I had been putting this type of news in the Iran thread, because they are slightly linked.
I asked but nobody answered so I am starting a new thread. If the mods want to throw
this back into the Iran thread, I don't have a problem with it. I just thought that the Russian
and Syrian connection had more relevance to the forum than a members only discussion
about the Iranian deal.
Unless directed otherwise, I will post some current news and discussions regarding the
Russian/Syrian connection.
The USA has been wrong on Syria from the beginning of the Obummer debacle almost 8 years ago. That idiot, and I apologize to idiots everywhere for lumping him into their fine brotherhood, wouldn't know foreign policy if it passed him on the street.
Frankly, the USA and Russia would have gotten along better, and perhaps had a platform to speak frankly to each other on other issues, if the USA had joined Russia in concern for the rapidly dying minority Christian and other non-Muslim civilizations in the Middle East.
Sadly, the USA created much of ISIS by accident. Because we wanted to control an outcome without our own boots on the ground, we spread weapons around like candy to so many splinter groups that it just got out of hand. Not only did we supply weapons (while we refuse to supply Ukraine), we bankrolled many of those groups that evolved into ISIS cells. That was very likely what Benghazi was all about. We stupidly played with fire, and unfortunately got burned.
Mr. Putin is going to protect what he believes are Russian interests in the region. While I may not agree with his approach, it is his right as a leader to attempt to do so.
Naturally, Putin will use his time at the UN to take folks minds off of Ukraine. Stepping up the war in Syria gives him a boost in prestige at home, but more importantly provides cover for zinc caskets returning home. No matter where a boy is killed--the Kremlin can say that the young man died as a hero defending Orthodox Christians in Syria. It also takes Ukraine off the radar of the average Russian citizen.
Given how we took out Libya's leader, we probably would have done the same in Syria if it were possible. Why did the the USA think they needed to provide weapons and try to make an overthrow of Assad happen? I wonder what the REAL reason was.
Fathertime!
Why don't you ask King Salman that question?
Saudis accidentally droned/killed 40 at a wedding in Yemen today...women iand children included....not the first time. Let's see if there is the proper outrage. I doubt it.
Why don't you ask King Salman that question?
From what I've read/watched, the USA is actively supporting a very small minority group in Syria...Russia is more supportive of Assad who has been their Allie. ISIS is on neither of those two sides. Now it shall be interesting to see how the whole scene plays out from here.
Fathertime!
Given how we took out Libya's leader, we probably would have done the same in Syria if it were possible. Why did the the USA think they needed to provide weapons and try to make an overthrow of Assad happen? I wonder what the REAL reason was.
Fathertime!
USA has been supporting various groups most of which have left the fight and some
of which have gave or exchanged US weapons with ISIS or Al-Qaeda. ISIS or Al-Qaeda
are Sunni and Assad is Shia. ISIS will kill Shiites or anyone who isn't their exact flavor
of Islam.
ISIS and Iran-backed Shia militias are on a collision course
http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-to-iraq-were-ready-to-help-you-more-against-isis-2015-5 (http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-to-iraq-were-ready-to-help-you-more-against-isis-2015-5)
http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-to-iraq-were-ready-to-help-you-more-against-isis-2015-5 (http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-to-iraq-were-ready-to-help-you-more-against-isis-2015-5)
I understand we have been incompetent in many respects, but 500 million dollars for a training program that winds up with 54 graduates of which 5 are still fighting a couple months later? That is ridiculous. I wouldn't doubt it if much of the money/weapons was funneled to ISIS...with a wink-wink.... I can't believe our govt could be THAT incompetent to allow for 500 million to evaporate, so I think it was intentional,and they are just playing the role of 'silly me',in an effort to cover their tracks....
Another question is, why was it SO important for us to get involved and exacerbate Syria's internal problems to begin with? Clearly we aren't getting much of the truth from our govt. Just the usual 'Assad must go', although now it appears we are backing way off that statement.
Fathertime!
USA has been supporting various groups most of which have left the fight and some
of which have gave or exchanged US weapons with ISIS or Al-Qaeda. ISIS or Al-Qaeda
are Sunni and Assad is Shia. ISIS will kill Shiites or anyone who isn't their exact flavor
of Islam.
ISIS and Iran-backed Shia militias are on a collision course
http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-to-iraq-were-ready-to-help-you-more-against-isis-2015-5
http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-to-iraq-were-ready-to-help-you-more-against-isis-2015-5
Why don't you ask King Salman that question?
As Henry Kissinger said about the Iran/Iraq War, "it's a pity that both sides can't lose".
The US has blundered in this for sure. We should have never tried to take out the leaders
of Libya, Egypt or Syria. Egypt was Sunni and Libya and Syria were Shiite. So team
Obama/Clinton/Kerry has blundered with all sides.
Russian officials see the Syrian government as a bulwark against further gains by groups
like Islamic State and Nusra Front and sometimes suggest that the defeat of the Islamic
State should come before a negotiated solution for the Syrian conflict.
Obama is correct, Putin is supporting a dictator who is far more interested in barrel bombing his own people rather than fighting ISIL. Putin's statement is pretense to support Putin endeavoring to become influential in the World.I wouldn't doubt that Assad would use ISIL to his advantage when they are fighting US backed 'rebels' and not trying to behead him. The question remains, Why is the USA arming groups at all? I don't buy that we are 'promoting freedom'...Why are we front and center in Syria? Why are we so worried that Putin is supporting the elected leader of a country that has been his Allie? I read complaints about barrel bombs, but not a word about allied drones killing masses of women and children. To me it sounds like one-sided propaganda, promoting the US perspective, which really should have never been much of a consideration in Syria to begin with.
True that the US blundered. Not true about the religions. Libya is only 1 percent Shia. Syria is mostly Sunni, yet Assad I believe has Alawite roots, a Shia sect, and hence one source of the civil war.
Obama is correct, Putin is supporting a dictator who is far more interested in barrel bombing his own people rather than fighting ISIL. Putin's statement is pretense to support Putin endeavoring to become influential in the World.
I had assumed that it was 54 groups 5 of which are still in the fight rather than 54
individuals 5 of which are still in it. I can't think of another situation that makes sense.
Obama is correct, Putin is supporting a dictator
Why are we so worried that Putin is supporting the elected leader of a country that has been his Allie?
Why are we so worried that Putin is supporting the elected leader of a country
You mean 'elected' .. you DO realise that 2014 'Presidential Elections' were the first multi-candidate ones 'permitted' since Assad's Dad's party assumed control ....
The 'elections' were held during a civil war and criticised by the UN SEC GEN as being meaningless.
PLE-ease... you can do better than that.. it's clear that you've not lived in the Levant ... I have and most of the stuff posted about Syria is 'bollox'
Assad should be up before a Court re his treatment of his continued campaign of indiscriminate bombing of hs citizens and the mess that is today is mostly a result of years of misrule...supported by nations happy to supply arms to perpetuate the 'peace and stability' a Dictator brings...
This is an article from the right of centre UK Telegraph... the lass makes a lot of sense - particularly the closing paragraph.
That most of a nations population are refugees is a sin
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11897647/The-White-House-has-long-stopped-trying-to-remove-Assad-from-power.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11897647/The-White-House-has-long-stopped-trying-to-remove-Assad-from-power.html)
Assad should be up before a Court re his treatment of his continued campaign of indiscriminate bombing of hs citizens and the mess that is today is mostly a result of years of misrule...supported by nations happy to supply arms to perpetuate the 'peace and stability' a Dictator brings...
This is an article from the right of centre UK Telegraph... the lass makes a lot of sense - particularly the closing paragraph.
That most of a nations population are refugees is a sin
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11897647/The-White-House-has-long-stopped-trying-to-remove-Assad-from-power.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11897647/The-White-House-has-long-stopped-trying-to-remove-Assad-from-power.html)
Well although it is their version of 'elections', he has indeed been their leader.
I was reading from many places yesterday regarding the beginnings of the civil war. It was the US that illegally funneled weapons into Syria, which greatly encouraged the uprising. Without that, this war probably wouldn't have reached this point. We didn't have any business doing this.
It seems to be a common refrain that Assad is bombing indiscriminately, but it seems to be that he is attempting to kill those that would behead him, and yes those 'rebels' are sometimes among the people. Yesterday, Saudi Arabia bombed a wedding in Yemen and killed women and children, that was forgotten rather quickly. I notice that it is only when it is the side the West is attempting to demonize, that the events are magnified and distorted. I attempt to bring some reality to the situation.
Yes the last paragraph in your posted link is true, we (America) are NOT the moral force...that is a fantasy.
Fathertime!
Right. We watched the leader of Russia tell lie after bald faced lie at the UN yesterday. Everyone knows they're lies. Compared to Russia, the US is a moral force or there is no moral force in the CIVILIZED world. We are a moral force because the type of government we have includes checks and balances that require a level of honesty in dealing with the public and the world. It seems to me that you have forgotten these premises.
In any event, you are a beacon of fortitude to speak your mind when you are so jaded in your opinions of your own country. Do not believe, however, that the great majority of Americans stand with you with your opinions, as you always tell us. Joe Sickpack, you aren't.
the US is a moral force or there is no moral force in the CIVILIZED world. We are a moral force because the type of government we have includes checks and balances that require a level of honesty in dealing with the public and the world.
The United States has the option to participate or not participate in supporting various regimes around the world.
The difference that makes it a moral force (not the moral force, FT) is that the politicians are answerable to people. While there is no microscope that parses every action by the government, it is a moral force regardless of detractors.
While you are focusing on all of Russia's misdeeds, you continue to bury, excuse, chuckle off, all of ours. That is typical though, must of what we have done is buried or de-emphasized to the point where few actually know our history, aside from the large events.
Actions that belie the idea of morality by the government are scrutinized when brought to light. They aren't ignored or, in the case of Russia, buried and then have history re-written.
And we will be right there to foment as much unrest/revolution as we can when it is in our interest to do so....and if it doesn't work well enough we will start droning/bombing next!!
Other countries? Yeah, there is accountability. It is called revolution. Are you listening Russia? Can you say Maidan?
From a Middle East Scholar, on why Obama and Putin are both wrong.
http://www.juancole.com/2015/09/putin-wrong-syria.html
Moral force in action or how checks and balances are working :
(http://files.vm.ru/photo/vecherka/2015/03/doc6jva1xb1lclkia8ayk_800_480.jpg)
No Bill. It is 4 or 5 individual fighters. Not groups. 500million for 4 or 5 fighters...boy doesn't that make sense. :rolleyes:
Here is a quote from an article I just read. Looks like a US trained REBEL COMMANDER recently handed over all sorts of US army equipment to an Al Quida group:
"Moreover, the U.S. military said a trained Syrian rebel commander had surrendered six trucks and ammunition, supplied by the U.S.-led coalition, to an intermediary linked to the al-Qaida affiliate in Syria. U.S. Central Command said the items — roughly 25 percent of the equipment assigned to that unit — apparently were handed over in exchange for safe passage within the region."
...and why again are we escalating an internal conflict in Syria?
Fathertime!
Putin has once again full on slapped Obama in the face-made a mockery of him- and by extension the US and NATO.
I'm surprised that Obama hasn't sent John Kerry to Russia to surrender and give back
Alaska (they vote Republican)
(http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/properties/benson/art_images/cg560b250133e56.jpg)
If you read through his blog, you will notice that he is willing to debate ideas, including with other academics.
He also predicted, in 2005, almost exactly what has happened.
Obama is smart, no doubt about it. I think he also sees the toxicity of the US dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
In the end, much of the Middle East's instability can be traced back to Saudi Arabia, which funds the most severe, and repressive form of Islam in existence. It is not mainstream, but they certainly want it to become so.
Well, I posted earlier that the Russians being in Syria was strategically maybe the best means to finally bring the West into Russia's war of aggression for real.
Let's revue...
1) Russia conducts air strikes this morning not on IS but Syrian rebels fighting Assad at Assad's request completely contrary to what Putin agreed to at the UN just days ago.
2) Russian General walks into Bagdad US Embassy and declares get your aircraft out of Syrian air space, we're conducting airstrikes within the hour.
Putin has once again full on slapped Obama in the face-made a mockery of him- and by extension the US and NATO.
Will this be allowed to stand? Where is the West's leadership?...Truly 1938 Europe all over again. The more we back away the more general war becomes inevitable.
Obama is smart, no doubt about it. I think he also sees the toxicity of the US dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
Not surprising because in the past year 94% of Assad's operations were directed at the opposition and not ISIS. The entry of Russia suggests Assad was on the run and would soon fall, creating even more havoc because the opposition groups are far from unified.
I've noticed that when you have a POTUS who is trigger-happy, he is the most intelligent, astute, compassionate, God-like, leader this country has had.
Bill, I guess you are right, this is the most violent society in the world. ;)
I've written a hundred times that George W Bush was at best a mediocre president.
You can't find a single post of mine in any thread on any forum making ANY of the
claims in your post and I won't vote for Jeb if he gets nominated.
Despite the stark realities on the ground in Ukraine—undisputed by all except those who openly support or work for the Kremlin or those who have no familiarity with the facts—the fighting has decreased since this new ceasefire, and Russia is once again engaging with the international community, some of which is hailing this false “peace” as a victory for diplomatic relations with Moscow.
My question, were the 94% of operations against others because he wanted them
killed more? or because ISIS was too strong to prevail against?
Putin's New Axis of Resistance
(I'm not singling anyone here FT. ;) )
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/28/putin-s-new-axis-of-resistance-russia-iran-iraq-syria-and-hezbollah.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/28/putin-s-new-axis-of-resistance-russia-iran-iraq-syria-and-hezbollah.html)
Even I who nobody would call an Obamapologist thought that that they wouldn't waste
those kind of resources. Bimbobama and his regime are even more inept than I would
have ever believed.
Obama owns ISIS, but I wasn't under the impression that he was escalating it. It's
been my impression that he lobs a couple of bombs at the problem twice a week and
ignores it. He cares far more to waste vast sums of money on Global warming and to
create thousands of pages of regulations on everything under the sun.
He really doesn't care what happens there except to the extent that it interferes with
his other crap.
Well Bill, I don't think we really spent 500 million on that training for 54 people. I think we semi intentionally let the weapons fall in the hands of rebels against Assad. If that is the case, then it was stupid, but not for the reason you are thinking. If indeed you are correct, then yes, it would be completely inept.
Well if indeed Obama/our country owns ISIS, then it speaks to the destruction and corruption we (The US) are supporting. I don't know if we 'own ISIS', but I don't believe for a moment we have been truly trying to take them out, because I'm convinced if we wanted that, we could have achieved whittling them down significantly. The big media mostly reports what they get from our govt. which is mostly untruths.
Fathertime!
Instead of the great and powerful Oz, we have, here on this Forum, the Not-So-Great and Powerless Cynic. Is there anything your country does that you do like? Or are you just down in your smelly little hole wondering why everyone around holds their nose when they walk by feeling betrayed by the governmental people who lie all the time because they are doing such nefarious things?
Well Bill, I don't think we really spent 500 million on that training for 54 people. I think we semi intentionally let the weapons fall in the hands of rebels against Assad. If that is the case, then it was stupid, but not for the reason you are thinking. If indeed you are correct, then yes, it would be completely inept.
Well if indeed Obama/our country owns ISIS, then it speaks to the destruction and corruption we (The US) are supporting. I don't know if we 'own ISIS', but I don't believe for a moment we have been truly trying to take them out, because I'm convinced if we wanted that, we could have achieved whittling them down significantly. The big media mostly reports what they get from our govt. which is mostly untruths.
Fathertime!
You would like to cover up our misdeeds while criticizing Russia, often incorrectly. You would like to turn the issue black and white, and act as if Russia's actions are in a vacuum. You are just covering up the USA's contributions to the battlefields of the world....which is inaccurate and self-serving.
Fathertime!
I wonder how Western and Russian forces can tell the difference between who they are attacking . . . Syrian military, those fighting Syrian government, ISIS.
I guess we can take that as a big 'no' on having anything supportive to say of the US. My guess is that you never served in your country's military, either. Just a guess.This topic is about Syria, which we didn't need to involve ourselves with....my belief is our contributions have made the situation worse for the people there and we have done this on their backs to gain some not completely understood strategic advantage. Obviously you would like to dance around that subject and lay blame everywhere else. Pattern in your life? Just guessing.
Come on. Surprise us. Tell us something that you are proud of - being an American.
:blowkiss:
This topic is about Syria, which we didn't need to involve ourselves with....my belief is our contributions have made the situation worse for the people there and we have done this on their backs to gain some not completely understood strategic advantage.
That has now changed with America's withdrawal. Thus, after 40 years of having little influence, Obama has allowed Russia and their friend Iran to usurp our leadership role. It will not stop with Syria. The two will expand their presence beyond Syria.
You are missing the point, a very important point. We did NOT involve ourselves in any significant manner. That is why Russia moved in. We were just talk and diplomacy.
That has now changed with America's withdrawal. Thus, after 40 years of having little influence, Obama has allowed Russia and their friend Iran to usurp our leadership role. It will not stop with Syria. The two will expand their presence beyond Syria.
Now answer this question please. Will Russia and Iran do a better job of helping to make life better for countries and peoples of the Middle East?
Do you feel more comfortable with Russia and Iran taking the leadership role in Middle East affairs?
My good friend and old room mate was the valedictorian of Obama's high school class
in Hawaii doesn't think Obama is nearly as bright as you do.
I was surprised it took Russia this long to make their move...they could have hopped in a few years ago...and probably should have. It is hilarious listening to the news on the radio today, and hearing the 'surprised' voices cry out that Russia is bombing the moderate rebels and protecting Assad, of course they are protecting Assad, and why would that be a surprise?
Yes, the Russians don't care that Assad is a ruthless killer who tortures opponents, and, before the civil war began, sent his army into Sunni villages to kill villagers one by one. They don't care that he drops barrel bombs on civilians, and they will be very indiscriminate in their bombing campaigns. This, ultimately, will not end well for Russia.
I have a friend from Lebanon, a Christian. Two years ago, he was back in the summer, and at that time, Lebanon was already overflowing with refugees. His words to me were "Assad is crazy. He is a dictator with the blood of tens of thousands on his hands, and this will get much worse."
Yes, the Russians don't care that Assad is a ruthless killer who tortures opponents, and, before the civil war began, sent his army into Sunni villages to kill villagers one by one.
He was smart enough to be editor of the Harvard Law Review. You have to have top grades to run for editor. Numerous professors have spoken about how impressed they were by him, even in his first year of law school. Of course, he was older than the average law student, and had a lot more life experience.
I suppose being on food stamps while attending an elite private school, and being the only black student there would have been difficult on a teen. Obama also stated when he started college in LA, he still was not a good student. It was only when he transferred to Columbia that he became serious about his studies. He had a Pakistani roommate, which is why he visited Pakistan when he graduated (on the same trip he went to Kenya). He graduated, got a Wall Street job, and hated it. Thereafter, he moved to Chicago.
It's a good thing we aren't all hamstrung by who we were in high school.
You are missing the point, a very important point. We did NOT involve ourselves in any significant manner. That is why Russia moved in. We were just talk and diplomacy.
When was the last time Russia had any significant involvement in the Middle East? 1972.
That has now changed with America's withdrawal. Thus, after 40 years of having little influence, Obama has allowed Russia and their friend Iran to usurp our leadership role. It will not stop with Syria. The two will expand their presence beyond Syria.
Now answer this question please. Will Russia and Iran do a better job of helping to make life better for countries and peoples of the Middle East?
Do you feel more comfortable with Russia and Iran taking the leadership role in Middle East affairs?
Meanwhile, Obama’s Republican critics totally lack the wisdom of our own experience. They blithely advocate “fire, ready, aim” in Syria without any reason to believe their approach will work there any better than it did for us in Iraq or Libya. People who don’t know how to fix inner-city Baltimore think they know how to rescue downtown Aleppo — from the air!
That's right, Bashar al-Assad is a ruthless killer who tortures opponents. So do any of the arabian and not only arabian rulers in this part of world, though you like to notice only those who is labeled as Anti-American. Main question is what happens when a ruthless ruler will be dethroned. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan give illustrative examples of saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
That's right, Bashar al-Assad is a ruthless killer who tortures opponents. So do any of the arabian and not only arabian rulers in this part of world, though you like to notice only those who is labeled as Anti-American. Main question is what happens when a ruthless ruler will be dethroned. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan give illustrative examples of saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
He admittedly got the position on the law review because he was black and was a mediocre writer.
It was an elite school in Hawaii, most of the kids weren't white. Asians dominate the elite schools in Hawaii. Ronald Loui a computer scientists was called Frederick in Obama's look and Mark Tuinei was Hawaiian who became an NFL star with the Dallas Cowboys.
His grandparents who he lived with weren't poor. Obama wasn't Cinderfella
The government that replaced Saddam Hussein was not as ruthless as he was. Not even close. The issue there was a lack of power sharing.I don't think Iraqis feel comfortable to die from a lack of power sharing, just because they have not ruthless government. You raise the issue in manner that moral qualities of a government is higher priority for you than the human lives. I suppose the starting point must be well-being of the nation, not moral character of the rulers of this nation. In this way tens of thousands Iraqis can not express their satisfication from the not so ruthless government because they are all dead.
We *the US* have supplied weapons, we have bombed.
We continued to do our part to keep the civil war going. We (and other western nations) had no business in Syria to begin with.
It is hilarious listening to the news on the radio today, and hearing the 'surprised' voices cry out that Russia is bombing the moderate rebels and protecting Assad, of course they are protecting Assad, and why would that be a surprise?
Independent nations can make their own choices, and if they 'want a friend' and choose Iran, Russia, or even the US then that is one thing....but it isn't up to us to force a very bloody regime change to gain advantage, and if we do, then we are not in any position to cry out when another nation does something similar.
...it is ok with me if they [Russia] have more influence, but I don't' believe for a moment any of the large Hegemonic nations is taking over the entire middle east anyway.
I don't think Iraqis feel comfortable to die from a lack of power sharing, just because they have not ruthless government. You raise the issue in manner that moral qualities of a government is higher priority for you than the human lives. I suppose the starting point must be well-being of the nation, not moral character of the rulers of this nation. In this way tens of thousands Iraqis can not express their satisfication from the not so ruthless government because they are all dead.
