Any of them, at all, ever? In between all the talk about his scandal, and all the late-night comedy jokes, and all the goddamned puns, has anyone actually looked at what he ostensibly is being voted for or rejected? They're perfectly fine. A good plan, with numerous well-thought out ideas and certainly a lot of experience implementing ideas. But it doesn't matter, at all. Because the man we're dealing with has proved himself immoral, and willing to put himself above others. Putin's sole aim is to weaken American Hegemony and increase his own, and any endorsement by him is pretty damning evidence against it.

Simply put, you are not agreeing with Putin. Putin is agreeing with you. He doesn't believe anything, not one word, he said. You, you have your own beliefs about this, he supports your view solely to undermine the US. He's trying a Manchurian Candidate. Hell, if not for even the threat of American involvement, Syria wouldn't even admit they have weapons. Today, they joined the rest of the entire world in signing the Chemical Weapons Convention. Putin wants only the existence of Assad, he simply couldn't care less about the morality behind it.
[/quote]
Putin doesn't want the existence of Assad. He just wants to prove that unlike the US, (which dropped Mubarak only to have him replaced by the army (funded, and hence loyal by them)), Russia is a reliable ally. Which they are. Even if this ends with Assad being killed, Russia gained a great deal of credibility behind it.

Also, there's no morality anywhere in the conflict. It's all about national interests in the region. Even the Pope has an interest in this. (Defending the good values of friendship, love and not shooting at Christians)

[misko27]

-smip-

Dropped the quotes there man. And tell me, what has Obama done for the entire life of this conflict? Balls. Sanctions. He has done up unitl allegations of chemical weapons approximately as much as every other country, and less the quite a few. Yes, in terms of supporting Dictators, Obama is worse at doing that then both his predecessors and Putin. What he has shown he wants credibility on, is Chemical weapons. I'll be honest, Obama started out with a hilariously weak empty threat. Because he could do that. Because no one was insane enough to use them then.


Imagine this: If the US military operated on a Dr. Strangelove-esque order machine, which immediately launched a attack if a Chemical weapon was used, and so a swift and destructive response to a CW use is assured, would anyone ever use them? Ever? No, they wouldn't. So Assad has proven he simply, doesn't think the US will do it. He gambled. If he pays off, it's a nightmarish precedent. The US will have to intervene anyway, but after a even more egregious violation, either in syria, or elsewhere. Quite possibly Iran, where another Red-line, one with far more intent behind it, has been drawn.

-Snip-

What you don't seem to understand, is why would the US even support the rebels AT ALL? Most of the rebels are Islamic extremists. While the current government is not that great, would you rather have known terrorists in control of Syria?

Ehh, I've seen evidence to both support and detract from this. Including that the secular are the real fighting force, while the Islamist are focused on actually ruling conquered territory. They fled like rats after the US threatened strikes, recall, and fighting didn't exactly grind to a halt. But that still has nothing to do with Putin! Putin is the issue, not Syria. This is the problem. Putin, is not a god-damned columnist. His words have importance. Events caused by his article have a direct effect on him, and his power. Would you listen to BP in a column about the importance of lowering regulations? No! Even if they were right in the instance they were talking about, they are inherently biased, and to the degree that we shouldn't listen to them.

[Flying Dice]

To be perfectly frank, from a U.S. perspective doing nothing is still preferable to limited strikes. If we do nothing, Assad will likely retain power. That's a hit to their standing in the international community because the U.S. made and did not follow through on a threat, but it's still preferable to the likely outcome of the U.S. eliminating Assad and then backing out. Leaving aside the fact that it would further disrupt the authority of the UN (bad enough, considering that lack of the ability to enforce decisions is what killed the League of Nations as well), it leaves Syria in a position where there is a nonfunctional central government being overrun by fundamentalist rebels. Assad is terrible, yes, but better a known factor in a brutal dictator than a new regime founded by religious extremists who will be unlikely to listen to external voices. Do we really want a repeat of the Iranian Revolution?

The only way to potentially avert that while still dealing with Assad would be for the U.S. to commit to yet another long-term ground war and occupation against entrenched rebel forces. That, to put it bluntly, will not happen. It would be political suicide for anyone that backed it, would further tarnish the international perception of the U.S., and cause further damage to the deficit. It would have been better if Obama had avoided drawing lines at all, but even now it would still be better for the U.S. to back down, even if it lets Putin get a "hit" on them. Because avoiding the problems associated with either a U.S. occupation or a fundamentalist Syria is more important than the face lost by backing up on a poorly thought out "empty" ultimatum.

[Max White]

They already took a Iran, Hezbollah, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Al-Nusra, Syria, and Russia to the face. The US up until now has done absolutely nothing. Even the recent "selling weapons thing" hasn't even happened yet. We've been sitting on the sidelines. God forbid missiles hit military units. Do you remember how many casualities there were from Libya? Mali? Kosovo? A 78 day massive bombing campaign had 450 casualties. That's a average of 5.7 a day. Are you telling me 2 days of missiles (which, I should mention, have about a fifth to a third the bomb load of a dropped explosive), would be the end of the world? That we'd kill more then they would?

So if you have already been punched by seven guys in the face, an eight makes no difference..? Or it will somehow fix your broken nose? No I'm being serious here, how does the fact that Syria has been through a lot of shit make more shit any more acceptable?

Now further more, do you mean to imply that the expected casualties of a US strike is about eleven? Is that what you are saying? The US will fire its shit and eleven people will die and Assad will be terrified, so it is worth it?

[Fniff]

Well, Putin has at least one wrong fact: there's no way it was the rebels. It had to be the government. There's two reasons why.

1: The rebels have no air forces at all, nor missiles. However, the gas was dropped from the sky.
2: 200 liters of sarin gas was used, which is way more then the rebels could have without having a dedicated military base.

Vladimir Putin is ignoring the facts in order to sound as reasonable as possible. It's political bullshitting to dress up the fact he's supporting a government that is killing it's own citizens. I don't support the idea of a war in Syria as that has the potential to go horribly wrong, but I do not agree with this at all.

[Owlbread]

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.

He did not write the article. It was ghost written.