Another Obama Arab Spring. What we did was enough to encourage a civil war, yet we did not equip the opposition with enough to prevail.
Ah! So that's his problem. He didn't come out from the country club elite. ;)
Maybe Friedman can answer that.QuoteMeanwhile, Obama’s Republican critics totally lack the wisdom of our own experience. They blithely advocate “fire, ready, aim” in Syria without any reason to believe their approach will work there any better than it did for us in Iraq or Libya. People who don’t know how to fix inner-city Baltimore think they know how to rescue downtown Aleppo — from the air!
'I had never seen anything like it,' said Caesar, who still fears for his life. 'Before the uprising, the regime tortured prisoners to get information – now they were torturing to kill.'
Caesar's harrowing testament is contained in 'Operation Caesar', a new book by the French author Garance Le Caisne.
Referring to the corpses, Caesar told the author: 'I saw marks left by burning candles, and once the round mark of a stove – the sort you use to heat tea – that had burned someone's face and hair.
'Some people had deep cuts, some had their eyes gouged out, their teeth broken, you could see traces of lashes with those cables you use to start cars.'
Caesar was officially part of a team of forensic photographers working for Assad behind closed doors. But driven to act by the grotesque things he had witnessed, Caesar transferred the pictures of mutilated dead bodies from police computers on to USB sticks between 2011 and 2013.
These were smuggled abroad - often hidden in shoes and belts – through friends, and then posted on the Internet, where they are now available for all to see.
'We wanted to get these photos out so that the dead people's families would know that their loved ones had passed away,' said Caesar. 'People had to know what was going on in the prisons and detention centres. When Bashar al-Assad falls, you can be sure that the regime will want to destroy the evidence.' . . .
The tortured, starved and burned bodies in the photographs are the political opponents of Assad's regime. Many of them, who were among the regime's first victims, are only demonstrators who dared to stand up against the dictator.
They have been put through hell - photographs that can't be published show evidence of lashings, burnings, extreme starvation, scalpings and castration.
Obama came out of a country club type school. He was no Cinderfella, he wasn't
a poor black kid. The School had maybe 1/3 whites and 2/3 non white, so there
wasn't some type of anti-black racial thing going on, especially not in Hawaii.
He was a mediocre student, but that was because he was a pot head and lazy (back
then) and not because of the color of his skin.
I disagree with this. The civil war had begun by the time the U.S. was involved.
I am not sure of Friedman's point. Iraq was Bush, although Obama's removal of troops made things worse (no one complains about the 38,000 troops in ROK). Libya was Obama. Result about the same.
Whether you recognize it or not, the Arab Spring flames were fanned (not started) by the US throughout the Middle East. Ambassador Stevens died in Benghazi while brokering the shipment of captured Libyan arms to Syrian opposition forces. The seeds for the Arab Spring rebellions were not planted by the US but were a homegrown response a long time ago to tyrannical dictators.
Obama never stated there was an anti black thing going on in Hawaii, just that he knew he was different, and at the time, it bothered him. For a kid that age, anything different is usually a negative.
I was different, I was the tallest kid in our school and a basketball star. It might have
sounded good in his book, but Obama wasn't a poor black kid, he wasn't rich and there
were rich kids. There are plenty of Pacific Islanders who have dark skin. He was writing
a book and exaggerated, it happens.
Obama's Grandfather wasn't poor when Obama lived with them.
Rich kids, and middle class kids, don't use food stamps.
I have spent a considerable amount of time through my life in Hawaii, last time, in March/April in Honolulu. My family until fairly recently, owned a condo for over 30 years on the Big Island, which still has a significant native population. I have never seen a Pacific Islander who looks African American.
I have never seen a Pacific Islander who looks African American.
Iraq since the removal of Hussein has been unstable, due to continued sectarian violence, but that had subsided. Most of this is the result of al Maliki. I think you can compare it, in some ways, to the instability in Russia in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR. The difference in Russia is, a form of government had existed, and the population was not armed to the teeth.
Communist welfare mothers can live on food stamps that doesn't make the communist
welfare mothers parents poor does it? Both his grandparents had decent paying jobs
and his grandmother was vice president of a bank.
His grandparents weren't poor or lower middle class
You can't see the wood for the trees. Mailiki may be a good man, bu we're talking about nations. If a ruler is a good man but tens of thousands of his citizens died I don't care about his personal qualities. Let him be the bad guy who would save his people from self-destruction. Yeltsin was a good man for West, but Russians almost hate him because his times were times of misery for large part of population.
True, but note, by the time the US had decided to arm Syrian rebels, the civil war had already started.
You could lay this at the feet of the neocons as well. One of the points made in Project for a New American Century was that by removing Saddam Hussein, the seeds of democracy would be sown in the Middle East.
I don't think Iraqis feel comfortable to die from a lack of power sharing, just because they have not ruthless government. You raise the issue in manner that moral qualities of a government is higher priority for you than the human lives. I suppose the starting point must be well-being of the nation, not moral character of the rulers of this nation. In this way tens of thousands Iraqis can not express their satisfication from the not so ruthless government because they are all dead.
You can't see the wood for the trees. Mailiki may be a good man, bu we're talking about nations. If a ruler is a good man but tens of thousands of his citizens died I don't care about his personal qualities. Let him be the bad guy who would save his people from self-destruction. Yeltsin was a good man for West, but Russians almost hate him because his times were times of misery for large part of population.
And then came the shirtless man showing his macho pectorals and the whole country chanted: You Da Man!!!!
So yes, Bush made a mistake with what he did in Iraq. I assert Obama has made a mistake everywhere in the Middle East. This is Obama's legacy, and is no longer Bush's fault. Obama and Hillary can not blame it on Bush. The implications of Obama's and Hillary's mistakes are more troubling for long term stability than Bush's mistake in Iraq. Will Obama try to do something in his final year to correct the mess, or will he let it fester while preparing for a life of privilege, leisure and wealth as a retired US President?
I say, "Go Europe!" Get off your ass and fix the problem in the Middle East.
This is Obama's legacy, and is no longer Bush's fault. Obama and Hillary can not blame it on Bush. The implications of Obama's and Hillary's mistakes are more troubling for long term stability than Bush's mistake in Iraq. Will Obama try to do something in his final year to correct the mess, or will he let it fester while preparing for a life of privilege, leisure and wealth as a retired US President?
Weapons - Yes, but not to a significant degree.
Bombed - Yes, but ISIS. What's wrong with that? No bombing of Asad's military.
I gather you have no problem with Russia being able to DRIVE THE AGENDA? That is what Russia can do with Obama's slow retreat from the Middle East. I believe it is time for Europe to take the lead to 1) counter Russia and 2) balance the forces at play in the Middle East to bring stability. Europe is importing far more of the Middle Eastern oil than the US, and Europe is receiving the refugees created by conflicts in the Middle East. So Europe, add the Middle East to Ukraine as a place where you need to step up.
So yes, Bush made a mistake with what he did in Iraq. I assert Obama has made a mistake everywhere in the Middle East. This is Obama's legacy, and is no longer Bush's fault. Obama and Hillary can not blame it on Bush. The implications of Obama's and Hillary's mistakes are more troubling for long term stability than Bush's mistake in Iraq. Will Obama try to do something in his final year to correct the mess, or will he let it fester while preparing for a life of privilege, leisure and wealth as a retired US President?
Given much of history, the world's people must shudder when they think of Europe 'fixing' problems....the results invariably have entailed a healthy dose of deaths.
I say, let them solve their own problems, and quit trying to exploit them.
I don't think Russia is going to be driving the agenda more than we already are. I'm not sure how much that is either. Driving agenda's must be a new age form of imperialism in the region.
Outside countries should have let Syria's uprising play out, instead of trying to affect it's outcome.
Feel free to add more. ;)
1. Divisiveness - Failing as a leader to cross the aisle. Instead taking steps that made the far right intractable.
2. Racial relations taking a step backwards.
An state such as Syria can solve it's problems or not solve them. It is not up to us to create a wider war or determine the outcome.
Why didn't I think of that! The Arab nations have an impeccable record of working together and resolving their conflicts.
Arab states could not work together when many obtained their independence in the aftermath of WW I. In 1948 they could not work together to defeat a very much smaller Israel. Please give me one good example of Arab states working together to accomplish something significant. I would say the best example is OPEC, yet it has no teeth today.
It seems you do not understand the meaning of "driving the agenda." This is what Hitler did in the 1930s Germany. Most Germans would have considered themselves then as peaceful people, yet the Nazis as a minority party seized power and led Germany to invading much of Europe.
It is difficult to explain this to you because you see Putin as someone who is not trying to make Russia great again as a military power. Nope, you think of him as someone who will negotiate win-win solutions. You do not see him as the 800-lb Gorilla. The gorilla has now entered the room (the Middle East) and who knows the long-term implications. And we can do little to stop him.
Great idea, do nothing. That is largely what the US has done (Example: Obama drew a red line, told Assad not to cross it, Assad crossed it, and Obama did nothing). Even without boots on the ground and with minimal weapons from the US, it seems the opposition groups had Assad on the run. Russia entered to protect Assad, and I guarantee they will now turn this around. I can only imagine the reprisals in store for the opposition groups as Assad's forces regain the territory.
Congratulations for being one of the last persons still blaming Bush I believe even Obama has stopped blaming Bush in his speeches. Yet your point has some merit. The opportunity to establish democracies was one of two key reasons for Bush invading Iraq. How well did that work? Bad intelligence and analysis by Bush and his staff. The other reason - establish a permanent base for US troops. We had that, yet Obama gave it away, allowing Russia to now have the only permanent military base in the region. Belvis's quote is appropriate: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
So yes, Bush made a mistake with what he did in Iraq. I assert Obama has made a mistake everywhere in the Middle East. This is Obama's legacy, and is no longer Bush's fault. Obama and Hillary can not blame it on Bush. The implications of Obama's and Hillary's mistakes are more troubling for long term stability than Bush's mistake in Iraq. Will Obama try to do something in his final year to correct the mess, or will he let it fester while preparing for a life of privilege, leisure and wealth as a retired US President?
It's my opinion that Obama doesn't care what happens in Syria.
When he wanted to bomb the Syrian regime after the first chemical attacks, he was stymied by Congress.
Independent nations can make their own choices, and if they 'want a friend' and choose Iran, Russia, or even the US then that is one thing....but it isn't up to us to force a very bloody regime change to gain advantage, and if we do, then we are not in any position to cry out when another nation does something similar.
I say, "Go Europe!" Get off your ass and fix the problem in the Middle East.
6,800 American families who will never see their loved ones, and the hundreds of thousands of wounded now being stiffed by the VA.
Does Russia even allow refugees from Syria? I didn't think they did. If millions flock to Europe and stay, it will be because they are allowed to, and presumably have an opportunity to make some money, or maybe they intend on living on the dole. We, the US, didn't need to escalate the internal problem. I'm not seeing the direct benefit, although, there might be a hidden and or embarrassing one that the public isn't generally aware of. Fathertime!
America, Russia and Iran have friends in every nation. If America doesn't want to support their friends, Russia and Iran will gladly support their friends. How many friends to we and they have in Syria? Just look at the 4+ million refugees. How many of those refugees moved to a NATO nation or have the desire to do so and how many of those refugees are banging down Russia's and Iran's doors to get in their nations? It's clear the majority of the people living in the Middle East do not want to be governed by leaders friendly to Russia or Iran.
An state such as Syria can solve it's problems or not solve them. It is not up to us to create a wider war or determine the outcome.
I disagree that we have done little, if Russia hadn't entered the fray, Assad probably would have eventually fallen, and I think we have been the deciding factor as I explained earlier.
We, other Western nations have carried out 1000's of sorties in an effort to boast rebel forces, that is a lot.
The psychological factor of fighting the USA is also a big deal and has probably scared a lot of Assad loyalists away.
The result would have been the same even with US troops on the ground. It just would have occurred at a different time.
This has been written about extensively by experts, but here is one good overview, from an insider -
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story)
Belvis, you should read the link as well, as it tends to negate your assertion of the "stability" an Assad regime will supply.
Why are you so anti-American when we have done so little in Syria, yet indifferent to Russia entering the conflict and destroying rebel groups seeking a free Syria? Do you really not understand Putin's long-term motives and the implications for the West.
So you are now in the camp that it is better for world stability if brutal dictators are allowed to stay in power, regardless of the domestic human suffering. You are not alone.
I OTOH understand and support the noble goal Obama had to back opposition groups intent on replacing dictators with democracies. The only problem is this is very messy in the Middle East with some bad possible outcomes, and Obama has so far failed in its implementation, as would most who have attempted this with restraint. News for you: Putin and Assad will advance with no restraints.
If Russia goes all in, the opposition groups will be diminished to small pockets of guerillas within a couple of years. Do we let them collapse totally, or do we support them like Charlie Wilson supported the mujahedeen in Afghanistan.
The depth of your ignorance is astounding. You are mistaken if you don't think we have created an environment whereby Assad is somewhat incapacitated. What exactly do you think our purpose is, if not that? :rolleyes:
Statements like this show the depth of your ignorance. The US has conducted no sorties against Assad. Please show me accounts of where we have attacked Assad's forces.
Well over 1 million native population dead in those countries....I'm sure people are aware if they go up against aircraft/drones they can not see..they have a good chance of being dead.....and I'm sure that has discouraged some people who would otherwise fight...to think otherwise is ridiculous.
Ha Ha. You can not be serious. If true, explain Afghanistan and Iraq.
Difficult to say. If the majority Shia never share any power with the Sunni, then the same would have happened. I was always in the camp of dividing Iraq into three countries. The major problem is the Sunni have little oil in their territory and the Shia would have allied with Iran (which they seem to be doing anyway).
At least a permanent US base would have stopped the ISIS invasion from Syria.
I have read such accounts. Educated Sunni would never support ISIS control of their region, nor would a majority vote for it if it were a choice vs. a democracy.
As I just wrote in the peacekeeping thread, I believe that Obama gave Putin a pass on Ukraine in exchange for Russia joining the coalition against ISIS. However, Putin has always been far more astute that Obama, and he will take Ukraine eventually if the green light was indeed flashed, but he will implement his own agenda, not Obama's, in Syria and the Middle East.
History will not be kind to one of the most incompetent and useless USA presidents ever to be elected.
“Syria is an exercise in narrative escalation dominance,” Pomeranzev says. “It’s setting the agenda, making the U.S. look weak and putting Putin center stage—whether good or bad is irrelevant because for the Kremlin any publicity is good publicity. The exact, on-the-ground aims can be interchangeable. ‘Terrorists’ in Syria are just as vague as the ‘fascists’ in Ukraine, and it doesn't really matter whether it's true, as long as the story keeps moving and the U.S. is kept off-balance, distracted and dismayed.”[/size]
I think that will depend on whether Obama's successor reverts to US policy in the past, which lead to 9/11, or to a new course.
You don't have to believe me.
You don't have to believe me. Just reads the words of Osama bin Laden.
Centuries ago, a Tsar was embroiled in a war with a Muslim country the Russians were attempting to conquer. He met with the Muslim emir, and asked what the Russians could do to stop the bloodshed. He was given three conditions:
1. Don't take our land.
2. Don't our women.
3. Don't touch our horses.
The Tsar laughed, and agreed to the three conditions. Result? No bloodshed for over a century with the Muslims of the region, who were happily part of the Russian Empire.
The West will not be a target if the West is not embroiled in the affairs of people of the Middle East.
Centuries ago, a Tsar was embroiled in a war with a Muslim country the Russians were attempting to conquer.
Who is it that frequently tells me not to refer to ancient history from 50 years ago?
Yes, they live in the West. But their grievances are related to Western domination of their lands.
I don't know. Who?
How many Muslims do you know personally? How many do you interact with daily?
True I don't see most Muslims as inherently any different than anyone else..., but we have now meddled SO much that it will take our lifetime and more to change perceptions...and we are still going in the wrong direction.
The West will not be a target if the West is not embroiled in the affairs of people of the Middle East.
You are disingenuously downplaying the role of the US, and the West in Syria. Go ahead in explain all the motives and implications for the West, if you think you know all.
Noble...haha....I don't believe we are being noble.
We involved ourselves in this internal conflict, so Russia is supporting the current leadership. No big surprises. If enter, we shouldn't act surprised when other nations do too.
The depth of your ignorance is astounding. You are mistaken if you don't think we have created an environment whereby Assad is somewhat incapacitated. What exactly do you think our purpose is, if not that? :rolleyes:
Well over 1 million native population dead in those countries....I'm sure people are aware if they go up against aircraft/drones they can not see..they have a good chance of being dead.....and I'm sure that has discouraged some people who would otherwise fight...to think otherwise is ridiculous.
The Shia allied with Iran long before Obama was elected.
ISIS originates in Iraq, and its membership is still predominantly Iraqi.
Yet the leaders are all educated Iraqis.
My own view is that the leadership cares little about religion, other than using it as a recruiting tool and a means to stay in power.
I see you now have retreated from your statement "we have carried out 1000's of sorties" to "we have created an environment whereby Assad is somewhat incapacitated." This is typical of you: 1) you do not consider facts and 2) instead of deductive reasoning you express your emotional feelings as the truth.
This is typical of you: 1) you do not consider facts and 2) instead of deductive reasoning you express your emotional feelings as the truth. You have the mentality of several stubborn RW I met. Is that why you post at RWD even though your wife is not RW?
The goal of replacing a tyrant with democracy is noble. You do realize Assad is committing war crimes.
To the contrary, our aircraft/drone attacks against ISIL seem to have changed little other than to help ISIS recruitment.
No, no, no. We HAVE carried out 1000's of sorties AND we have created an environment where Assad is somewhat incapacitated. These statements are NOT mutually exclusive and you have no reason to make that leap. We (the US leadership) want Assad out, and I believe the thrust of the 1000's of sorties is to indirectly achieve that end without being TOO obvious/blatant.
I tried to help you see the error of your thinking. My last and final attempt, made as simple as "one, two, three."You can believe this, but I don't. If leadership wants Assad out, we are not bombing his enemies. We are probably bombing his supporters and labeling them ISIS, while letting his detractors fly under a different label and destroy as much as they can.
1. The FIRST US air missions in Syria (jets, missiles and drones) started one year ago.
2. In Syria, the US has bombed only ISIS and the Khorasan Group (al Qaeda).
3. In other words, the US had flown ZERO missions against Assad (and yet you say "1000s")
Here is the irony: the US THREATENED to bomb Assad, but never did. Instead we bombed one of Assad's ENEMIES, namely ISIS. Indirectly, we are helping Assad.
I did not read the remainder of your dribble because I deem you HOPELESS. I wager I said this before but forgot.
I think that will depend on whether Obama's successor reverts to US policy in the past, which lead to 9/11, or to a new course.
I have not stated repeatedly that you shouldn't look to history 50 years ago.
Let's look at today, not a half century ago.
I don't think what happened a century ago is relevant in this context.
You don't know my experiences with Muslims.
I OTOH understand and support the noble goal Obama had to back opposition groups intent on replacing dictators with democracies. The only problem is this is very messy in the Middle East with some bad possible outcomes, and Obama has so far failed in its implementation, as would most who have attempted this with restraint.
Putin and Assad will advance with no restraints.
Putin will also eventually have to clear up with the separatist entities the situation along Russia's own border, which has turned into a flourishing center for contraband. For now, managing Russian domestic opinion may seem easy. But the day is approaching when Putin will have to explain to his own people why the glorious revolution in the east turned into what most would call just another bardak. A mess.
The Kremlin has begun to take action in the last few months, stepping up pressure on its allies in the east. There have been changes in the separatist leadership. Obstreperous military commanders have been squeezed out. More recently the second-ranking leader of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) — Andrei Purgin, firmly opposed to compromise with Kiev — was abruptly arrested and detained by Donetsk's Ministry of State Security (MGB).
Separatist leaders say reorganization of the Donetsk military forces has replaced local warlords, Cossacks and others, with regular officers. The large units that reported directly to top leaders — DPR head Alexander Zakharchenko, or Security Council secretary Alexander Khodakovsky — have, in theory at least, been subordinated to a regular military structure. Its real leadership is unknown, but probably Russian.
The Moscow Times had a nice OP/ED on how Syria will not solve Putin's Ukraine mess.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/syria-wont-erase-putins-ukraine-problem/536926.html?utm_source=email_tmt-editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=55-issue-2015-10-05&utm_content=title_3 (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/syria-wont-erase-putins-ukraine-problem/536926.html?utm_source=email_tmt-editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=55-issue-2015-10-05&utm_content=title_3)
It's my understanding Germany and France have pretty much imposed a solution re Donbas on Ukraine. It is to hold local elections under Ukrainian law (yet again). Poroshenko's not happy about it, but he will comply. Whether the Rada will is another matter.
Germany and France just want to be able to drop the sanctions and return to life as it was before the Russian aggression. This really does not bode well for the Baltic states should the Kremlin decide to make a move on them. I remain doubtful that NATO would go to bat for them.
The Russian Defense Ministry asked military attaches of the anti-ISIL coalition member-countries to share their intelligence on Islamic State militant positions in Syria.MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The Russian Defense Ministry said Tuesday it had asked military attaches of the anti-ISIL coalition member-countries to share their intelligence on Islamic State militant positions in Syria with Moscow.
The US is reluctant to share IS info with Moscow because they feel this would give Moscow locations of the CIA-backed rebels.
Germany and France just want to be able to drop the sanctions and return to life as it was before the Russian aggression. This really does not bode well for the Baltic states should the Kremlin decide to make a move on them. I remain doubtful that NATO would go to bat for them.
I may be wrong, but isn't a number of countries beginning to permanently place heavy weapons in the Baltics?
I have never thought NATO would meaningfully support the Baltic republics against a Russian invasion. If this occurred and NATO members realized they might not be able to count on NATO to defend them, it might cause the unraveling of NATO. For Russia that would be a bigger prize than control of the Baltic republics.
Obama withdrew American forces before the job was completed of training Iraq to defend itself. This is consistent with Obama's appeasement policy from Day One of apologizing to the Muslim world for what America has done and to withdraw.
Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders have adamantly refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans have refused to stay without it. Iraq's leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay. Some argued the further training and U.S. help was vital, particularly to protect Iraq's airspace and gather security intelligence. But others have deeply opposed any American troop presence, including Shiite militiamen who have threatened attacks on any American forces who remain.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has told U.S. military officials that he does not have the votes in parliament to provide immunity to the American trainers, the U.S. military official said.
A western diplomatic official in Iraq said al-Maliki told international diplomats he will not bring the immunity issue to parliament because lawmakers will not approve it.
It was Bush, not Obama, who negotiated the timing of the full withdrawal of American troops from Iraqi soil. The deadline was December, 2011.
The Obama administration did have discussions with Iraq about extending the deadline. The inability to provide immunity to American troops, particularly commanders, is the reason the deadline was not extended.
I'd say there is a big difference between the Baltics and Ukraine...I don't believe Russia has intentions of making a first move up there, but if Russia were to make a 1st move in the Baltics, I think NATO would respond.
I'd say there is a big difference between the Baltics and Ukraine...I don't believe Russia has intentions of making a first move up there, but if Russia were to make a 1st move in the Baltics, I think NATO would respond.
QuoteThroughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders have adamantly refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans have refused to stay without it. Iraq's leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay. Some argued the further training and U.S. help was vital, particularly to protect Iraq's airspace and gather security intelligence. But others have deeply opposed any American troop presence, including Shiite militiamen who have threatened attacks on any American forces who remain.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has told U.S. military officials that he does not have the votes in parliament to provide immunity to the American trainers, the U.S. military official said.
A western diplomatic official in Iraq said al-Maliki told international diplomats he will not bring the immunity issue to parliament because lawmakers will not approve it.
The Obama administration did have discussions with Iraq about extending the deadline. The inability to provide immunity to American troops, particularly commanders, is the reason the deadline was not extended -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/iraq-withdrawal-us-troops_n_1012661.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/iraq-withdrawal-us-troops_n_1012661.html)
The lack of immunity is a challenging issue yet I consider it merely the excuse given by the administration. The Pentagon still wanted to stay and retain a force of 10,000 troops. Obama talked about leaving 3-5,000 troops.
Can someone please explain why on earth American troops should think that they are entitled to immunity from prosecution for crimes they've committed?This is the deal they seem to usually negotiate before committing US troops abroad :-\.
Can someone please explain why on earth American troops should think that they are entitled to immunity from prosecution for crimes they've committed? Tourists don't get such protection - only diplomats do, and many countries will waive immunity if the crime is serious ($20,000 worth of unpaid parking tickets doesn't count). If GI Smith is seen stealing cigarettes from a shop, or bashing some local Iraqi teenager, why should he not be prosecuted?
The US armed forces has a tribunal system so does most countries, we police our own.Yes, and the result of it is that an idiot who killed 20 innocent Italian skyers was booted out of the Corps simply for "conduct unbecoming an officer" :(. Unavoidable collateral damage, in a non-war theatre :-\?
Yes, and the result of it is that an idiot who killed 20 innocent Italian skyers was booted out of the Corps simply for "conduct unbecoming an officer" :(. Unavoidable collateral damage, in a non-war theatre :-\?
I am undecided about the implications of Russia's growing presence in the Middle East.
I don't share your optimism that Obama would respond if Russia attacked one of the
Baltic countries. He would more likely send a strongly worded letter or some kind of
economic sanctions. If Obama doesn't send forces, then the who is going to stop Russia?
France? Belgium? Italy?
then Russia will have no reason to make a move to take them.
With all respect FT, obviously you have not just happened to be reading, viewing, or listening to Russia media the past year. They have been steadily building a case with the Russian people. Will they make a move? I hope not.
The presence of the USA really has only little bearing on a man who believes that the breakup of the CCCP was the single biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the last century.
BUT Russia would be on the receiving end of so much worldwide ire if they took the Baltic nations, that I just don't see it happening.
My belief is that the NATO nations would go to war over an invasion like that, and Putin probably realizes this, and knows it isn't going to be worth going into those nations, who would also offer resistance themselves.
My belief is that as long as we stay out of The Baltics ourselves, then Russia will have no reason to make a move to take them. All that said, if Russia were to suddenly invade, then I certainly think the countries of NATO would respond and make it a very costly move, in a permanent way for Russia...and they would most likely be right to do so.
Fathertime!
Well in some respects it does make sense that he would prepare his people. It may be a way to keep NATO/US on their toes about how bad things could get, BUT Russia would be on the receiving end of so much worldwide ire if they took the Baltic nations, that I just don't see it happening. My belief is that the NATO nations would go to war over an invasion like that, and Putin probably realizes this, and knows it isn't going to be worth going into those nations, who would also offer resistance themselves.
It is a good move for him to prepare though, as perhaps that will keep the US presence in those nations to a minimum. Of course there are other scenarios too, but they involve US aggression first, which hopefully will not come to pass.
Fathertime!
Congress probing U.S. spy agencies' possible lapses on Russia
Reuters By Mark Hosenball, Phil Stewart and Matt Spetalnick
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senior U.S. lawmakers have begun probing possible intelligence lapses over Moscow’s intervention in Syria, concerned that American spy agencies were slow to grasp the scope and intention of Russia’s dramatic military offensive there, U.S. congressional sources and other officials told Reuters.
A week after Russia plunged directly into Syria’s civil war by launching a campaign of air strikes, the intelligence committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives want to examine the extent to which the spy community overlooked or misjudged critical warning signs, the sources said.
Findings of major blind spots would mark the latest of several U.S. intelligence misses in recent years, including Moscow’s surprise takeover of Ukraine’s Crimea region last year and China’s rapid expansion of island-building activities in the South China Sea.
there is more read all about it here
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-congress-probing-u-spy-agencies-possible-lapses-051400295.html (http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-congress-probing-u-spy-agencies-possible-lapses-051400295.html)
I wonder if Congress probing their intelligence agencies would have prevented Hitler from invading Europe.
There are few places more corrupt than Iraq. Could you imagine a better scam than to accuse a GI of raping your daughter? or the GI could pay you off? Can you imagine that The mother of an Al Qaeda swearing that her boy with the suicide vest was a good boy and that the GI's killed her good boy? can you imagine if you are in a shootout with a terrorist and one of the 10 thousand bullets goes through his head and across the street and kills an innocent? Maybe it was the terrorist that fired the shot, but do you want corporal Joe-Bob Hicks rotting in an Iraqi jail to be tried in two years by a corrupt judge related to the dead terrorist?
The US armed forces has a tribunal system so does most countries, we police our own.
The truth is that Saddam didn't invite us to Iraq, the Taliban didn't invite us to Afghanistan. We came anyway, and we can leave if and when we want and think we should. If Mal-ball-licky doesn't agree with us we can arrest him for corruption (which he is very very guilty of) shoot him and appoint another who is less argumentative. We would have less difficulty if we stopped stepping on our own
d!ck being so sensitive.
Just my dva kopecks
If GI Smith is seen stealing cigarettes from a shop, or bashing some local Iraqi teenager, why should he not be prosecuted?
Congress probing U.S. spy agencies' possible lapses on Russia
Reuters By Mark Hosenball, Phil Stewart and Matt Spetalnick
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senior U.S. lawmakers have begun probing possible intelligence lapses over Moscow’s intervention in Syria, concerned that American spy agencies were slow to grasp the scope and intention of Russia’s dramatic military offensive there, U.S. congressional sources and other officials told Reuters.....
Four Russian cruise missiles fired from the Caspian sea crashed into Iran.
Another link: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/08/russian-cruise-missiles-intended-for-targets-in-syria-hit-iran-instead/?intcmp=hpbt3 (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/08/russian-cruise-missiles-intended-for-targets-in-syria-hit-iran-instead/?intcmp=hpbt3)
Bill, please read properly what I wrote (and which you quoted) before you go off half-cocked.
Of course allegations without direct witnesses can be very difficult to prove (or disprove). I'm talking about cases where the evidence is direct and unequivocal.
And to think there are people here who believe Russia has a capable fighting force.
Another link: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/08/russian-cruise-missiles-intended-for-targets-in-syria-hit-iran-instead/?intcmp=hpbt3 (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/08/russian-cruise-missiles-intended-for-targets-in-syria-hit-iran-instead/?intcmp=hpbt3)
One last note...there is a possibility that the four misfires all came from the same Kalibr launcher meaning that of the one frigate and four corvettes that took part in the operation one of the ship's launcher was faulty. This might account for the extraordinary high failure rate.
Reasonable, but we will never know because it is Russia whose level of transparency as well as restraint is far different from the America's. We will admit the tragic mistake of blasting a Doctors Without Borders hospital and apologize. In contrast, consider MH17.
As usual the apologist-in-chief was quick to accept US culpability for the incident. However, I'm going to reserve judgment until the investigation(s) are complete.
He damn well should apologize for the bombs killing the doctors.... I don't see a reason why he would apologize unless we did it or had something to do with it.
Yeah? Well, guess what? I was wrong. Obama didn't apologize. He offered his condolences and also stated exactly what I stated above...He'll wait for the results of the investigation...
So, in light of this revelation, I withdraw my comment that "As usual the apologist-in-chief was quick to accept US culpability for the incident." as incorrect and unwarranted (in this instance).
Brass
Well maybe then the wronged 'apologist-in-chief' deserves an apology from you...since you drew the conclusion without considering the facts, that he might be currently considering or spinning! :D
Nonsense. I'm retracting my retraction...The only thing I'm guilty of is not being able to keep up with this administration's constant flip flopping...Lets just hope you don't retract the retraction of the retraction...or we will have to start calling you the "Retractor at arms".
It seems you are also unable to keep up with Obama's flip flopping. Your last two posts show you were just as unaware of the White House not up dating their press release as I was or you would have taken the opportunity to finally get one over on me. ;)
NOTE these are Unconfirmed reports of a Russian jet getting shot down in Turkey.
Russian jet SHOT DOWN by Turkey after it flew into their airspace, according to reports
Russian strikes began hitting U.S.-backed rebel groups fighting the regime of Syrian President Bashar
Assad, a close Russian ally.
Maybe someone more in the know can shed light on this, but isn't ISIS operating in Dagestan and Chechnya? Wouldn't Russia interfering in Syria cause a possible flare up in those regions as well?
I doubt Kadyrov would allow ISIS to operate in Chechnya. But Chechens are fighting with them, Russia even cleared a corridor for fighters to join ISIS. Less problems for them.
Lets just hope you don't retract the retraction of the retraction...or we will have to start calling you the "Retractor at arms".
I wasn't keeping up on the statements, or really even focusing on what Obama says every minute...but it seems our error did indeed kill all those doctors, so an apology is in order, I don't see why that makes Obama the 'apologizer and chief' though...It should be obvious it is right to start with an apology. Why would that be grumble-worthy?
Syrian, Hezbollah, Iranian, and Russian forces have made major advancements the past few days. Obama's policies in the Middle East is in shambles and he abandoned the policy of training moderate rebels hostile to Assad and ISIS. Obama tried to solve the problems in the Middle East with doing as little as possible. Too little, too late. Russia saw an opening and they are fully committed in protecting Assad. Obama should either get tougher or get out of Syria entirely because going into this supporting rebels half heartedly are going to get them killed and waste our money.
My guess is Obama is going to lose this battle and the American backed rebels are going to be liquidated and headless. Assad may try to negotiate with ISIS giving them a safe place to operate in Syria as long as they don't touch him or Russia and continue to be a thorn in the West's side. Anybody see this thing turning out differently?
http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-army-advances-west-russian-strikes-monitor-072722104.html
Because an apology implies culpability. At this point I'm not convinced this was a mistake in that the pilot bombed/strafed the building without cause.We are culpable.
There were Taliban in the building and hospital compound. If the pilot was taking small arms fire from the building/compound he would have been justified in returning fire.
Apparently the Pentagon/Administration has already authorized "condolence payments" even though the investigations are still underway. That's just plain wrong.
Brass
[/size]
We are culpable.
Bombing the hospital is a little more than 'returning fire'. It should have been obvious that the building was a hospital.. It is also obvious if the pilot gets close enough he will be shot at. Another case where no options were good, so leave the scene and wait for a better opportunity. This outcome is going to be costly in many respects. Why exactly are we there now? Anybody? We aren't going to 'win' any war there, that is for certain.
[/size]
Why exactly are we there now? Anybody? We aren't going to 'win' any war there, that is for certain.
The payments are probably just a way to brown nose before the local public ire escalates, but it is probably futile.
In the real world there is no culpability until guilt is assigned. That's done through proper investigation. As I've already stated if the pilot was taking fire from that building, even if it was a hospital, he would be justified in returning fire. NATO, US ROEs make that clear.
No, it was exactly 'returning fire' (if that's in fact what happened). If the Taliban were using the hospital as a shield thinking that they could target US planes/Government/Coalition forces with impunity then they were sadly mistaken. It is the equivalent of the Palestinians using school yards to launch missiles into Israel. At that point the hospital ceased being a humanitarian refuge and became a legitimate combat target. Terrorists don't get to blast away unimpeded just because they're shooting from behind a red cross flag.
We've already won the war. It's a matter of keeping the Taliban from retaking the country. We (NATO/Coalition) still have a presence there in support of the legitimate Afghani government. That's exactly why we are still there now. If NATO leaves, the same thing that happened in Iraq, will happen in Afghanistan.
Whatever the reasoning, Kunduz is currently under Taliban control. When/if the condolence payments are handed out. There will be a Taliban representative also right there with their hand out demanding and accepting the local population's US funded contribution to the Taliban cause. In return the Taliban won't throw acid into their daughters faces, blow up their houses, or murder their sons/brothers/fathers...this week.
I don't know what real world you are talking about...but if somebody (in this case Obama) knows they did something wrong, then fessing up and apologizing is the way to go.....forget about the spinning process...
Whichever persons that were firing from the hospital win this one....they are probably dead, but they did better than a suicide bomber could, and the US gets to pay for in every way. I still say they should have left the scene and waited for a better opportunity.
I don't think have won anything, unless Pyrrhic victories count.
Whatever the reasoning is, we shouldn't be in the position where we have to pay... I imagine it is just PR, once the hoopla dies down I wouldn't be surprised if the payments are small, or 'get lost' in the mail.
No spin involved. It hasn't been determined if anything was done wrong. That's why the investigations are being conducted. You've just automatically defaulted to your blame America routine. I'll reserve judgment until the circumstances surrounding the incident have been determined.
Well that's your opinion, I think for the most part Afghanistan's been a success. It's now just a matter of weathering Obama's feckless leadership.
I agree, the US shouldn't be in a position of having to pay...at least not until the investigations complete and responsibility assigned. In the meantime, you've again defaulted to blame America...What about the Taliban terrorists who started this latest round of violence? Any condemnation for them? It's notably absent in your comments.
Brass
Well you can reserve judgement, but Obama wouldn't have acknowledged so much unless it was obvious that we killed all those innocents.
...almost 15 years of war/death and no end in sight....I don't see how that is a success for the people living there....the financial commitment of the US has been ghastly, also with no end in sight...not to mention the lives lost. Not worth the costs.
We are in their country...until we leave there will be attacks...it was us this time guilty of potentially a war crime...I mean 'mistake'.
Generally speaking, I do blame America for being so overly involved in the region, I don't know if that is my 'routine', but it is my viewpoint. We have 'accidentally' killed how many innocents now? The Afghans have had plenty of time to be trained, if they wanted to be...we can give them a future date of our departure, and let them figure out how they would like to govern themselves...or we can stay there forever and continue paying
Assad may try to negotiate with ISIS giving them a safe place to operate in Syria as long as they don't touch him or Russia and continue to be a thorn in the West's side. Anybody see this thing turning out differently?
3. A huge outcome would be for Putin to use his unopposed position of strength in the Middle East to drive the price of oil upwards. This could happen either by destabilizing the Middle East or by coercing the Arabs to curtail production. I assume this is foremost in Putin's strategy because he can not continue to build his military and support wars in the Middle East and Ukraine with a weak Russian economy.
One fly in the ointment Putin's allies Iran and Assad are Shia. ISIS is Sunni. The Muslims in Russia are mainly Sunni. If Russia starts a major offensive against ISIS, could this result in a wave of Sunni terrorism within Russia.
My guess is that Russia in the immediate future will do little more than what it is now doing. Given its weak economy, it simply can not afford to do more. Nevertheless, over the long term, it would not be surprising if Russia and Iran work jointly to somehow drive up the price of oil. Who would stop them given the US's reduced presence in the Middle East.
It vexes me no end that it's the Obama administration that's the weak link in dealing with Russian aggression right now, however, it's forcing the normally silent and compliant majority of involved nations (stakeholders) to actually step up and start fending for themselves instead of waiting for big brother (the US) to intervene.
Based on international media reporting (not US media, they're focused on debates and seem unaware of just how dangerous the Russian situation has become) you get the impression the civilized world has just about had it with this whole Obama foreign policy fiasco and is starting to openly criticize and break from his decisions/policies.
Without the perception of strong leadership from the US, Turkey or the coalition force operating in the Syrian theatre might well decide "it's go time".
Brass
The fact that there were non-combatant casualties is not being disputed. It's the circumstances surrounding the action that is at issue.that is true....although if Obama is already acknowledging guilt...that probably bodes badly for those circumstances.
The vast majority of Afghan people would disagree with you.
Nope. It's because ISAF remains that these attacks are minimized. When the draw down is complete that's when the attacks will increase just as in Iraq... and yes, let's let the investigations determine if a "war crime" was committed, or not. It's far too early in the process to jump to any conclusions.
What about the 3000+ innocents who died on Sept 11th and the countless others in the years before and since. Any sympathy for them?
You seem to forget that we (the west) didn't start this thing. America or NATO is not to blame.
Now, if you want to discuss the prosecution of said invasion I too don't particularly care for the length of the occupation either. We should have gone in harder, hunted down and killed Bin Laden and his terrorists along with the Taliban at the time then withdrawn with the admonition "Keep screwing around and we'll be back." or words to that effect.
There was too much "cooperating" with the tribal leaders and Pakistan trying to form partnerships which allowed the terrorists free access, escape routes and supplies. It was a bad and costly strategy on our part.
Brass
Condemnation of this bombing has grown to such a fever pitch around the world that the U.S.-led coalition has to act.
Meanwhile, the Russians are seething. It's not just that the U.S. attacked. It's that the Russian fighter escorts they deploy to protect Assad's helicopters can do nothing to protect them. The Raptors stay out of range, strike and vanish without even being spotted.
The Russians set their sights on a weak link—American KC-135 aerial refueling tankers.
The United States must take down the Moskva, and American air power isn't the solution. The Russian frigate's S-300s and shorter-range anti-air systems are too formidable to approach. The radar alone makes a surprise attack from the air impossible.
It's time to talk, or keep fighting. Geopolitics can be a lot like a playground or prison yard. Once blows are thrown, no one wants to stop fighting until they land a few. Everyone wants to be the one who struck last—and ended the fight. This is the chance for Russia and the U.S. to put in the pin in the grenade and avert World War III. They don't.
In the meantime, ISIS is on the march as chaos spreads. The ostensible reason everyone is in Syria is to defeat the Islamic State. But the fight has only enabled them to thrive.
No one wanted World War III. But now that it's started, one step at a time, it's hard to stop.
Interesting perspective here
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/9434365/putin-syria-russia-mistake
First, The EU is taking step (as in growing a pair) to deal with the aggression instead of the US carrying the stick as always.
What is strong leadership from your POV? Go in, guns ablaze and kick ass? Isn't that what got "us" into this mess to begin with?
One huge omission - the Brookings Institute fellow does not mention ISIS.
Yeah, let's kick ass.
[1]Actually Brass, two very conflicting statements.
[2]First, The EU is taking step (as in growing a pair) to deal with the aggression instead of the US carrying the stick as always. Now, isn't there a constant bitching from Americans that the EU is always expecting the US to go and kick butt and in return the EU will treat "us" with derision because we are always telling the whole world how to behave? That we spend the most $$$ propping up NATO and the EU ingrates all they do is bitch at us?
[3]And finally, well, finally. It is about time they (EU) FINALLY do something about it.
[4]What is strong leadership from your POV? Go in, guns ablaze and kick ass? Isn't that what got "us" into this mess to begin with?
that is true....although if Obama is already acknowledging guilt...that probably bodes badly for those circumstances.
I take it you aren't including the 300-400,000 that have been killed or died as a result of the war?
I'm just screaming 'war crime'! because that is what the US starts doing before any investigation.
Once we are out of there, the attacks on OUR people in the region will be over....and the expenses will start going down a lot.
I actually don't agree that we didn't have ANY blame in the events of the middle east and subsequent terror attacks....we have been meddling and attempting regime changes well before 2001....in that context we probably did start this thing.
The length of time has been ridiculously long almost 15 years so far. There is probably an unapparent benefit we are getting from this....
I don't think the statement you made that I highlighted is going to make much if any difference...certain groups of people don't care, and making statements like that if anything is provoking more attacks. What REALLY provokes attacks though is our constant meddling, I'm sure we receive benefits, and top members of our govt. probably excepts that terrorist attacks are the cost of doing business in the aggressive manner that we do.
Well Brass, we do differ in our opinions. But that's okay. ;)
I keep hearing of this power vacuum because we are not going in guns ablaze. Is it really?
You have a gangster who is doing everything possible to hold on to power. Completely alienated and the country in taters. Is that the so-called leader? What I see is a gangster fighting for territory and we know from past experience, they don't last long.
That some idiot will pull the trigger and start WWIII? Even the gangsters are not that stupid.
We still own the world's most formidable army. That still scare the shit out of gangsters and they tread carefully. Just because we don't have a cowboy in the WH dumb enough to listen to unscrupulous cowards profiteering from war should label our POTUS a ninny.
Meanwhile, I'd let Putler exhaust everything he has, sit down and watch how his country collapse. Just like Nicholas II. They have no desire to be a civilized society, but then again, did gangsters ever did?
Keep in mind, the Middle East is using a religious crusade as an excuse to forward a geopolitical land grab. Do we really want to get in the middle of that mess? Are we really trying to christianize them so we can claim a moral victory? Is that leadership? Sounds more like Putler. I say they should sort things out before we waste our human assets in a war so far away. After all, we have our own oil. Once the dust settles you will see claims of another Ottoman empire. That's when we go in and kick ass if they have designs of conquering, which I see is the inevitable conclusion.
In Obama's defense, from what I've read about that telephone call he didn't acknowledge guilt. However, it wouldn't be the first time someone in uniform has been thrown to the wolves doing their job for political expediency/optics.
That's an overly generalized statement. If you look at the stats you'd find probably 70% of the civilian casualty rate is due to Taliban/insurgent operations/bombings and terrorism not Coalition/ISAF operations. In other words Afghans killing Afghans.
Oh, I don't know about that. It's relatively hard to substantiate a 'war crime' designation (legally). However, the phrase is thrown around a lot for shock value.
Pretty much everything we are involved with can be a target. They will not stop, nor should they as long as we are interfering, or the effects of our interference are in place.
Expenses, yes. The attacks, no. They'll simply switch to civilian targets of opportunity, diplomats, NGO's, foreign business, etc. They don't stop unless they're made to stop.
Well, if you want to read why the US was attacked in 2001 (and the other terrorist acts), read on and learn from the horse's mouth then tell me if the terrorists were justified in their crimes...
Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver)
None that we're getting (other than whatever trade and business arrangements a have been put in place but right now I still believe that's a one way street of investment and infrastructure by the west). The Afghans remain relatively safe though and that's a good thing.
The rest of your comment are ideology, they're not based in fact or history and I utterly reject it's premise as it pertains to my quote. If you want to discuss the 'tactical' aspects of a limited occupation as opposed to a long term occupation we can do that. Keep in mind though that a common error is to assume that Afghanistan remains a belligerent occupation, it is not and has not been since late 2001. ISAF remained(s) at the behest of the Afghan government.
Brass
Putin or Assad? Doesn't matter, both are gangsters. Putin is a leader, yes. He leads thru lies, bullying, threats
It was a protest of sorts that each bomb is taking money away from home where the Russian economy is in decline.
What Mr Putin is doing, if he succeeds, is to replace America as the regional power. I am not so confident that he will be successful, but you are right in that he is walking thru a wide open door left that way because a traitor is in the White House.
Well, for starters, try the Iran deal. If that isn't enough, consider the actions an Imperial president who sidelines Congress using Executive orders for something he can't get from the Representative branch of government. There is a reason, even when sometimes we find it slow and frustrating, for the separation of powers.
Yeah, but I don't think Obama is throwing anybody to wolves in this case...our people probably did make that error that cost all those innocent lives...trying to get out in front of the story is probably what he is doing.
I'm certain you are correct in that Afghans have killed Afghans...and how much of that are we fostering? Who is supplying or has supplied the weapons?
Yup it is thrown around for shock value.
Pretty much everything we are involved with can be a target. They will not stop, nor should they as long as we are interfering, or the effects of our interference are in place.
This is probably a discussion for another time.
Through the years, the US leadership has done all these things....and we support other regimes that do the same when it is in our interest. .
Nope. It's because ISAF remains that these attacks are minimized. When the draw down is complete that's when the attacks will increase just as in Iraq...
Russian Military Uses Syria as Proving Ground, and West Takes Notice
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ERIC SCHMITT New York Times
WASHINGTON — Two weeks of air and missile strikes in Syria have given Western intelligence
and military officials a deeper appreciation of the transformation that Russia’s military has undergone under President Vladimir V. Putin, showcasing its ability to conduct operations
beyond its borders and providing a public demonstration of new weaponry, tactics and strategy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/world/middleeast/russian-military-uses-syria-as-proving-ground-and-west-takes-notice.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/world/middleeast/russian-military-uses-syria-as-proving-ground-and-west-takes-notice.html?_r=0)
What are you doing quoting from a liberal paper? ;)
For the Obama apologists, why would he leave troops in Afghanistan if it was such a great idea to remove all of them from Iraq? Is it possible that Obama learned something from his past mistakes? It hardly seems likely since he almost always does the wrong thing.
In light of the events of the last 24 hours including Bill's links above your arguments have been pretty well made redundant.
Events are moving quickly now and your President's trying to play catch up. Even Obama's clued in to the obvious...
Now, I have two questions for you.
Do you think all those sage countries and Democratic Senators and Representatives knew about these Iranian assets before signing on with Mr. Obama's great nuc giveaway deal?...
If Iran has (evidently) broken the already existing UN resolutions and have just threatened the West - who've pinned their hopes on Iran's compliance to the nuc deal with options against Iran, including a military one, if they don't comply - by retaliating with "options under the table." What "options under the table" do you think the Iranian Commander is alluding to?
Brass
After the clusterf##k that occurred under Condoleeza'a watch, she should hardly be commenting on foreign policy.
As noted previously, it was Bush who negotiated the troop withdrawal, and timetable. Not Obama.
As noted previously, it was Bush who negotiated the troop withdrawal, and timetable. Not Obama.
You keep bringing up the fact that Bush set the guidelines and you keep
forgetting the fact that the guidelines weren't set in stone. Obama wasn't handcuffed
by the Bush administration guidelines, but Obama likes to blame Bush for his own
faults, incompetence and errors in judgment.
I really wound't know what the Senators/Representatives knew beforehand.... I'm not surprised that Iran has all sorts of stuff we don't know about or seek our approval for, obviously they don't care if we approve or not.... I imagine that is part of the reason they were being so heavily sanctioned, especially by the US.
I didn't read all your links (Yet) and have been out of the news loop for a few days... Haven't we been threatening them with the 'military option' again? Looks like they are letting us know it won't be easy-peasy.
So if they indeed have all this stuff, which they probably do...why haven't they used it? That is what the hardliners say they are going to do. If it is in place and ready to go and Iran hasn't done anything with it, doesn't that indicate that they are likely to be used as a defensive measure if attacked first?
If Iran has (evidently) broken the already existing UN resolutions and have just threatened the West - who've pinned their hopes on Iran's compliance to the nuc deal with options against Iran, including a military one, if they don't comply - by retaliating with "options under the table." What "options under the table" do you think the Iranian Commander is alluding to?
When Boethius first blamed Bush for withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq, I thought I had explained the situation. Let me try again.
When Bush signed the troop withdrawal agreement in the last days of his Presidency, he knew Iraq was still instable and certainly not ready to defend itself. Yet, Obama was soon taking office in just days and Obama had campaigned against the Iraq war. Also, Iraq's PM Malarkey was pressuring Bush to withdraw troops and allow Iraq to defend itself without American military.
Rather than wait for Obama to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, Bush negotiated with Malarkey and signed a framework intended to be revisited and revised dependent upon Iraq's progress. For example, there were some important interim goals such as completing the training of Iraq's military and supplying weapons to Iraq. Obama's own Defense Secretary Gates believed a large American military force should remain, as reported by the NY Times in December 2008:
"When asked by Charlie Rose in a PBS interview last week how big the American 'residual' force would be in Iraq after 2011, Mr. Gates replied that although the mission would change, 'my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops.' ”
When Obama took office in January 2009, there were 146,000 American troops in Iraq. All troops had been removed by December 2011.
When campaigning, Obama promised more about Iraq than just to remove troops. Some of these campaign promises would have helped; however, Obama broke some promises as discussed here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/iraq/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/iraq/)
Incidentally, in keeping with the topic, who else was pushing Iraq through diplomatic channels to have all the American troops removed? That would be Syria and Iran. They knew that an American military presence could hamper their goals. Yes, we got outsmarted.
Now that America has withdrawn from a position won with the blood and lives of thousands and over a trillion dollars from the US Treasury, I see no way that we can reenter.
As I stated before, Bush made a mistake when invading Iraq. Yet, Obama has topped that mistake by withdrawing from such an important geopolitical area. Obama lovers just can't see it that way even though the facts are in front of their nose.
I am not an Obama lover, so your conclusion on that point is incorrect. I am indifferent to American leadership in fact, GOP presidents tend to be better for Canada. I look at this as a foreigner looking in, so I don't have the visceral reactions Americans do to a particular leader.
As for your assertion on Obama's failure, read this for the background by a diplomat who was involved in the negotiations -
http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-franklin-jeffrey-behind-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-iraq-1414972705
No, I always followed Iraq because I never believed it was an invasion to "save" the world, nor even America, and I foresaw what would happen, inevitably. Democracy cannot be imposed. My husband went even further, he predicted almost exactly what has occurred, though he didn't include Syria in that equation.
Those final 15 seconds define Obama as the weak man he truly is.
I assert the next President is hamstrung by Obama's decision.
Hopefully the EU will grow a pair or whatever expression Muzh used.
(http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu157/jack_douglass/lol%20pics/oh_hai_gif.gif)
Whether you supported or opposed the withdrawal of troops, facts are still facts about Obama. Obama withdrew with conscious volition, and ISIS moved into Iraq followed by Putin moving into Syria.
If you're not "surprised that Iran has all sorts of stuff we don't know about or seek our approval for, obviously they don't care if we approve or not." Why then do you believe that Iran would comply with the Obama Nuc Deal if they've already failed to adhere to previous UN resolutions forbidding the very ordnance they revealed to the world in those images?
If their record is such that "they don't care if we approve or not" what could possibly be the motivation for them to sign the deal in the first place?
No, we haven't been threatening them. According to now publicized intelligence reports the release of this information was directed at Israel.
The answer to these questions is - No nukes yet.
They've only just secured the means to achieve breakout (Obama nuc deal) and eventually outfit these (and newer generation) missiles now that the sanctions are lifted.
My guess would be that revealing their secret manufacturing sites and bases buried deep in the mountains means they want Israel and the US to know that not only have they now secured the means to achieve nuclear breakout...but guess what? We've also got the means and assets to deliver them (which you infidel didn't know about).
You didn't answer this question.
Brass
Iraq is looking for help since being overrun by terrorists. The next president may provide that help if Russia doesn't gain enough influence and foothold by then.
Yet for centuries Western countries have sought to harness the power of radical Islam to serve the interests of their own foreign policy.....
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/18/america_enabled_radical_islam_how_the_cia_george_w_bush_and_many_others_helped_create_isis/ (http://www.salon.com/2015/10/18/america_enabled_radical_islam_how_the_cia_george_w_bush_and_many_others_helped_create_isis/)
Iraq should defend itself rather than expect others to fight their fight.
My stepson has an Iraqi friend at school. His friend is so pleased that Putin is fighting ISIS. He would welcome Putin to come to Iraq and fight ISIS on the ground.
Hmm...can anyone tell me more about this "Madam Secretary?" It sounds like a TV series...?
This thread really isn't about the Iran deal, but I did notice that the agreement is moving forward as of today. All the major powers seem to be fine with what Iran is doing, which appears to be posturing. Who is to blame them? With our interventionist history, they got to show they are strong to survive, and discourage us from doing something stupid. Thankfully Obama is a reasonable man, making good calls.
Your final question has the assumption that Iran is breaking the deal, since all the major powers are moving forward, I would need to see indisputable evidence the deal is being broken. Who knows how, or what they could/would retaliate with, but I am pretty sure they have something. Perhaps that is in part why the deal was struck, because we knew they had some serious capability, to which the military option just wasn't going to turn out to be very easy, like it has been in other somewhat defenseless nations.
If Iran has (evidently) broken the already existing UN resolutions and have just threatened the West - who've pinned their hopes on Iran's compliance to the nuc deal with options against Iran, including a military one, if they don't comply - by retaliating with "options under the table." What "options under the table" do you think the Iranian Commander is alluding to?
Perhaps that is in part why the deal was struck, because we knew they had some serious capability, to which the military option just wasn't going to turn out to be very easy, like it has been in other somewhat defenseless nations.
Yes it is. On CBS Sunday nights after football and 60 Minutes.
Check out Tea Leoni as a gal nearing 50 with a great shape, especially her legs . . . if you are attracted to such.
It is probably Ochka's favorite TV show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madam_Secretary_%28TV_series%29
On January 12, 2015, Madam Secretary was renewed for a second season.[5]
The problem isn’t Islam: Mr. Sacks points out that Jewish and Christian scriptures have also been invoked to justify violence. It’s human nature. We’re tribal creatures. We bond with our kinsmen against outsiders. Tyrants and demagogues exploit this tribal propensity by feeding us religious doctrines that blame our suffering on enemies: infidels, Crusaders, Jews. This “pathological dualism,” as Mr. Sacks describes it, corrupts societies by deflecting internal scrutiny and impeding reform. And it dehumanizes the putative enemy, facilitating mass murder.
Our first mistake is to read scripture literally. This, Mr. Sacks explains, is fundamentalism: “text without context, and application without interpretation.” Any zealot can choose a bloody passage and broadcast it to incite mayhem. The antidote to this naive fanaticism, according to Mr. Sacks, isn’t secularism. It’s tradition. “Religions develop rules of interpretation and structures of authority,” he explains. They debate the text’s meaning. Over centuries, they accumulate wisdom.
'Amazing' how the Russians and their 'antiquated' military are doing so much more damage to ISIS, than the US and partners could do...
Quite obviously the US was never actually trying to have too much success eradicating ISIS.
The goal was probably to keep the region in chaos, which they have successfully done now for over 4 years. Of course most of the people here, don't care enough to think about what is really going on, and will just believe the lies between handfuls of Frito's.
First, is this something to extol?.........75% of US coalition air missions return to base without dropping bombs because of concerns about civilian casualties.250,000 dead prior to Russian involvement...boy we sure are doing a heck of a job (Brownie) with keeping those casualties down!
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/06/05/many-anti-islamic-state-sorties-dont-include-airstrikes/28545307/ (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/06/05/many-anti-islamic-state-sorties-dont-include-airstrikes/28545307/)
http://www.news.com.au/national/raaf-mission-against-isis-pilots-did-not-drop-bombs-because-of-collateral-damage-risk/story-fncynjr2-1227083688464 (http://www.news.com.au/national/raaf-mission-against-isis-pilots-did-not-drop-bombs-because-of-collateral-damage-risk/story-fncynjr2-1227083688464)
Second, do you believe Russian operates with similar concern about civilian casualties? This was discussed earlier in the thread, and the implications are tragic.
Fourth, what are your sources to back your claim about Russia causing more damage to ISIS? If this is your source, I suggest you read closely:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260464/russia-bombs-more-targets-1-day-obama-did-1-month-daniel-greenfield (http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260464/russia-bombs-more-targets-1-day-obama-did-1-month-daniel-greenfield)
Everything in the Western press says most of the Russian strikes hit heavily populated areas such as Aleppo where only US backed opposition groups are located.
I reject this statement, the world has NOT always needed A policeman.
File this away: the world has always needed a policeman. If not the US, who should it be?
Unlike the Frito eaters who who participate here, you are either a troll or just simple-minded. May the pox that has ravaged your brain venture to your hands and wither them, preventing them from striking a keyboard.
250,000 dead prior to Russian involvement...boy we sure are doing a heck of a job (Brownie) with keeping those casualties down!
Western backed groups= ISIS.
At this point, there is no need for Russia to make a distinction. Russia backs Assad, who has been leading the country for the past 15 years.
We *The US* are arming 'rebels' and fomenting agony, for our own ends. Keeping the region in chaos is apparently better than the alternative, from our viewpoint....WE certainly aren't the good guys.
I reject this statement, the world has NOT always needed A policeman.
Yup, you have really 'profoundly changed'. hahaha I think it is your brain that isn't functioning on all cylinders, and has become immalleable, which I'm sure you mistakenly think is a good thing.
So you believe the US bombing is responsible for the 250,000 dead and not the barrel bombing, starvation, etc. tactics of Assad.
IDIOT 1
INFORMED 0
IDIOT 2
INFORMED 0
You made a factual statement. I am stunned.
Who else provides arms to the rebels? What percentage comes from the US? What nations consider Assad a pariah?
IDIOT 3
INFORMED 0
What happens if there is no one prepared to stand up to an aggressor? Policemen spend very little of their time confronting criminals directly. Their vigilance is just as important as their ability to take a criminal down. And the policemen must be armed and ever ready to arrest a hardened criminal.
BTW, the US "policeman" actions are done for the most part as a coalition.
IDIOT 4
INFORMED 0
Why do I treat you this way? It is because you do not analyze facts before making statements. I am amused at others trying to REASON with you. They miss the point - you can not be reasoned OUT of an opinion if you were never reasoned INTO the opinion.
Yesterday I asked you to give the sources of the crazed statements you made. You ignored me because your opinions are not based on credible sources.
The REAL curiosity is why exactly are we involving ourselves in Syria, for real? Only fools will believe it is for altruistic reasons.
You know everything, so please tell us "why exactly" we and many other nations are involved.
Eradication can only be done with ground forces, and we will not and should not send American troops to engage ISIS on the ground. Such is the job for the Iraqi, who so far have shown no willingness to confront ISIS. Who will step in if not the Iraqi?
Whatever happened to that Russia was going to wither up and die on the vine in 2015?
Enlighten me, please.
You mean the one that desperately needs Western sanctions to end. This year the Russian economy has dropped 9 percent of GDP, the ruble has lost over half its value, and the economy has slipped from 9th to 13th in the world.
Or, perhaps the one that is desperate to get out of a failed Ukrainian mess, and is starting to "explain" on Russian TV that the Russian brothers in the Ukrainian East "haven't done enough" for Moscow to continue supporting the rebels at current levels.
Or, perhaps you refer to the Russia that is sensing a growing distance from China, the once thought of saviour of the Russian economy. You know, the same China that not only refuses to recognize Crimea as part of Russia, but the China that last Thursday voted to give Ukraine a seat on the UN Security Council. The very same China has become in 2015 the single largest buyer of Ukrainian corn crops, and the same China that refused to side with Russia on the Security Council vote to investigate the shooting down of MH 17 over Eastern Ukraine.
There are three reasons why the Russians now speak of diplomacy:
1- The bombing and bases in Syria have already eaten up half of the military slush fund for such "emergencies."
2- Moscow hopes that Washington can be convinced to drop sanctions if Moscow becomes a diplomacy partner.
3- Beijing has told Moscow that it needs to do more talking, and less shooting.
As to the economy, perhaps in all your wide experience here in Russia you've found a source of cheese, or milk, or apples that I have somehow missed. Maybe those currency exchange signs look different to you than the ones I see every day.
Enlighten me, please.
Putin accuses West of playing 'double game' in Syria
None of this seems to have phased the Russians as it pertains to their willingness to not yield to Western intervention in Syria.
Fathertime!
Are you brain dead?
I give you a list of things, including the FACT that the Russians have already spent HALF of their budget on this project, and you say it has not phased them?!
Wow.
BTW, you and I are not that far off on the Syrian situation, but neither am I ignorant to the on-the-ground financial complications. When you have a president and prime minister who are preparing the general population for further cuts in pension and health care benefits, I'd be inclined to pay some attention to those realities.
Or, perhaps you refer to the Russia that is sensing a growing distance from China, the once thought of saviour of the Russian economy. You know, the same China that not only refuses to recognize Crimea as part of Russia, but the China that last Thursday voted to give Ukraine a seat on the UN Security Council. The very same China has become in 2015 the single largest buyer of Ukrainian corn crops, and the same China that refused to side with Russia on the Security Council vote to investigate the shooting down of MH 17 over Eastern Ukraine.
China is looking out for themselves and pissing off Western customers is bad for business.
Sure China is buying Ukrainian corn but China signed a $400 billion deal with Russia to buy Russian gas. Sure China doesn't recognize Crimea belonging to Russia but they are going to help build a multi billion dollar bridge for Russia to access Crimea better. Unlike the West, China didn't place sanctions on Russia. They are a lot closer to Russia with similar global interests than we think.
Is Russia shifting focus from China to India for its oil barrels?
..."The report states that Russia's exports to China were down 20% compared to last year, while China only invested under $1.6 billion into Russia in 2014, when Russia invested a whopping $151.5 billion during the same year into the Chinese economy."...
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-is-russia-shifting-focus-from-china-to-india-for-its-oil-barrels-2125053
You are misguided if you think that there were not heavy implications for Russia when China refused to support Russia on the voting to bring Ukraine into the UN Security Council, and China's refusal to side with Russia on the veto to have the UN investigate MH 17.
However, and I continue to point this out, China is considered a prime threat by the Russians themselves. Despite any gas deals, Russia devotes a significant portion of military manpower and budget to the border.
(http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/12724034/images/1289222143749.jpg)
Putin's diplomatic plan, borrowing heavily from his Chechen template, centers on the need to
split the anti-Assad opposition and co-opt those of its elements who would agree to hold the
transition talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad and stop fighting the regime, while turning
their arms against the Islamic State.
Russian officials do not consider China as the prime threat, at least in public.
Russia devotes a significant portion of military manpower and budget to the border. Today.
That is nothing to be alarmed about. Russia isn't the exception. It's the rule that every country bordering China by land or sea devotes a significant portion of their military and budget to discourage China from heading their way. China is an aggressor just as Russia is. Countries bordering Russia aren't sleeping well at night either and a good portion of their military is devoted to counter a Russian attack.
Russia has little to worry about from China and they've even held military drills together recently according to the article below. No better time to snap up some real estate by bullying the little guys and the free for all is better when the aggressors stick together.
an official taster whose duty was to taste anything that was presented for Mr. Obama to consume as a guest of the Russian government. Try that when invited to the next family gathering.
DEMS DECRY OBAMA DECISION TO DEPLOY SPECIAL OPS TO SYRIA
BY DEB RIECHMANN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Democrats complained the move was being made without a clear U.S. strategy in Syria, torn
asunder by years of civil war.
France and England at the conclusion of WW I did not define a homeland for them . . .
Have you seen photos of the Kurdish fighters? Many do not have modern weapons and uniforms. Some resemble Taliban, wearing sandals and the like.
I just listened to a 6 minute interview with Chris Christie on fox news. I wanted to like him, but I found what he said disgusting, regarding Syria. The interviewer said, WE should decide who runs Syria.
We, meaning the USA? And some people wonder why other countries are anti-American?
I sincerely hope that this excuse for an interviewer gets reassigned as "our" correspondent in Damascus. Then he can figure out first-hand how to make his statement come true. :devil:
The interviewer actually said such. His name is Tucker Carlson and he works for Fox News. Carlson's comment was stupid, and Christie worked around it deftly:
"
But Tucker Carlson's perspective is not an unknown, or even unpopular one, on the American right.
If this were a popular perspective, every Republican candidate would be describing a plan for deciding who runs Syria. Again, this is a stupid idea.
I have plenty of conservative friends as well liberal friends. Few of my friends from the right are itching for a military fight in Syria, especially with Russia.
They do express their disgust towards Obama
They want this to be reversed in some way other than by military war with Russia. And they want a larger military presence in Iraq or Kurdistan or somewhere in the region.
Me? I say let Europe take the lead. Europe has more at risk in this theater.
I tend to agree with Josh Cohen's theory. Putin will win, just as he did after bombing the crap out of Chechnya with hundreds of thousands killed, and Europe will fold faster than a French soldier can rip the standard issue white surrender flag out of his rucksack. As part of the peace deal, not only will sanctions be set aside, but Ukraine will be brokered with Russia gaining a majority of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine's new borders will start at Kyiv and run West. Odessa will be lost. Putin has figured out a way to win in Ukraine by fighting in Syria instead.
Sad.
That would be sad. I saw an interview with Rasmussen, former Secretary General of NATO. Reading between the lines I saw nothing to suggest NATO will ever support Ukraine in a significant way. So maybe you are right.
The question in Syria is, are Assad's troops strong enough to mount offensives on the ground to drive out the opposition groups? Will Putin be contented with merely creating a stalemate?
I tend to agree with Josh Cohen's theory. Putin will win, just as he did after bombing the crap out of Chechnya with hundreds of thousands killed, and Europe will fold faster than a French soldier can rip the standard issue white surrender flag out of his rucksack. As part of the peace deal, not only will sanctions be set aside, but Ukraine will be brokered with Russia gaining a majority of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine's new borders will start at Kyiv and run West. Odessa will be lost. Putin has figured out a way to win in Ukraine by fighting in Syria instead.
Sad.
Should Russia do what that article insanely suggested, Putin and Russia would be hounded back to the stone ages by the rest of civilization. He understands that.
I tend to agree with Josh Cohen's theory. Putin will win, just as he did after bombing the crap out of Chechnya with hundreds of thousands killed, and Europe will fold faster than a French soldier can rip the standard issue white surrender flag out of his rucksack. As part of the peace deal, not only will sanctions be set aside, but Ukraine will be brokered with Russia gaining a majority of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine's new borders will start at Kyiv and run West. Odessa will be lost. Putin has figured out a way to win in Ukraine by fighting in Syria instead.
Sad.
If this were a popular perspective, every Republican candidate would be describing a plan for deciding who runs Syria. Again, this is a stupid idea.
I have plenty of conservative friends as well liberal friends. Few of my friends from the right are itching for a military fight in Syria, especially with Russia.
They do express their disgust towards Obama, feeling he has allowed Putin to outmaneuver him. They want this to be reversed in some way other than by military war with Russia. And they want a larger military presence in Iraq or Kurdistan or somewhere in the region.
Me? I say let Europe take the lead. Europe has more at risk in this theater.
Chicken Hawk Lindsey Graham is the only Republican who currently wants to start a war withGraham and McCain are on the extreme end, aside from Rand Paul, the rest of the Republican candidates are also quite hawkish.
anyone and everyone. He can't muster even close to 1% of the vote so his philosophy isn't
very prevalent among the GOP.
Graham and McCain are on the extreme end, aside from Rand Paul, the rest of the Republican candidates are also quite hawkish.
Fathertime!
Russia's Syria force grows to 4,000, U.S. officials say
Not surprisingly MSF has issued a Press Release clearing themselves of any wrong doing in the US bombing of the hospital facility in Kunduz.
http://kunduz.msf.org/pdf/20151030_kunduz_review_EN.pdf
Probably mean the US and Afghani investigations found something.
Brass
One other thought that I have:
If you look at those pictures in the report, you can see how accurate the US bombs are. It is evident, that for whatever reason, the US intended to take out that hospital and did so.
Not surprisingly MSF has issued a Press Release clearing themselves of any wrong doing in the US bombing of the hospital facility in Kunduz.What on earth do you mean by "clearing themselves of any wrong doing" :o? Their hospital was BOMBED and MACHINE-GUNNED, resulting in 30 deaths so far :(!
What on earth do you mean by "clearing themselves of any wrong doing" :o? Their hospital was BOMBED and MACHINE-GUNNED, resulting in 30 deaths so far :(!
...That Doctor's Without Borders incident...It smells to high heaven. It's already been established there were Taliban in the building....
..."In a news conference here in the Afghan capital, Doctors Without Borders officials reiterated that they think the hospital’s main building was “deliberately” targeted because it was the only structure hit during the bombardment. They denied that any Taliban fighters in the hospital were armed or using it as a base."...
..."In the aftermath of the bombing, which killed at least 22 people, some Afghan leaders have suggested that the hospital had become a command center for Taliban fighters who seized control of Kunduz on Sept. 28."...
..."Hospital officials denied that assertion Thursday, although they conceded that they had been treating wounded Taliban fighters, some of whom probably were in the building at the time of the attack. They said Taliban fighters were cared for in the same manner as other patients in accordance with international law designating hospitals as “noncombatant” zones."
Mistakes do happen but my experience with these organizations (like MSF) tells me they're going to try and blame the US regardless of what the actual circumstances were and they're really pushing this 'war crimes' angle - It's a bit too political in nature and quite frankly OTT. Seems to me this organization is leaning a bit towards sympathy for the Taliban.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/u-s-gunship-made-five-passes-over-afghan-hospital-despite-9-foot-flags-iding-it-as-a-medical-facility-msf
...As usual the apologist-in-chief was quick to accept US culpability for the incident. However, I'm going to reserve judgment until the investigation(s) are complete...
MSF and Emergency, a similar Italian non-profit medical organisation, have medical facilities in many war zones, and have always declared that they treat ANY wounded seeking help, regardless of political/religious affiliations.
... At this point I'm not convinced this was a mistake in that the pilot bombed/strafed the building without cause.
There were Taliban in the building and hospital compound. If the pilot was taking small arms fire from the building/compound he would have been justified in returning fire.
Doctors Without Borders have admitted there were Taliban fighters in the building but state they weren't armed. I find this hard to believe. Taliban don't just surrender their weapons in a building also occupied with Government soldiers in the middle of a firefight (that took Kunduz). It smells.
It would not be in DWB's best interest to admit they were allowing Taliban use of their compound/building as a safe haven to conduct military operations. That's why we have conflicting reports as to what actually happened.
I note that everyone talking about this incident refer to 'all those Doctors killed' (including yourself), in fact, there were no actual DWB 'Doctors' in the building at the time, they were all 'local' staffers. Edit: This is relevant in that anyone who's served in the Middle East knows that the 'locals' will not enforce the 'Regs', so to speak, when they're confronted with an armed terrorist who's also local and knows where you and your family live. Hell, they might even be related.
Not that I believe someone's profession or where they were born makes their lives any less/more important but there are a lot of assumptions being made by the media as to who exactly the casualties were, what the Taliban were doing in the building in the first place and whether or not it was nine casualties, 37 casualties, staffers, patients etc....
It's been my opinion for decades these organizations should not be allowed to function inside theatres of operations. They're habitually obstructionist towards US/NATO/UN forces and if something does go wrong (usually as a result of being where they shouldn't have been) they're the loudest to complain.
They're more trouble for our military forces working in country than their worth.But not to the victims of what those military forces hypocritically term "collateral damage" :(.
But not to the victims of what those military forces hypocritically term "collateral damage" :(.
In this case if the Taliban were using a hospital facility as a base of operations or to fire on a US jetWe'll see if the investigation(s) will provide any proof of that :-\.
Not surprisingly MSF has issued a Press Release clearing themselves of any wrong doing in the US bombing of the hospital facility in Kunduz.WOW, that is a heck of an assumption to make!
http://kunduz.msf.org/pdf/20151030_kunduz_review_EN.pdf (http://kunduz.msf.org/pdf/20151030_kunduz_review_EN.pdf)
Probably mean the US and Afghani investigations found something.
Brass
We'll see if the investigation(s) will provide any proof of that :-\ .MSF have called for an investigation by neutral parties. The US is not agreeing. Wonder why...
Unfortunately, collateral damage has been part and parcel of combat since the inception of organized warfare.
Now, if you're suggesting western militaries engage targets without regard for non-combatants or minimizing collateral damage? You'd be wrong.Peeing on bodies mininizes collateral damage?
In this case if the Taliban were using a hospital facility as a base of operations or to fire on a US jet would not they be the ones placing non-combatants in harms way?MSF does not agree with your assertion.
Is there no condemnation for the insurgents who attacked Kunduz in the first place creating the circumstances that led to this incident?Of course there is. But where does one crime excuse another by the other party? Is that part of International law of warfare?
These various humanitarian organizations and aid groups have their purpose in post conflict countries and areas suffering from natural disasters. So your comment has some merit in that treating the indigenous sick and injured is a worthwhile endeavor...However, not at the expense of our service personnel's lives.
Unfortunately, collateral damage has been part and parcel of combat since the inception of organized warfare.
Now, if you're suggesting western militaries engage targets without regard for non-combatants or minimizing collateral damage? You'd be wrong.
WOW, that is a heck of an assumption to make!
Gee, by your comments Brasscasing you would think Abu Ghraib and the US Forces pissing on corpses never happened....
We'll see if the investigation(s) will provide any proof of that :-\.
Except sometimes civilians get targeted EXPLICITLY - such as the fire bombing of Dresden. That was by no means collateral damage.
Background:
..."As the two fronts began to near, the Western Allies began to consider plans for using strategic bombing to assist the Soviet advance. In January 1945, the Royal Air Force began to consider plans for the widespread bombing of cities in eastern Germany. When consulted, the head of Bomber Command, Air Marshal Arthur "Bomber" Harris, recommended attacks against Leipzig, Dresden, and Chemnitz."...
..."During talks in Yalta, the Deputy Chief of the Soviet General Staff, General Aleksei Antonov, inquired about the possibility of using bombing to hinder German troop movements through hubs in eastern Germany. Among the list of targets discussed by Portal and Antonov were Berlin and Dresden. In Britain, planning for the Dresden attack moved forward with the operation calling for daylight bombing by the US Eighth Air Force followed by night strikes by Bomber Command. Though much of Dresden's industry was in suburban areas, planners targeted the city center with the goal crippling its infrastructure and causing chaos."...
Why Dresden:
..."The largest remaining unbombed city in the Third Reich, Dresden was Germany's seventh-largest city and a cultural center known as the "Florence on the Elbe." Though a center for the arts, it was also one of Germany's largest remaining industrial sites and contained over 100 factories of various sizes. Among these were facilities for producing poison gas, artillery, and aircraft components. In addition, it was a key rail hub with lines running north-south to Berlin, Prague, and Vienna as well as east-west Munich and Breslau (Wroclaw) and Leipzig and Hamburg."...
These are excerpts from an historically accurate synopsis...
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/aerialcampaigns/p/World-War-Ii-Bombing-Of-Dresden.htm
Peeing on bodies mininizes collateral damage?
MSF does not agree with your assertion.
...It would not be in DWB's best interest to admit they were allowing Taliban use of their compound/building as a safe haven to conduct military operations. That's why we have conflicting reports as to what actually happened...
Of course there is. But where does one crime excuse another by the other party? Is that part of International law of warfare?
So we hang people of the basis of attacks on hospital ships yet an attack on a hospital itself is excusable? Your logic double take is quite astounding. And I suspect the civilians saved by MSF would not agree with your assertions.
No one else cares for them after all.
In the real world there is no culpability until guilt is assigned. That's done through proper investigation. As I've already stated if the pilot was taking fire from that building, even if it was a hospital, he would be justified in returning fire. NATO, US ROEs make that clear.
My Lai - Was that a legitimate target Brass?
US won't even name the hospitals they have accused Russia of damaging.
Civilians weren't specifically targeted at Dresden although it was known that the casualty rate would be high.
You misunderstand the definition and meaning of Collateral Damage vs. War Crime...
..."Collateral damage is a general term for unintentional deaths, injuries, or other damage inflicted incidentally on an intended target. In military terminology, it is frequently used where non-combatants are unintentionally killed or wounded and/or non-combatant property damaged as result of the attack on legitimate military targets."...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage)
..."A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the law of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility."...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_)
I trust this clears up your confusion.
Brass
How about this from Harris himself on the topic of city bombing....
"The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.
... the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."
Seems rather unambiguous.
As for the rest I will reply when I can Brass but a half million dollars has been stolen at one of the business we are dealing with here and the proverbial shit has hit the fan this morning.
Ironically the manager sent from Moscow to sort out the stealing mess has himself stolen - and then run for it.
One of the reasons for today's modern wars which are long and drawn out, is the lack of civilian causalities. Previous generations understood (correctly) that to defeat an enemy you had to demoralize his citizenry as well as kill his army. The concept of a "just" war was whether war was warranted morally, not for collateral damage.
Our smart bombs and high tech toys often do a good job at destroying buildings, but little to convince a determined enemy to capitulate. I applaud the result of bombing German towns and villages, just as I applaud the nukes dropped on Japan. Those actions helped to shorten the wars on both fronts. Yes, people were killed, but more innocent lives were spared by forcing the losers to surrender.
By the same token, not since WWII have we had a "just" war where innocents such as the Jews, the retarded, the handicapped, and those condemned as political prisoners were being exterminated.
The difference can come down to disclosure. Something the military is very bad at. Look at how the dead were initially referred to as the initial reports came out in Mai Lai as an illustrative example. Who will know whether something is collateral damage or a deliberate war crime unless disclosure happens? I'm not confused - you are just delusional. The US has sought to justify torture in recent times... and rendition... and now drone strikes solely based on metadata.
Yep, they are really trying to avoid that collateral damage. Metadata is so infallible..
..."Who will know whether something is collateral damage or a deliberate war crime unless disclosure happens?"...
I'm not confused - you are just delusional.
The US has sought to justify torture in recent times... and rendition... and now drone strikes solely based on metadata.
Yep, they are really trying to avoid that collateral damage. Metadata is so infallible..
That post is beyond moronic! Name me just 1 "modern" war that was long and drawn out?
One of the reasons for today's modern wars which are long and drawn out, is the lack of civilian causalities.
Our smart bombs and high tech toys often do a good job at destroying buildings, but little to convince a determined enemy to capitulate.
I applaud the result of bombing German towns and villages, just as I applaud the nukes dropped on Japan. Those actions helped to shorten the wars on both fronts. Yes, people were killed, but more innocent lives were spared by forcing the losers to surrender.
Does Vietnam count? Nearly 20 years from start (November 1955) to stop (April 1975) seems plenty long enough to me.
Does Vietnam count? Nearly 20 years from start (November 1955) to stop (April 1975) seems plenty long enough to me.
There could not have been an actual face-off between 2 standing armies in Vietnam because the balance of strenght was too loopsided. So refer to objectives 1 to 4 and you will see why the USA lost that one.
That post is beyond moronic! Name me just 1 "modern" war that was long and drawn out?
Actually your reply is moronic.
How about not only one, but your response makes one question if you are of sufficient knowledge to know the length of these three:
- Vietnam
- Iraq
- Afghanistan
As to your theories about Vietnam not being a real country--that is funny. They did manage to turn out an army capable to throwing out the French, and then the Americans.
Is America at war with Irak? No, not since 2003
Is America at war with Afghanistan? No!
Are/were they meddled in a messy occupation? Yes, definitely.
Already, loyal media outlets have cast Russia’s campaign in Syria as a historical struggle between civilization and barbarism. “We have saved Europe for a fourth time,” boasted Kiselev earlier this month. “First the Mongols, then Napoleon, Hitler—and now we have saved them from ISIS.”(?????? :ROFL: )
Going on past form, Putin is a leader who thrives on the politics of fear. He has been through trial by extremism before—many times—and each time he has answered violence with violence.
Mendy,
I know I'm being a pain in the ___ but my take on WWII begins with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. In Asia, it certainly began when Japan invaded China in 1937. It began in Europe with the invasion of Poland by the Nazis in 1939. Your point of view is from an American perspective. But by the time we got in, most of the World had already been at war for years.
Vietnam was lost by both colonial forces not on the battlefield but on the homefront.
My point about it not being an actual country is the fact that the ennemy was using south-China, Cambodia and Thailand to conduct operations from.
The USA being unable to act effectively to that fact because of factors that had nothing to do with operational imperatives ultimately contributed to them leaving with their tail between their legs.
The Irak and Afghanistan wars lasted a very short amount of time... I don't understand how you can argue they were long... In both cases regular armies were subdued with minimal effort and casualties to either side.
Raba,
Newsflash Raba, various sides are shooting at each other. Whole armies and massive amounts of manpower and equipment have been inserted into Afghanistan. The timeline there began in 2001 and NATO actions officially ended in 2014. Hmm, again I am not a genius at math, but that seems to be around 13 years. By the way, it was a "war" and not just a messy occupation.
Corruption was quickly eliminated, and the unified country today has improved dramatically. One could argue the "good guys" won.
The Vietnam war is the poster child and the model sought by the present terrorists that proves my points. The US was stabbing at molasses the whole time, stuck in their "rules" about what war is and isn't, their stubborness at respecting some sort of territorial idea that they had in their head that somehow south-vietnam was a standing-on-its-own country... it wasn't except on a map. The ennemy could not be contained by those imaginary lines.
There could not have been an actual face-off between 2 standing armies in Vietnam because the balance of strenght was too loopsided. So refer to objectives 1 to 4 and you will see why the USA lost that one.
Now, if you're suggesting western militaries engage targets without regard for non-combatants or minimizing collateral damage? You'd be wrong.
These various humanitarian organizations and aid groups have their purpose in post conflict countries and areas suffering from natural disasters. So your comment has some merit in that treating the indigenous sick and injured is a worthwhile endeavor...However, not at the expense of our service personnel's lives.
Brass
The US has blundered in this for sure. We should have never tried to take out the leaders
of Libya, Egypt or Syria. Egypt was Sunni and Libya and Syria were Shiite. So team
Obama/Clinton/Kerry has blundered with all sides.
Is that what the Kremlin's telling the Russian people now...The vaunted Russian military has giant laser shooting robots? :D
Brass
Did Russia exist in 1972?
When was the last time Russia had any significant involvement in the Middle East? 1972.
Yep, and the housing collapse, and climate change, and the gun violence in America, and the invasion of Ukraine, and Burkina Faso, and my neighbors bad odor, etc. all Obama's fault.
Feel free to add more. ;)
None of this seems to have phased the Russians as it pertains to their willingness to not yield to Western intervention in Syria.
Fathertime!
You might want to take a look at these figures, Billy...
As Mendy alludes to, China's playing their own game with Putin. Putin will figure it out about the same time Russia goes bankrupt.
Brass
Billy, when Russia has the population, and the economic might, to replace the USA then China might care. Right now, they simply keeping their commitment to BRICS alive, but the USA is a far bigger trading power than Russia.China also owns a lot of US bonds...
..."The facts compiled in this review confirm our initial observations: the MSF trauma centre was fully functioning as a hospital with 105 patients admitted and surgeries ongoing at the time of the US airstrikes; the MSF rules in the hospital were implemented and respected, including the ‘no weapons’ policy; MSF was in full control of the hospital before and at the time of the airstrikes; there were no armed combatants within the hospital compound and there was no fighting from or in the direct vicinity of the trauma centre before the airstrikes.
What we know is that we were running a hospital treating patients, including wounded combatants from both sides – this was not a ‘Taliban base.’"...
My comments neither mention, refer or allude to Abu Ghraib or US Forces pissing on corpses.
I don't believe you could reasonably come to your conclusion based on anything I've written in this topic (or any other topic I suspect).
Brass
Militaries are made up of individuals. The actions of those individuals vary.
That's the second time you've brought this up in relation to my comments. The acts of two individual soldiers who were court martialed for their misdeed do not represent the actions of the entire western military or even their unit. It's not really relevant
No crime by the US Air Force has been established. The investigations will determine if culpability is to be assigned.That does not mean that the investigation will be truthful or correct.
Brass
So is this Memo from Sir Harris to the Air Ministry ...
I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.
The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things"...
Neither his quote or memo changes the fact that you're trying to compare apples and oranges.
Collateral damage had nothing to do with strategic bombing initiative policy during WW2. Both the Axis and Allied Air Forces were intentionally targeting cities. Not accidently targeting them.
There were two After Action justification inquiries conducted...
..."Marshall inquiry
An inquiry conducted at the behest of U.S. Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, stated the raid was justified by the available intelligence. The inquiry declared the elimination of the German ability to reinforce a counter-attack against Marshal Konev's extended line or, alternatively, to retreat and regroup using Dresden as a base of operations, were important military objectives. As Dresden had been largely untouched during the war due to its location, it was one of the few remaining functional rail and communications centres. A secondary objective was to disrupt the industrial use of Dresden for munitions manufacture, which American intelligence believed was the case. The shock to military planners and to the Allied civilian populations of the German counterattack known as the Battle of the Bulge had ended speculation that the war was almost over, and may have contributed to the decision to continue with the aerial bombardment of German cities.[126]
The inquiry concluded that by the presence of active German military units nearby, and the presence of fighters and anti-aircraft within an effective range, Dresden qualified as "defended".[7] By this stage in the war both the British and the Germans had integrated air defences at the national level. The German national air-defence system could be used to argue—as the tribunal did—that no German city was "undefended".
Marshall's tribunal declared that no extraordinary decision was made to single out Dresden (e.g. to take advantage of the large number of refugees, or purposely terrorize the German populace). It was argued that the intent of area bombing was to disrupt communications and destroy industrial production. The American inquiry established that' the Soviets, pursuant to allied agreements for the United States and the United Kingdom to provide air support for the Soviet offensive toward Berlin, had requested area bombing of Dresden to prevent a counterattack through Dresden, or the use of Dresden as a regrouping point after a strategic retreat."...
..."U.S. Air Force Historical Division report
A report by the U.S. Air Force Historical Division (USAFHD) analyzed the circumstances of the raid and concluded that it was militarily necessary and justified, based on the following points:[7]
1.The raid had legitimate military ends, brought about by exigent military circumstances.
2.Military units and anti-aircraft defences were sufficiently close that it was not valid to consider the city "undefended."
3.The raid did not use extraordinary means but was comparable to other raids used against comparable targets.
4.The raid was carried out through the normal chain of command, pursuant to directives and agreements then in force.
5.The raid achieved the military objective, without excessive loss of civilian life."...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II)
Good luck. I hope you catch your man.Looks like he may have been caught. We will know for sure soon.
Brass
Who are the doctors working for?
It's not the US doing the accusing, it's the doctors working in Syria. Russia admits to bombing in the areas of the hospitals and even accused some of the hospitals to be fake. Between the doctors and Russia, somebody is lying.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/202340 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/202340)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/22/three-syrian-hospitals-bombed-since-russian-airstrikes-began-doctors-say (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/22/three-syrian-hospitals-bombed-since-russian-airstrikes-began-doctors-say)
One of the reasons for today's modern wars which are long and drawn out, is the lack of civilian causalities. Previous generations understood (correctly) that to defeat an enemy you had to demoralize his citizenry as well as kill his army.Both the Blitz as well as the Seige of Leningrad show this is not so easy. I'd say the object was more to kill the citizenry not to demoralise them.
Our smart bombs and high tech toys often do a good job at destroying buildings, but little to convince a determined enemy to capitulate. I applaud the result of bombing German towns and villages, just as I applaud the nukes dropped on Japan. Those actions helped to shorten the wars on both fronts. Yes, people were killed, but more innocent lives were spared by forcing the losers to surrender.It is hard to quantify the effect of the German bombing on reducing the duration of the war. The Germans became very inventive to keep production levels going right up until the end of the war. Albert Speer was very good at that job. The Japanese nukes even more so since Japan was already trying to surrender using the Soviets as intermediaries (until the Soviet Union attacked them). So what was being argued about at the time was essentially the terms of surrender. I suspect Truman also wanted to show Stalin that he had the bombs and would use them.
War crimes/atrocities/massacres/murder have happened throughout history. Western nations are not immune to the phenomenon. However, the difference is it's not endemic or institutionalized in our militaries.
The Americans are perhaps the example of the "system working" to a large extent. From My Lai forward acts of this nature have become intolerable to American society and intense scrutiny is given by media, public and government to events within a military action that even hint of wrong doing.
For instance, the accusations of the Australian army's massacre at Binh Ma during the Vietnam war have never been investigated as a war crime in spite of numerous first person eyewitness accounts (both Vietnamese and Australian soldier accounts) reporting to government and media that civilians were machine gunned and grenaded. It could be argued the Australian government/military of the time covered that incident up as well.Does not surprise me at all. We have a history of covering up incidents. The real depth of exposure of our own guys to harmful chemicals during the F-111 de-seal/re-seal fiasco is still emerging. That and the extent of sexual abuse prevalant against female members of the ADF. Certainly I would not encourage any of my own kids to join the ADF simply because I would not trust those above them to exercise duty of care.
Canada is not immune either. In more recent times The Somalia Affair rocked our nation.
Unfortunately, in todays modern society there will be those that are never satisfied with the evidence/conclusions, regardless of the outcome. If the investigation shows there were mitigating circumstances (Kunduz) there will be immediate howls of cover up coming from several quarters, I'm sure.
Nope. You were (I assume now) intentionally trying to blur the line between collateral damage and war crime. You still are.I have no doubt that unintended deaths occur. But I also have no doubt that deaths that were fully intended are also portrayed as collateral damage in some circumstances. I also believe that some incidents that would qualify as war crimes if the full facts were known have also been portrayed as either collateral damage or simply as "insurgent deaths".
No, but it does go to YOUR portrayal of the incident at Kunduz and the potential veracity of any US investigation of that incident. I can summarise our differences. You have confidence in the investigation - I don't. BTW, do you share the same confidence in the US investigation of the USS Liberty incident?
I doubt you'll find that any of these past or present policies/incidents you're peppering your posts with are relevant to what happened at Kunduz. An example being this...
If you want to start a topic on Gitmo or SIGINT as it relates to metadata or post on one of the numerous topics criticizing American policies, go ahead. I'll contribute if I can.
However, it's just not relevant as it relates to Kunduz. Which, after all, is what we're discussing.
Did Russia exist in 1972?
I'm not quite so sure corruption has been eliminated and still today there are people trying to leave the country.
You make this comment as though western militaries are some cohesive whole. They aren't. They are made up of individuals and those individuals have different opinions and indeed sometimes different legal interpretations on how they will conduct operations.
This is what the peeing on corpses incident, Mai Lai, Abu Ghraib and other incidents like them illustrate. The response by politicians and senior ranks has in many case been to attempt to cover up these incidents and war crimes.
There are some incredibly good and brave people in the defence forces. Some of the recent stories of the VC winners in the Australian Army out of Afghanistan are just incredible in what those guys have done. But, there are also rapists and murderers in the Australian Army too. The same thing applies to the senior ranks as well. There are those who want to see wrong doing exposed and dealt with and there are those who would rather it be covered up and forgotten about. Sometimes they encourage it.
There is also the POV that if you enlist in the military you are knowingly taking a risk. A civilian is not afforded that choice.
Putin is certain that he has a deal on Syria that includes Russia managing the "transition" in Syria, NATO actually drops more than a few token bombs, and my sense is that Obama will look the other way if any further misdeeds happen in Ukraine.
What could the feckless Obama do other than look away? Hopefully Obama will help the Kurds.
....some 400,000 Kurds in and around the town of Kobane in northern Syria, on the Turkish border, are being besieged and assaulted by massed legions of Islamic State killers armed with scores of tanks, armored personnel carriers, and heavy artillery. Against these, the Kurdish defenders have only AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. The Kurds have called on the U.S. to send in air strikes to take out the jihadist forces. In response, the administration sent in two fighter jets Saturday, which destroyed two Islamic State tanks and then flew away. The Kurds are begging for arms. The administration has not only refused to send arms, but is exerting pressure both on our NATO allies and on Israel not to send any either. Over 150,000 Kurds have fled their homes to try to escape to Turkey, but they are being blocked at the border by Turkish troops. Meanwhile, Turkey is allowing Islamist reinforcements to enter Syria to join the Islamic State, while Islamist elements of the Free Syrian Army, funded and armed by the United States, have joined forces with the group in the genocidal assault on the Kurdish enclave.
He won't.......the Turks don't want this-----------------
http://lonelyconservative.com/2014/09/why-wont-the-us-help-the-kurds-in-this-war-on-the-islamic-state/
One thing about Team Obama is that their incompetence is becoming legendary.I'm surprised but to this point there haven't been any major terrorist attacks here in the USA on Obama's watch...Under Bush we had an enormous one...I don't assign the blame solely to Bush for that one, nor would I likely assign blame soley to Obama if one occurs here before his term is up....it is a group effort
and that we should just dump 100,000 Syrian refuges per year around America
because he would keep track of it all.
I'm surprised but to this point there haven't been any major terrorist attacks here in the USA on Obama's watch...Under Bush we had an enormous one...I don't assign the blame solely to Bush for that one, nor would I likely assign blame soley to Obama if one occurs here before his term is up....it is a group effort
Fathertime!
He won't.......the Turks don't want this-----------------
I'm surprised but to this point there haven't been any major terrorist attacks here in the USA on Obama's watch
You forgot to mention that under the Sun-Tanned One we found the mastermind of 9/11 Bin Laden, killed him and appropriated his pornography trove. ;)
True. Two US raised brothers did do this. Not as big as others, but the intent was there.
The Boston bombings in retaliation for America killing Muslims was major. A few died and almost 200 injured at the Boston Marathon.
Just over 2% of Syrian refuges are Christian. Frankly, I am surprised that they had
any.
Syrian Refugees in U.S. Include 2,098 Muslims, 53 Christians
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-christians-are-greatest-peril-least-likely-be-admitted (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-christians-are-greatest-peril-least-likely-be-admitted)
Is this outfit up to par with Factcheck?
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretching-facts-on-syrian-refugees/
Muzh, you should know by now that "facts" simply spoil a good story. "Rhetoric" is far more compelling, especially if there is an end for which this is the means. :D
True. Two US raised brothers did do this. Not as big as others, but the intent was there.
I post the articles, I'm not their editor. Many of these fact checkers are liberal
groups pretending to be unbiased who will twist any fact to suit their liberal interests.
None of the fact checkers disputed the percentage of Muslims to Christians
FT, a slight point of correction: the two brothers were raised primarily in Kyrgyzstan and the Russian republic of Dagestan. They, as were their parents, deeply influenced by the Russian wars in Chechnya.
I post the articles, I'm not their editor.
Many of these fact checkers are liberal groups pretending to be unbiased who will twist any fact to suit their liberal interests. None of the fact checkers disputed the percentage of Muslims to Christians.
FT, a slight point of correction: the two brothers were raised primarily in Kyrgyzstan and the Russian republic of Dagestan. They, as were their parents, deeply influenced by the Russian wars in Chechnya.
In addition to the deaths they caused, the two managed to wound 264 civilians and 15 police officers.
LMAO, and C(onservative)N(ews)S(ervice)network is fair and balanced, right? ;)
Give us a break! Here you go, using "liberal" as a swear word again! And so what if they didn't dispute the relative percentages of the religions? It's your conservative politicians who twisted the reality to suit their listenership. :o
Obama refuses to let grim reality change his ISIS script
By Jonah Goldberg New York Post
According to legend, if not actual historians, Harold Macmillan was once asked what
he most feared could derail his agenda. The British prime minister allegedly said,
“Events, my dear boy, events.”
Macmillan may never have actually said it, but the quote endures because it gets
at a fundamental truth of politics (and life). Facts on the ground can deliver a fatal
blow to one’s most cherished plans.
The line kept coming to mind as I listened to President Obama’s remarkable
news conference Monday from the G-20 meeting in Turkey. Asked again and
again whether he underestimated the threat from Islamic State, a group he
once dismissed as a “JV team,” the president said, in effect, “no.”
There is a lot more read all about it here (and it's pretty darn good in my opinion)
http://nypost.com/2015/11/17/obama-refuses-to-let-grim-reality-change-his-isis-script/ (http://nypost.com/2015/11/17/obama-refuses-to-let-grim-reality-change-his-isis-script/)
Bill, the NY Post is a Murdoch-owned conservative rag, and I don't use the word rag lightly. This paper has hit rock bottom in terms of credibility.
You know the paper was founded by Alexander Hamilton (the hottest ticket in Broadway right now) and it proudly displayed that info on their headmast every day. As soon as that fcuking Australian bought it (no insult intended to the nice people of OZ) they got rid of that because of his intentions and they had nothing to do with journalism. Now that the bastard has become an American citizen, they should try him for sedition.
I really hope he rots in hell.
Have a nice day. ;)
Bill, the NY Post is a Murdoch-owned conservative rag, and I don't use the word rag lightly. This paper has hit rock bottom in terms of credibility.
The tiny pill fueling Syria’s war and turning fighters into superhuman soldiers
By Peter Holley Washington Post
(http://tn-ar.cdncmd.com/sites/default/files/styles/970x547/public/2015/11/18/drug_0.jpg)
On the surface, those competing actors are fueled by an overlapping mixture of ideologies and political agendas.
Just below it, experts suspect, they're powered by something else: Captagon.
A tiny, highly addictive pill produced in Syria and widely available across the Middle
East, its illegal sale funnels hundreds of millions of dollars back into the war-torn
country's black-market economy each year, likely giving militias access to new
arms, fighters and the ability to keep the conflict boiling, according to the Guardian.
read all about it here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/19/the-tiny-pill-fueling-syrias-war-and-turning-fighters-into-super-human-soldiers/
The downside is addiction and the emotional/physical 'crash' that occurs if the drugs are not supplied.
As an aside their is debate among historians that Hitler may have made a number of his seemingly irrational military/tactical decisions while high on Pervitin. He apparently was profoundly addicted to the drug and ingested it intravenously.
Brass
The Soviets ate the stuff like candy (don't remember what they called it) during the war and afterwards their KGB/GRU people were users as well as dealers.
As an aside their is debate among historians that Hitler may have made a number of his seemingly irrational military/tactical decisions while high on Pervitin. He apparently was profoundly addicted to the drug and ingested it intravenously.
Nothing new, Bill.Yes. In WWI our land troops were regularly issued liberal rations of brandy or grappa before an attack, "to stiffen up their resolve".
Allied Pilot's were issued amphetamines for long flight bomber raids.In WWII my father was a transport pilot on the suicidal route from Sicily to Lybia, eventually shot down in April 1943 (http://www.floriani.it/papacrash-eng.htm), and he told me they could keep going only thanks to pills of simpamina (benzedrine)-
'The White House will turn black with our fire, Allah willing'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325952/The-White-House-turn-black-fire-Allah-willing-ISIS-warns-fresh-attacks-Washington-video-threaten-America-days.html#ixzz3s3TxOOua (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325952/The-White-House-turn-black-fire-Allah-willing-ISIS-warns-fresh-attacks-Washington-video-threaten-America-days.html#ixzz3s3TxOOua)
Bill, the NY Post is a Murdoch-owned conservative rag, and I don't use the word rag lightly. This paper has hit rock bottom in terms of credibility.
Don't understand this one from the Jihadis.
The White House [which is black enough?] is the kindest gentlest ally they could ever expect.
Incredibly, Murdoch also owns The New York Times... an ulta-liberal rag.
The shadow company is/or was? the globalist News Corporation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Ownership)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation)
In WWII my father was a transport pilot on the suicidal route from Sicily to Lybia, eventually shot down in April 1943 (http://www.floriani.it/papacrash-eng.htm), and he told me they could keep going only thanks to pills of simpamina (benzedrine)-
I believe they meant to burn a cross and lynch the Nigr.
I believe they meant to burn a cross and lynch the Nigr.
I'm thinking there should be some provision (Italian Government) for awarding decorations to WW2 veterans posthumously(?) I suggest you petition the appropriate department, attach the letter and request the citation be awarded (in Canada usually presented to the closest living relative) to your Father.Brass, thank you for your concern and suggestions, however I could not find on the 'Net any governmental/military addressee for a petition on the matter, and frankly I do not relish the idea of searching for one with other means, and dealing with our lethargic bureaucracy either ;).
Brass, thank you for your concern and suggestions, however I could not find on the 'Net any governmental/military addressee for a petition on the matter, and frankly I do not relish the idea of searching for one with other means, and dealing with our lethargic bureaucracy either ;).
Russian jets hit 472 targets in Syria in past two days
read all about it here
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-jets-hit-472-targets-syria-past-two-004846161.html
Not surprisingly Iran and Russia want to keep Assad. What's surprising is
that Obama wants to replace him. With whom?
THE BIG QUESTION: Why didn't Obama destroy the oil infrastructure 15 months ago when the US started its bombing?
[Answer in next post.]
And before he can be replaced, Assad's military must be defeated.
Obama's strategy to accomplish this has two parts:
1. Fund some opposition groups directly.
2. Allow ISIS to continue to grow and thereby have the capacity to attack Assad's military.
Yes, Number Two is why Obama did not destroy the oil infrastructure in bombing raids. Oil is the largest source of revenue for ISIS. (see my post above).
No, we would not have an oil crisis if we were to abandon the Saudis. The world would actually be a better place.
I don't always read David Stockman, but when I do it's an article like this one:
http://mises.org/library/blowback-washington-war-partys-folly-comes-home-roost
http://russianreport.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/putin-press-conference-on-syria-and-g20/.
Understood. You've made your Dad's exploits and bravery part of your family history now and that's what really counts, anyways. :)I moved a reply to http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=2657.msg419019#msg419019 as a more relevant venue ;).
Here's a good, old-fashion American response to ISIS.
http://news.vice.com/article/gun-toting-protesters-held-a-rally-against-islamization-outside-a-texas-mosque?utm_source=vicenewsemail (http://news.vice.com/article/gun-toting-protesters-held-a-rally-against-islamization-outside-a-texas-mosque?utm_source=vicenewsemail)
Yep, almost look like Iran.
Here's a good, old-fashion American response to ISIS.
http://news.vice.com/article/gun-toting-protesters-held-a-rally-against-islamization-outside-a-texas-mosque?utm_source=vicenewsemail
Yep, almost look like Iran.
1 guy with a gun, 12 people total.
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=17720.msg419066;topicseen#msg419066
Yes, quite the important breaking news event. I'm surprised they didn't
have the place swarming with news crews.
Russia deploys missile cruiser off Syria coast doesn't have Obama-like
Rules of Engagement.
Russia deploys missile cruiser off Syria coast
Ordered to destroy any target posing danger
(http://www.rt.com/files/news/20/67/00/00/moscow-1.jpg)
read all about it here
http://www.rt.com/news/323329-russia-suspend-military-turkey/
Here's a good, old-fashion American response to ISIS.
http://news.vice.com/article/gun-toting-protesters-held-a-rally-against-islamization-outside-a-texas-mosque?utm_source=vicenewsemail
Yep, almost look like Iran.
Heh, this is what happened in my neighborhood when a vet fired a gun into the air.
No biggie. He is just one guy.
How about this one guy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/11/24/chicago-police-officer-charged-with-murder-for-shooting-black-teenager/?wpisrc=al_alert-national
Oh, that's right. He does not represent America.
Maybe these guys.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/24/five-people-shot-near-minneapolis-protest-cops-searching-for-3-white-male-suspects/?wpisrc=al_alert-national
I really don't understand what's the big deal.
I posted this in another thread early this morning.
"If the Russian jet were 30 miles inside Turkey border, why did it crash inside Syria, albeit close to the border? Fighter jets are not good gliders. The Russian jet may have been inside the Turkey border yet was making its way back to Syria. If so, why attack it?
Conflicting news (imagine that happening, especially when Russia is involved). Russia says the jet was brought down by ground fire. Turkey says two of its F-16s hit it with missiles. The Russian version would allow this to be swept under the rug. Now this must be reconciled.
Kremlin says this is a "very serious incident." I label that as an understatement because Russia usually responds.
This incident was likely because:
1. Turkey wants Assad to be overthrown and is supporting some of the opposition forces.
2. Russia is supporting Assad and is bombing repeatedly these opposition forces.
3. Unlike the NATO jets, Russian jets did not have permission to enter Turkish airspace.
4. Russian military aircraft have a history of ignoring NATO airspace and in fact has made multiple incursions into Turkish airspace only to be warned, This time Turkey did more than warn.
Much more to come. It would be good if the politicians good negotiate some temporary agreement for a ceasefire between Assad and the NATO-backed opposition groups. This would enable coalition forces AND Russia to focus instead on ISIS.
As someone said today, this is how World War I got started. One difference, Russia has no allies."
__________________________________________________________________________ _______
__________________________________________________________________________ ______
New since then:
The US military stated the Russian fighter jet did not cross far or for long into Turkish air space. It begs the question of why Turkey did not escort the Russian fighter to the Syrian border. Also, the US military said the action took place "at the border," raising again my morning question of why did the Russian jet crashed inside Syria if 30 miles inside Turkey.
News confirmed that Turkey is supporting this particular rebel group in the area of this action, and that the Russians have bombed them. The rebels fired barrages at the parachuting pilots while in the air (atrocious act). The rebels also shot down a Russian helicopter attempting to rescue the pilots.
Turkey's actions seem unjustified and unnecessarily risky. A former NATO supreme commander made it clear that this was Turkey, not NATO, as if he were distancing himself from Turkey.
Turkey's actions seem unjustified and unnecessarily risky. A former NATO supreme commander made it clear that this was Turkey, not NATO, as if he were distancing himself from Turkey.
If this ship the Russians are deploying is the Mokva which was originally off the Syrian coast to assist the French effort? ... That would be a mistake (for the Russians).
This class of warship, although it looks impressive, is basically obsolete. It works fine as a gun/missile platform (barge) and for showing the flag but it really has no modern air/surface defensive capability.
If they open fire on the Turks in any capacity the Turks'll sink her. That's a given.
Brass
Turkey's actions is very extreme for violating the airspace. Especially if it is true that the Russian jet was brought down buy Turkish jets. I suspect something else is at play that nobody is talking about.
This incident was likely because:
1. Turkey wants Assad to be overthrown and is supporting some of the opposition forces.
2. Russia is supporting Assad and is bombing repeatedly these opposition forces.
3. Unlike the NATO jets, Russian jets did not have permission to enter Turkish airspace.
4. Russian military aircraft have a history of ignoring NATO airspace and in fact has made multiple incursions into Turkish airspace only to be warned, This time Turkey did more than warn.
Remember, this SU-24 is the plane that Russia vaunted could disable (electronically) an Arleigh Burke class destroyer or whatever. The Russkies will have to go into full spin mode to explain how their badass SU-24 could be brought down by export, Turkish F-16s of all things.
After the incident, Turkey immediately called a meeting of NATO members. Obviously, they wanted to outline their side of the story so that everyone could sing from the same hymn book. That hasn't happened.
I think NATO is hanging Turkey out to dry - but only a little bit. In other words, we have your back if you get invaded, but don't provoke the Russians again!
Not really, if what Turkey said is true. They warned the pilots multiple times to turn away, the Russians didn't, Turkey shoots them down and says "we warned you"! Nothing extreme about that.
The SU-24 design is 50 years old. Even if the downed plane was made this year, it's performance will be lacking. It's not bad ass and it's not even a fighter jet. Its a bomber jet similar to our retired F-111 Aardvark that bombed Libya in the 80's. An F-16 is an old design too but not as old as a SU-24 and is a fighter jet. It's superior to the SU-24.
Airspace is violated all the time all over the globe. Scrambling jets to meet them, warning them is not extreme. Shooting it down was very extreme in anybody's airspace even in a war zone when you are not in direct conflict. The act was indeed extreme. There's no sugar coating it
What I posted above was claimed by Russia a few months ago. The rest of the world laughed and this incident just added to that.
I didn't know who was responsible for the death of the pilots. Was it the jets or was it ground fire?
I didn't know who was responsible for the death of the pilots. Was it the jets or was it ground fire?
Turkey's actions is very extreme for violating the airspace. Especially if it is true that the Russian jet was brought down buy Turkish jets. I suspect something else is at play that nobody is talking about.
The other pilot's fate is still unclear but a little birdie told me he was picked up by ISIS and will be well taken care of. Don't be surprised if you see the pilot on tv denouncing Russia's aggression in Syria and/or getting his head chopped off.
Your dream has failed. Kill the lying birdie )
After 36 hours neither Turkey or Russia are making war noises (at this point).
I think NATO countries are probably telling Turkey you've made your point but no more downing Russian planes and Russia realizes that as far as Syria goes they need Turkey to at least not interfere with their combat operations which, if the two countries became belligerents would be greatly more complicated.
Further, the economic ties between the two countries are just too intertwined to be severed very easily (Turkey has the upper hand in this department as well).
Russia's now stated that they're moving in SAMs to Syria. I'm sure I was reading the Russians had already done this months ago. So maybe it was BS then and now they're really doing it, who knows.
One thing is for sure. Regardless of the Russian bluster and denials they got a wee crack upside the snout yesterday and they know it. This single act by the Turks has caused more damage to the Putin mystique/legend than a decade of sanctions and tough talk from the other EU/NATO countries could have possibly achieved.
My guess would be that once the Russians have deployed whatever defensive measures they think adequate they'll resume overflying Turkish airspace again.
Stay tuned...
Brass
Listening to some "talking heads" today, they confirmed what I wrote about the ethnic kinship between Turkey and the Syrian Turkmen, Even more important, Turkey needs the Turkmen as a buffer to stop the Kurds to the east.
Still blaming MSF for the hospital debacle Brass?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-26/us-probe-says-kunduz-hospital-strike-was-tragic-accident/6974714
No spin involved. It hasn't been determined if anything was done wrong. That's why the investigations are being conducted. You've just automatically defaulted to your blame America routine. I'll reserve judgment until the circumstances surrounding the incident have been determined.
I'll wait for the results of the investigation.
In the real world there is no culpability until guilt is assigned. That's done through proper investigation. As I've already stated if the pilot was taking fire from that building, even if it was a hospital, he would be justified in returning fire. NATO, US ROEs make that clear.
Yes, I would say the Kurdish issue is quite key to what is going on here.
Well, the planned pipeline has already been announced as cancelled.
Lavrov has cancelled his visit.
Lavrov has advised Russians to cancel travel plans to Turkey and they are planning punitive measures against companies selling package holidays to there. Russians were big spenders in both Turkey and Egypt but it looks like both markets will be well down this year.
Funny how you think the shooting down of one cold war era jet damages Putin yet when Turkey had their own aircraft shot down that did nothing to the image of the Turkish leader???
Come on , the Su24 is a strike aircraft and not a new one. In part the design is based on the F-111 - long retired from the US inventory. That makes it quite vulnerable to aircraft like the F-16.
If it was the latest SU being shot down or a Tu-160 I might a agree with you. But they lost a few 24's in the Ossetian wars as well.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/08/idUSL8262192#75s8mIk6LMd0gxm8.97 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/08/idUSL8262192#75s8mIk6LMd0gxm8.97)
We're going to find out soon enough. Sh*t like this is bad for Putin's bad boy image.
The Russian population will be looking to Putin for pay back and it's going to have to come across as something like this...
"Putin single handedly destroys entire Turkish Air Force for shooting down one SU-24"
... or words to that effect.
It's the downside to telling your citizens "I am invincible" when you're a dictator.
Russia may decide to arm the Kurds in a proxy war against Turkey.
Further, the economic ties between the two countries are just too intertwined to be severed very easily (Turkey has the upper hand in this department as well).
Regardless of the Russian bluster and denials they got a wee crack upside the snout yesterday and they know it. This single act by the Turks has caused more damage to the Putin mystique/legend than a decade of sanctions and tough talk from the other EU/NATO countries could have possibly achieved.
That would open up a shooting war. And suck Russia in.
America supplied some rebel groups in Syria and did not get sucked in. We did it in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and never got sucked in. The Soviets supplied North Vietnam and never got sucked in.
The downside is that Turkey may mount a huge offensive against the Kurds.
It will take a couple of years to supply the Kurds given all that is involved and the parties who would oppose it.
Gator, I respect your opinion. But I stand by mine. We have seen the Russian involvement in Ukraine. When the locals started losing the Russians brought in their armies.
It cuts both ways. Moscow's cancellation of travel of Russians to Turkey could cost Turkey $3 billion per year. Any RWD member who has holidayed in Antalya, also known as the Russian Riviera, will understand the enormity of this adverse impact on Turkey.
I am not sure how much gas Russia supplies to Turkey. Maybe Turkey has the upper hand because Russia needs the revenue considering the long-term prospects for low oil prices. And maybe Turkey can replace Russian gas with Middle East sources.
Putin took a short-term "wee" hit, yet he is not detouring from his long-term strategy. That strategy? Russia working with Iran can drive the agenda in the Middle East.
The first step is to keep Assad in power. The next step is to improve the relationship with Europe. Concurrently, Russia will take a leading role if not the lead to curtail ISIS. Russia's partner Iran has work to do. First, Iran forges an even closer alliance with the Mesopotamian Shi'ite (formerly Iraq). Iran then becomes nuclear armed.
These goals will take many years to accomplish. Yet, just making progress in these directions would compel the oil-rich Gulf states to reach an agreement with Russia and Iran. Russia would eventually be in position to control world oil prices.
Farfetched, you say. Who will stop Russia? Yesterday, Hollande met with Obama to obtain American support. Today, Hollande meets with Merkel. Tomorrow, Hollande will meet with Putin. Who will be the most helpful to Hollande? Certainly not Obama as he gave Hollande nothing yesterday other than continuing the US commitment to Climate Change. The phrase "leading from behind" to describe Obama is so apt.
I predict Putin will support Hollande in some manner, and Putin will exact something in exchange. This is the beginning of an improved relationship with Europe that I mentioned earlier.
Critical discourse is welcome.
WikiLeaks Reveals Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Qatar Secret Anti-Syria Plot
The whistleblower website WikiLeaks says that leaked documents from Saudi ministries revealed that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey had a secret deal three years ago to topple the Syrian government.......
.......WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Rossiya-1 (Russia 1) TV channel on Sunday that the United States, France, and Britain had also been involved in the secret deal in 2012.
If Russia truly believes that the plane was over Syria, then they should trot out the universally known and accepted electronic evidence and open an inquiry at the United Nations.... I'm guessing that they won't because the "evidence" they appear to have manufactured is probably as acceptable as the vomit......
Brass,
.... Absolute disbelief that Turkey would be an aggressor against Russia. ..... Absolute condemnation of the Turkish government by the Russian populace.
I would be surprised if Putin's rating at home took even a hiccup. If you would listen to the reports from Syria, you would hear Russia playing the aggreived. More fodder for the PR cannons helping the plot line that Russia is the victim.
This is the way it is being played out at home.
Would be interesting to see a third front open up against Russia in the Caucasus....
Channel One, the "CNN" of Russia, is pounding the theme of Turkish aggression, complete with maps purporting to prove that the plane was not violating Turkish airspace.
Their maps, like the one presented earlier here, are pure bullshit and I am impressed at how fast the St Petersburg troll factory had those produced and unleashed their guys with the message so quickly. What the average nonthinking Ruskie citizen doesn't realize is that with today's modern technology and digital guidance systems, you can't just make up bullshit about whether a plane was, or was not, in restricted airspace. Either you were, or you were not. Simples.
If Russia truly believes that the plane was over Syria, then they should trot out the universally known and accepted electronic evidence and open an inquiry at the United Nations. Next, begin international legal proceedings at the Hague.
I'm guessing that they won't because the "evidence" they appear to have manufactured is probably as acceptable as the vomit from a Russian drunk on Saturday night. But, if they are right, then take the case to the world, not just the sheeple within your own borders.
In the meantime, keep applying those Preparation H pads and salve until the bleeding stops.
After Georgia, no one in their right mind would do such.
Nobody would fund terror groups in the Caucasus to stretch Russia thin? There has already been an attack on a Russian military base there if I recall correctly.
I'm still of the opinion that this incident has damaged Putin internally though. As this article alludes to - Turkey daring to push back against the Russian military machine doesn't fit the 'Putin narrative'.
Nobody would fund terror groups in the Caucasus to stretch Russia thin? There has already been an attack on a Russian military base there if I recall correctly.
I spoke to a Turkish acquaintance yesterday, and she said Erdogan isn't very popular with Turks in the bigger cities. Investment in education is down, especially in the sciences, whilst Religious classes have increased; not a good sign. She also told me that Erdogan was most popular with the poor and with people in villages; offering them food if they voted for him. Of course, this is all anecdotal evidence but interesting nonetheless. I don't believe in the short term, that Turkey will be able to replace all those Russian tourists. Around 4m Russians visited Turkey last year and that's a lot of investment. If the Russian tour operators pull out as has been rumoured, then lots of smaller Turkish businesses and hotels are going to go bust, especially in Antalya; that will not make Erdogan popular.
If the Russian SU did enter Turkish airspace, then they should have just escorted it out. On the other hand, part of me can't help but respect Erdogan for giving Putin a bloody nose, even if it is a very dangerous game he's playing.
That is spot on. Erdogan ...
If you study a map of the border region in which the event occurred it seems fairly obvious that Russian military planners realized before they ordered the mission that a violation of Turkish airspace was required if the targets assigned were to be hit. There was virtually no approach that a jet aircraft could have taken to hit the rebel positions on Turkmen Mountain that did not involve a high probability of violating Turkey's airspace. The approach chosen by the pilots was clearly a deliberate violation....
Russian joke: What will Putin eat for Thanksgiving dinner? Turkey.
Turkey's president warns Russia not to 'play with fire'....Relations between the former Cold War antagonists are at their lowest in recent memory after Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet near the Syrian border on Tuesday. The pilot was machine-gunned dead by rebels on the ground in Syria as he parachuted down.http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/turkey-president-warns-russia-play-fire-151128035823435.html
Russia has threatened economic retaliation - a response Erdogan has dismissed as emotional and indecorous.
BBC: "Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned Russia's President Vladimir Putin not to "play with fire" over his country's downing of a Russian jet." I have to hand it to the Turkish president, he's certainly talking the talk; however, he'd be wise to reign in the rhetoric whilst standing firm. I'd have to agree with jone: it may have slightly damaged Putin's aura of invincibility but in the short term increased his popularity as the right man for the job in Russia. Things may be better in Moscow and Peter, but people are really starting to suffer in other parts of Russia; unless you have plenty of money, you're feeling the recession and this certainly distracts people's attention away from domestic issues.
I spoke to a Turkish acquaintance yesterday, and she said Erdogan isn't very popular with Turks in the bigger cities. Investment in education is down, especially in the sciences, whilst Religious classes have increased; not a good sign. She also told me that Erdogan was most popular with the poor and with people in villages; offering them food if they voted for him. Of course, this is all anecdotal evidence but interesting nonetheless. I don't believe in the short term, that Turkey will be able to replace all those Russian tourists. Around 4m Russians visited Turkey last year and that's a lot of investment. If the Russian tour operators pull out as has been rumoured, then lots of smaller Turkish businesses and hotels are going to go bust, especially in Antalya; that will not make Erdogan popular.
Erdogan has also been buying cheap oil form IS and in that Putin is right that they are sponsoring terrorism; although, as so often is the case in these scenarios, the black kettle is always hovering nearby. If the Russian SU did enter Turkish airspace, then they should have just escorted it out. On the other hand, part of me can't help but respect Erdogan for giving Putin a bloody nose, even if it is a very dangerous game he's playing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34941093
The Kremlin controlled media has whipped up an angry frenzy among Russian citizens after Turkey's air force shot down a Russian warplane that had violated Turkish airspace last Tuesday. The Russian plane had ignored ten warnings and refused to leave Turkish airspace after Turkish military fighter jets intercepted the plane.
Interesting article by Scott Lilly in the Huffington Post.
Read the article here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-lilly/russia-premeditated-incur_b_8660792.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592).
Collateral damage, or Is it conceivable Russia would exact revenge by targeting a market?So, before Russia were bombing the hospitals according to Syrian activists. After Russia has checked and claimed there were no hospitals in towns denounced to be bombed, the new trend appears: markets. Though I do not exclude the collateral damage, the source is the same that disclosed the ""bombed-out hospitals".
So, before Russia were bombing the hospitals according to Syrian activists. After Russia has checked and claimed there were no hospitals in towns denounced to be bombed, the new trend appears: markets. Though I do not exclude the collateral damage, the source is the same that disclosed the ""bombed-out hospitals".
At any case the market can't be a target for the revenge. First, Russia pursues geopolitical interests in Middle East, not revenge. Second, the revenge was implemented by intensive air- and artillery strikes in the area where the plane was shot down. A few opposition field commanders were killed in that area though it's not clear if they were connected somehow to shooting the russia pilot. And Turkey has tied hands now in that region after the attack on russian aircraft. Stupid attack left Turkey backed opposition in Latakia without any cover.
Putin will negotiate the settlement with Turkey, and the conditions begin to appear vaguely. Turkey must step back from uncompromising demand to remove Bashar Asad from power. Turkey must refrain from support of Islamic opposition.
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUzduohUYAA_Jzt.jpg)
Turkey must step back from uncompromising demand to remove Bashar Asad from power. Turkey must refrain from support of Islamic opposition.
Al Jazeera reported Russians hit a civilian market near where the Russian plane was shot down. The strike killed over 40 in the market.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/20-killed-russian-air-strike-syrian-market-151129082103978.html
Collateral damage, or Is it conceivable Russia would exact revenge by targeting a market?
The US is obviously also guilty of doing a lot to attempt to remove Assad. Assad must be standing in the way of a lot of outside countries potential money stream or something.
The US is obviously also guilty of doing a lot to attempt to remove Assad. Assad must be standing in the way of a lot of outside countries potential money stream or something.
If left up to a bozo Republican like McCain/Graham we would most certainly have troops and larger wars in a few different places by now.
Did you forget already the lesson Muzh taught you that withdrawal is not the answer? The situation is highly complex, so let us work through the options.
Don't know what you referring to regarding Muzh.
My belief remains that US troops would be a bad idea, and if they were on the ground, their actual goal would be regime change in Syria..
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=20281.msg418609#msg418609
You don't even realize that you need help!
So Assad should keep doing what he has been doing? A barrel bomb here, a little sarin there.
So it seems you are advocating regime change through the use of U.S. Ground troops. I oppose this.
The Assad regime is probably using the technology it has. We use drones and often kill indescriminately. It is a war and the leadership is fighting the fight tooth and nail just as the U.S. Backed 'Rebels' are.
As far as I recall chemical weapons usage has been used by groups opposed to Assad.
My belief remains that US troops would be a bad idea, and if they were on the ground, their actual goal would be regime change in Syria..
Yesterday, you wrote, "US is obviously also guilty of doing a lot to attempt to remove Assad." I corrected you again, saying Obama has done very little other than make speeches; he even went against the advice of his Cabinet to arm the rebels.
I must correct you here in how you stated that I accused you of something.. I used the word SEEMED, which indicates uncertainty as it pertained to your position. That should clear this up for you.
Now you write I am advocating the use of US ground troops to remove Assad.
You are the one saying "no regime change" and I just reminded you that Assad is one of the world's SOBs killing hundreds of thousands of his people and forcing a massive refugee crises. You are probably the only person in the West who believes Assad should stay.
A word of advice, don't trust your recall. Actually, such an accusation was made by Assad's forces. Yet an investigation found nothing.
Fathertime, if you are such a non-interventionist, why do you intervene in these discussions with idiotic statements?
I offer you a challenge to demonstrate your political acumen. If you can answer the questions below, I give you some hope. All are quick, simple answers save the final one. I'd love to hear your response to it. Any indirect or vague answer is proof that you don't know shit!
1. Who has killed more of his people, Assad or Gaddafi?
2. Who was working with the West, Assad or Gaddafi?
3. Who voluntarily gave up his WMD program, Assad or Gaddafi?
4. Who was aligned with Iran, Assad or Gaddafi?
5. Assuming one leader and only one had to be removed, who deserved regime change the most, Syria or Libya?
6. Why did the US make the decision it did (military intervention in Libya and diplomacy in Syria)?
There are a LOT of people that think Assad should stay, including the local Syrians here that support Assad.
Regime changes in the Arab world was happening due to Arab Spring. Revolutions were happening and changes were likely. America had a choice to have a say in who is going to run Syria. Certainly it's stupid for Obama to do nothing and have leadership that would be hostile to America. If America did more in Syria, Russia would not have intervened but Putin realized Obama is weak and seen opportunity so in the end, Russia will have a say who will run Syria due to their willingness to put boots on the ground. If by a small chance the West gets to install leadership there when it's over, then you can be sure the West traded Ukraine to Russia in order to Russia to back off.
Nations and empires have promoted regime change all throughout history. Bad? Evil? It's just a fact of life and we need to deal in reality. France wanted new leadership in America's colonies. They supplied training and weapons to the Colonists to expel the British Empire. Syria is very unstable at this moment and unfortunately the most violent and unstable people emerge victors unless there is intervention from outside sources. America failed to take the lead. Putin will do what Obama won't.
There's not enough people willing to die to keep Assad in power. If the West and Russia didn't intervene, Assad would be eventually toppled.
LIBYA: Christian Copts were fine under Gaddafi, now they’re being tortured under Obama’s boys
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/03/16/libya-christian-copts-were-fine-under-gaddafi-now-theyre-being-tortured-under-obamas-boys/
Why Did Assad, Saddam and Mubarak Protect Christians?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/mid-easts-christians-intro/
America had a choice to have a say in who is going to run Syria.Like in Libya? Where no one is really in charge.
we are of course there to help ourselves first and foremost.If that were only true. Thus, it not a fact.
Like in Libya?
Assad is seen as heroically doing what he has been forced to do...
Who cares about your little questionnaire? If you have basic questions like this, you need to look up the answers yourself!
Too bad that you don't like me intervening in your phony narrative, because I enjoy putting it out there.
You have a twisted definition of "hero."YOU have dishonestly twisted the quote of mine so let me help you out and not leave it as a fragment.
There is the actual quote in it's context. Assad is not my hero as I'm not Syrian, but around the parts in which I reside there are quite a few Syrians, and they generally do support Assad and find this battle a heroic one on his part.
Many others see it differently, and Assad is seen as heroically doing what he has been forced to do...in part once again by US interference and fomenting.
Thanks for proving you are a TROLL,
This is a signed confession admitting you are a TROLL.
Anyone who sees Assad as a hero is worse than a troll.
The answers to all questions except the final one are widely known, yet you could not answer them.[/size]Just not interested in your silly 'questions'. If you need answers, you can do some research.
Thanks for this, Изумруд.
Alright, that's three people who I consider to be knowledgeable on the subject telling me Putin probably won't suffer as a result of this incident. I'll defer to your opinion on this matter.
I've not seen/read Turkey (the country) is buying oil directly from IS (other than Russian propaganda). I'd suggest the oil that is being purchased on the black market is probably being moved more along the lines of what this article has stated...
Brass
"Documents and flash drives seized during the Sayyaf raid reportedly revealed links "so clear" and "undeniable" between Turkey and ISIS "that they could end up having profound policy implications for the relationship between us and Ankara," senior Western official familiar with the captured intelligence told the Guardian."
In the case of Syria, Russia has had much stronger ties than the US, so us intervening here now is far less sensible than Russia intervention....which should be a reason for us to be very minimally involved.
There are people in Syria living in small villages in the middle of nowhere and even if they have access to tv, they are getting state run news yet they are still smart enough to know what is best for them and the best places to live. How many Syrians are escaping to Russia?
The EU is planning to pay Turkey over 3 billion dollars to help stem the tide of refugees into Europe and let Turkey choose which ones get to legally immigrate. Translation, let's let Turkey do the dirty work discriminating with extreme prejudice and if they make a mistake and let terrorists in, the EU politicians can claim it's not their fault since they outsourced the work to the Turkish. The EU likes to practice non intervention yet they are paying dearly for a war that isn't theirs. They had a chance to topple Assad just as they did Ghaddafi. Too little, too late.
Israel is concerned about the outcome of Syria that they announced they have troops in Syria. It makes sense that Israel doesn't want a Iran friendly government running Syria when this is over. Iran has a policy to wipe out the Jews. Just another thing that can start a larger conflict.
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-pm-admits-forces-operating-war-hit-syria-194312782.html (http://news.yahoo.com/israel-pm-admits-forces-operating-war-hit-syria-194312782.html)
Makes me wonder what/who else is in there uninvited that we are also not hearing about.
I also wonder what made Israel come forward with this information now.
Is the party in Syria by invitation only? The British are now coming! They just announced their entrance into the party in Syria and will bring fireworks.
http://news.yahoo.com/uk-parliament-vote-expanded-attacks-122037536.html (http://news.yahoo.com/uk-parliament-vote-expanded-attacks-122037536.html)
Too many different intelligence agencies working in Syria to keep this a secret anymore. Boots on the ground is a big step for any country to take that wants to influence future leadership in Syria.
It's becoming a question of who's not in Syria. With all the actors with different interests in Syria, somebody may get their feelings hurt and with all the alliances between nations, this war can grow into something bigger.
Hi Brass, yes i should have elucidated my point better. I doubt Turkey [ie the Turkish government] are openly buying oil from IS as to do so would be openly supporting terrorism and there is no definitive proof of this; it would also be a crazy game for a NATO country to play in the open. On the other hand, I do believe they are indirectly buying oil on the black market [with full knowledge of where it's coming from]. Putin's hypocrisy is not lost on many of us: Assad is also buying oil from IS and the Kremlin is supporting Assad, who in turn is supported by Hezbollah.
I did vaguely remember something from 2014 after a raid on IS and found this article but I'm not sure as to the veracity of the quote:
I am of the opinion that this will play into Putin's favour. Don't discount the fact that the Russian fighter crew may have been used as bait--10 warnings an no response. Why? Apparently they were not given authorization to respond.
If nothing happened, Putin's continued airspace violations would have gone unchecked. As an aside, it will be interesting to see if he pushes the envelope with other neighbors. However, Turkey responded, and now Putin is playing this as yet another sign that Russia is being surrounded by hostile forces, and the Russian citizen is so fortunate to have a strong leader at the helm!
I'd be interested in where you guys think the criminal dictator (Putin) is going with these remarks...
Is there public pressure from the Russian population to escalate this incident or is Putin mouthing off again?
Brass
Methinks the lady doth protest too much
I think that he believes this is a better news item for Russians to worry
about than the price of ________________ (enter any food stuff here).
Turkey could say "drop the sanctions now shorty or change the name of
the Black Sea to the Black Lake."
Closing access to the Black Sea would be a huge pill to swallow for the Russians. My guess is that it would eventually lead to armed conflict. My guess is that Turkey would not have the support of NATO if they did so. So, maybe this is what Putin wants. A conflict that segregates a NATO country.
[size=12pt
(http://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2014/11/15/38c4fd0e-65f3-44e7-a7ef-ffaae2c522ec/38c4fd0e-65f3-44e7-a7ef-ffaae2c522ec_16x9_600x338.jpg)
I'd suggest this is a staged photograph in that the first two women in this image (can't see the third) have never fired an AK-47.
Brass and Jone, etal:Quite a few here continue to insist it is about rebuilding the Soviet Union...the author of the article disagrees, and so have I...although on slightly different grounds.
I find this to be frighteningly accurate:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/04/is-the-worst-still-to-come-with-vladimir-putin.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/04/is-the-worst-still-to-come-with-vladimir-putin.html)
Quite a few here continue to insist it is about rebuilding the Soviet Union...the author of the article disagrees, and so have I...although on slightly different grounds.
“The State Department gets it exactly wrong because they think he’s trying to re-create the former Soviet Union,” she said. “He’s saying Russia is a traditional-values civilization, but it’s special because it’s the only country that has the courage of its convictions to go to war over values. The war in Ukraine is framed in those terms. That’s why it’s so important that they say they’re fighting homo fascism. To interpret that war as territorial is just to get it wrong.”
Fathertime!
Brass and Jone, etal:
I find this to be frighteningly accurate:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/04/is-the-worst-still-to-come-with-vladimir-putin.html
Quite a few here continue to insist it is about rebuilding the Soviet Union...the author of the article disagrees, and so have I...although on slightly different grounds.
[/size]
[/size]“The State Department gets it exactly wrong because they think he’s trying to re-create the former Soviet Union,” she said. “He’s saying Russia is a traditional-values civilization, but it’s special because it’s the only country that has the courage of its convictions to go to war over values. The war in Ukraine is framed in those terms. That’s why it’s so important that they say they’re fighting homo fascism. To interpret that war as territorial is just to get it wrong.”
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]Fathertime!
Here goes FT again, proving that Size does matter. Fix your formatting if you're going to post on RWD.
Indeed. First off, is that young soldier on ceremonial duty Putin's walking by his grandson? ...
(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/12/04/is-the-worst-still-to-come-with-vladimir-putin/jcr:content/image.img.2000.jpg/1449208842415.cached.jpg)
I see propaganda, disinformation, obfuscation and simple ignorance lives on... and on... and on....
Kids in kindergarten should be taught that not everything posted on the internet is true. Seems my generation still doesn't get it.
‘Washington has gone from ‘regime change’ to ‘political transition' in Syria,
but we are not stupid’
http://www.rt.com/op-edge/326112-kerry-visit-moscow-talks/ (http://www.rt.com/op-edge/326112-kerry-visit-moscow-talks/)
I think it is the right move to not force regime change regarding Assad...I'm glad Russia modified our apparent stance.
Fathertime!
Obama and Kerry still want to topple the Assad regime, they just changed the verbage.
Elect Hillary and he will probably get toppled, she wants him toppled.
I see you are with Teddy boy. ;)
Ask any Russian--they know they are going broke. They blame the USA for all financial evils, but you won't find an honest Russian who will deny the financial fears and changes in living standards that now exist.I see kind of confusion in rhetoric of Moscow liberals (Mendy reflects their views on the events). They broadcast the alarm about Russia's going broke (they told it for the last 15 years, btw), and at the same time warn the world about Russia's plans to take over the world, Ukraine, Baltic states, etc. ::)
Come to any upscale Moscow mall and almost every store has скидки signs (sales) of 50 to 70%.Yeah, and watch what prices are after these so called discounts :) Unfortunately, upscale Moscow malls use the sale signs to promote overpriced stuff. Internet trade is the real way to find the real bargains.
Belvis, I didn't write about a "liberal" but you instantly decided to label a Russian businessman as such without knowledge of who he is in person.I did not mean a Russian businessman, I meant your views which are very stereotyped and familar in certain social circles in Moscow. I think you have а wide network of acquaintances densely confined within a non representative class. Our environment inevitably affects us and forms the perception of life.
I too recall when there were no ducks or fish left in the Moscow river.No, you did not live in Moscow when there were no ducks or fish. Moreover, you did not live in the provincial russian towns 10-15 years ago so it's rather hard for you to grasp why Russians support Putin.
FT, we agree on the US funding of what has morphed into ISIS. Benghazi was a key in the transfer of US arms to so called "rebels" in the region.
.
TURKEY NOW RUSSIAN MEDIA’S ENEMY NUMBER ONE: REPORT
Iran is buying the S-300 anti aircraft missile system. This is Russia's second best missile defense system and should be able to shoot down Israeli jets should they try to bomb their nuclear program.Speaking of arms sales...I read a recent wacky story regarding Russia selling arms to FIJI, of all places. Russia seems to be saying the hell with Europe, while moving in different directions
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-latest-weapons-sale-iran-175400695.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-latest-weapons-sale-iran-175400695.html)
Iran is Buying Russian SU-30 fighter jet which is a match for anything we sold to Israel or Saudi Arabia.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-middle-easts-nightmare-iran-buying-russias-lethal-su-30-15213 (http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-middle-easts-nightmare-iran-buying-russias-lethal-su-30-15213)
Note this is an opinion piece
Putin's Newest Satellite State
read all about it here
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/02/24/putins-newest-satellite-state/#5aacf5543549
Link doesn't work :(
Try this one
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/02/24/putins-newest-satellite-state/#39cdd8753549
Looks like he bit off a bit more than he could chew.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-pullout-idUSKCN0WG23C (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-pullout-idUSKCN0WG23C)
Strange because the intelligence community said they just delivered a shipment of tanks with another on the way.
My impression is that Russia did some of what it wanted to do which was to take Assad out of peril and turn the tide a bit like other countries were doing.
The article said US officials saw no evidence of preparation by the Russians to pull out. Actions speak louder than words. If Russians end up pulling out, it's not because they can't afford the war, it's for other beneficial reasons.
My impression is that Russia did some of what it wanted to do which was to take Assad out of peril and turn the tide a bit like other countries were doing.
Who knows what kind of side deals may be getting worked out, but I won't be surprised if that is the case.
Fathertime!
Actually, Assad will not be in good shape for the upcoming negotiations since he will not have the capo backing him up.
I think the negotiations are probably done. Obama and Kerry has backed off the "Assad has to go" strategy. Russia had all the leverage in the negotiations so it's not a big surprise. This ceasefire allows Russia to take a break and catch up on some maintenance and rotate fresh troops in. Faster than they may leave Syria, they can come back. Russia is also trying to look like it's cooperating so they can get the sanctions lifted over Ukraine. The vote for these sanctions are up for renewal in a few months and there's already a small group of EU countries voicing they want to lift the sanctions. Putin needs more supporters though.
he has withdrawn little yet , significantly he has left his air defence missiles in syria ,
agree billy ,
putin is a man of action , his words mean little very often imo
SX
As to any idea that he can afford to continue the fighting in Syria, not really. The Russian budget is in crisis and in the big scheme of things, he cannot financially continue to fighting a war indefinitely on two fronts.
As to any idea that he can afford to continue the fighting in Syria, not really. The Russian budget is in crisis and in the big scheme of things, he cannot financially continue to fighting a war indefinitely on two fronts. By the way, Ukraine and Syria are part of the same war in the Kremlin scheme.
Do you think that Assad is at least partly paying for Russia to come in and save
the day? Getting back his oil and other facilities must be worth something.
Paying? Did you say paying? (With apologies to that NFL commercial)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/syria-defies-russia-in-bid-to-keep-assad-1460332538?cb=logged0.30049921613464536
http://www.wsj.com/articles/syria-defies-russia-in-bid-to-keep-assad-1460332538?cb=logged0.30049921613464536
NFL or NBA?
Jim Mora of the NBA: "Playoffs?! Don't talk about playoffs. Playoffs?!"
(at the 100 mark)
Allen Iverson of the NBA: " Practice! We are talking about practice! Not a game What are talking about? Practice!" (15.5 times in just over one minute).
Jim Mora was the Indianapolis Colts coach of the NFL on that video. ;)
Hmmmm....well 250 isn't very many...although i'm presuming they are uninvited, it could be worse.. as long as they aren't actually there to undermine or try to take out Assad....
Obama and Europe had the power years ago to bomb a road for the rebels to Damascus like they did in Libya. Instead the country is ruined, 250,000 dead, 12 million displaced from their homes, and over a million refugees Europe has to deal with. Pay now or pay more later. Obama and Europe decided to pay more later.
HEY, FATHER TIME
IS THERE ANY ACTIONS THAT YOUR NATION HAS TAKEN IN OTHER COUNTRIES THAT YOU DO APPROVE OF?
I seriously doubt that other powerful nations like Russia would have merely stood by, and allowed us to run roughshod over Assad like that.
Russia did stand by for years and didn't give Assad meaningful help. After Putin learned nobody had the guts to confront him in Ukraine and Obama didn't keep his word by intervening with ground troops after Assad crossed a red line using chemical weapons on his people, Putin knew Syria would be under his influence if he bailed out Assad.
. If someone had the guts to get in their face, they may see Crimea and islands in the South China sea are not worth risking their existence over.
Russia did stand by for years and didn't give Assad meaningful help. After Putin learned nobody had the guts to confront him in Ukraine and Obama didn't keep his word by intervening with ground troops after Assad crossed a red line using chemical weapons on his people, Putin knew Syria would be under his influence if he bailed out Assad.
I and a couple of others posed questions as to who might of used chemical weapons in Syria. Personally I remain unconvinced that Assad was responsible, and wanted at the time to gauge how he would treat the subject at the G20 Summit.
I and a couple of others posed questions as to who might have used chemical weapons in Syria. Personally I remain unconvinced that Assad was responsible, and wanted at the time to gauge how he would treat the subject at the G20 Summit.
At least 30 people were killed and 62 wounded on April 27th after a Russian military plane fired at a field hospital in the Syrian province of Aleppo. Anadolu reported that the incident was announced by Ibrahim Hadzh Ibrahim, the city’s civil defense representative.
I will be the first to admit that this kind of thing happens in any conflict the Fog of War is very real. I can also tell you from personal experience that when innocents are in the way of killing a designated bad guy they are not important. I personally Lased a large home and we knew there was at least 25 women, children, the aged and infirm inside but there was one man the Pentagon wanted dead at any cost.
So everyone in that building was killed by a 2,000lb Laser guided bomb.
That is not "fog of war". That is "we don't give a fuck" about collateral damages to get this target.
Do you think about those civilians you killed at all TigerPaws?
I'm not going to get on TigerPaws for being told to laser a house with civilians in it. Who was his target?
I was not having a go at him. It was actually intended as a serious question.
Deccie,
A couple of members have accused TP of exaggeration, and have produced information to support their claim. I do not know, and I have stayed out of it. Others can give you their opinion.
Thanks Gator.
I've not been on the forum much as my wife gave birth to our latest about a week ago. Two young kids and a teenager keep one very busy indeed.... No further additions are planned now. But now we need a bigger apartment! :-)
Children are a great blessing. Family has always been my greatest source of joy.
I don't know that its our war. Without some level of commitment by the United States to give lethal aide and support, Syria should be left to Assad so the killing can stop.
In regard to the civil war, it seems the US is doing little to support the rebels.
Putin is telling Obama don't dare consider anything against Assad, as if Obama would do anything.
Most people figured Obama wouldn't do much. Putin probably learned Obama's stance in Syria and Ukraine by reading Obama's emails. Now Putin is going a step further. Putin is boldly telling Obama not to do anything in public instead of behind closed doors. Putin would not be putting this out in public if he thought it could backfire and embarrass him. While Obama seeks to push peace, Russia is currently sending more military hardware to Syria.
It seems the Syrians-Russians are targeting hospitals. Almost all armed conflicts purposefully avoid hospitals, realizing they are needed to treat casualties of war. I suggest those who believe Russia is no worse than the US should reexamine their criteria.
Russia sending more warplanes to Syria for wholesale liquidation of anti Assad populations.
Only if legitimate Ukrainian government asked about, as it happened in Syria.
When Russia is done with Syria, are they going to help Ukraine the same way?
It is rather unusual to call armed opposition and islamic terrorists as anti Assad populations, but formally that's true.
Russia waited a few years till it became obvious for everybody that US failed to fight radical islamism at ME. Moreover the radical islamism was kind of created by US actions so Russia had little choice to clean up the mess there. Somebody has to do the dirty work.
Only if legitimate Ukrainian government asked about, as it happened in Syria.
Well might as well let them have it or? Obviously the long history of US practice attempting to topple dictators is simply creating more problems than it resolves. In Syria a CIA coup was attempted in 1957 and GW Bush financed anti-government efforts (discovered via wikileaks), so a rocky past that sounds soooo familiar... http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath
Assad is a Ba'athist.
Ba'athism ideology is generally secular which is probably a good thing. Folks in that part of the world are so entwined in religious power struggles that left alone without a dictator or secular government there is no control or limiting strife between religious parties. De-Ba'athification is a perfect example of how things go south in this environment.
Russia insisted from the beginning that deposing Assad was the wrong way to go. Now we'll have to sit back and see if their 'way' is right or wrong.
I think in principle Putin's ideas makes more sense. Leave Assad in power for now, fight ISIS and then deal with him once control and a semblance of order has been achieved. Their assertions that the US has destabilized the region seems to be fairly accurate with efforts going back a decade and more.
US involvement in many of the past wars such as Korea, Vietnam etc can be said to be ideological power struggles between RU and the US. One would think since the USSR fell that there would be little need for such ideological conflicts... but the power struggles obviously still exists.. so if it's not ideology then what? My gut feeling is cheap oil. On RU's side, increasing their influence in Syria puts Iraq in a political squeeze between Syria and Iran. Also Syria is a good oil transit country aside from being a small producer.
http://osnetdaily.com/2015/09/us-plans-to-partition-iraq-and-syria-into-pipeline-states/
(http://i.imgur.com/Ml9pc7S.jpg)
Also makes sense why RU is snuggling up to Turkey...
I think the big elephant in the room is if and how long the US can remain petro-energy independent and at what cost/prices. As I stated a while ago, the US as the largest petro consumer is begging to be in a bad way a few short decades down the road. Production prices in the US and Canada will rise much faster than cheaper oil elsewhere..
This I believe is Putin's end game. Not war, not territorial assets but instead assuring they will be able to produce, transport at much higher profit down the road, thus increasing their economic might and political power.
You can bet once Syria is locked up, Iraq is next on Putin's list, not Europe.
.....$40/bbl for decades. US will not be affected. Europe and Asia will, however.
See you later.
Gator,
Thanks for taking the time for that informative post and putting a few pieces of the puzzle together! I'll chew on it for a bit.. quite complex relationships for sure... :)
Just to throw something in as for oil production.. and $40 bbl..
(http://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2016/01/total-cost-of-producing-oil.png)
http://marketrealist.com/2016/01/crude-oils-total-cost-production-impacts-major-oil-producers/
See who gains the most?
I think in principle Putin's ideas makes more sense. Leave Assad in power for now, fight ISIS and then deal with him once control and a semblance of order has been achieved. Their assertions that the US has destabilized the region seems to be fairly accurate with efforts going back a decade and more.
US involvement in many of the past wars such as Korea, Vietnam etc can be said to be ideological power struggles between RU and the US. One would think since the USSR fell that there would be little need for such ideological conflicts... but the power struggles obviously still exists.. so if it's not ideology then what? My gut feeling is cheap oil. On RU's side, increasing their influence in Syria puts Iraq in a political squeeze between Syria and Iran. Also Syria is a good oil transit country aside from being a small producer.
http://osnetdaily.com/2015/09/us-plans-to-partition-iraq-and-syria-into-pipeline-states/
(http://i.imgur.com/Ml9pc7S.jpg)
Also makes sense why RU is snuggling up to Turkey...
I think the big elephant in the room is if and how long the US can remain petro-energy independent and at what cost/prices. As I stated a while ago, the US as the largest petro consumer is begging to be in a bad way a few short decades down the road. Production prices in the US and Canada will rise much faster than cheaper oil elsewhere..
This I believe is Putin's end game. Not war, not territorial assets but instead assuring they will be able to produce, transport at much higher profit down the road, thus increasing their economic might and political power.
You can bet once Syria is locked up, Iraq is next on Putin's list, not Europe.
Hey, Gator? ......
What's the CCCP?
Russian language for USSR.
It makes sense if one can trust Putin and Assad to be humane. I don't.
Would Putin even consider the alternative of replacing Assad. Putin certainly would not consider a democratically elected replacement given the Sunni Arabs are a 60% majority and Alawites are 12%? So the process many never get off the ground unless some type of divided leadership deal can be negotiated. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died and millions have emigrated.
Yes, the US destabilized the region in multiple ways. It started with Bush and continued with Obama/Clinton. It is far from over.
You are correct that although the conflicts today are not communism vs. capitalism, economics is the issue. The world has an oversupply of gas and oil, driving prices down. Russia wants higher oil and gas prices to improve its way of life. So does Iran. And Iran wants to produce more too. Gas prices could drop more because of the two gas pipelines to Europe proposed through Syria in your graphic.
To increase oil prices, Russia and Iran could "pressure" Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf states into reducing their market share by producing less oil. As far as gas pipelines, there are possible routes that do not go though Syria, so I do not understand the significance attached to Syria's role for supplying gas to Europe. And why would Putin want either of these two pipelines to become operational, considering they will take market share from Russian gas? Hopefully your information will explain.
Strange bedfellows. Turkey is long term enemy of the Kurds. Turkey opposes Assad. Turkey downs a Russian jet fighter. ISIS carries out terror attacks in Turkey. Yet, here there are together in gas pipeline deals, etc. 2TallBill explained earlier in this thread that Turkey is a whore who will sell to anyone who has money.
Not an issue now or in the long term future. From earlier in this thread:
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2s0znu0.png)
Now you can understand why the US is not incentivized to do "heavy lifting" in the Middle East. Shale oil gave US its freedom from dependency on Middle East oil.
Guess who was against fracking to produce shale oil? Answer - Obama. Ironical, yes. The energy companies worked around him. You explain that many countries produce oil for a lower cost than fracking, yet the production cost of something around $40/bbl is still reasonable.
Higher oil and gas prices is Putin's goal. His best bet for achieving this is to intimidate the Gulf states into producing less oil and not building gas pipelines to Europe.
He does not want to occupy western Europe. He would like to see the EU dissolved, and for sure he wants Europe to pay Russia more for gas and oil.
You and others have complained about the US's long history of being involved in the Middle East. After these decades of meddling, there is not one country in the Middle East who fears the US. How many now fear Russia and Iran? Too bad if they do, because the US seems to be following Obama's vision to withdraw military forces from the Middle East.
Now I have something for you to ponder. The CCCP collapsed in large part due to the costly war in Afghanistan. The US CIA ran covert operations to stir up the Mujahideen, prompting the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to support the dictator in power. Is Syria a similar "trap" for the Russians? There are differences, yet there are important similarities.
Hey, Gator? ......
What's the CCCP?
Okay, you guys do know I was joking, correct?
What can I say. Some of us don't pick up quickly Mensa humor.
BC,
Don't discredit yourself. Controlled fusion? Come on! :rolleyes:
The CCCP collapsed in large part due to the costly war in Afghanistan. The US CIA ran covert operations to stir up the Mujahideen, prompting the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to support the dictator in power. Is Syria a similar "trap" for the Russians? There are differences, yet there are important similarities.
I believe we will have regular space flight to other planets before we have fusion driven cars.
No, the USSR would have collapsed even without the invasion of Afghanistan.
The Soviets invaded before the CIA ran covert operations. The CIA did analyze Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion, when Taraki seized power. There was already opposition to him, because of (a) tribal differences; and (b) human rights abuses, and that lead to the mujahadeen rebelling against him.
It had been stagnating since the 1950's, and was only kept afloat with oil sales and arms deals. The collapse of oil prices in the 1980's probably had more to do with the collapse than the cost of the war in Afghanistan.
Boethius, I know just enough to get into trouble, especially about the reasons why the CCCP collapsed. My main point when I first mentioned this is that Putin must proceed carefully in Syria or he may create the equivalent of a second Afghanistan for Russia. Few tribes are aligned with Putin's man Assad.
Surely trust is an issue, in fact THE issue on all sides. As for Putin one should of course be wary. One has to try and clearly understand his goals and then decide to work either for or against him along with having one's own 'end game' that is not just a simple stop sign here or there. Here's a very interesting article I stumbled across this morning:
http://www.meforum.org/5876/why-putin-wants-syria It is a bit long but well worth the time to digest.
Regarding oil prices it seems that low production cost countries / OPEC / RU / IQ / IR and independent producers will attempt to keep their pricing right below US production costs. This maximizes their profits. While the US/CA can produce plenty of oil, the resulting profits will likely be much lower. Economic might is a huge part of 'Power' in military and political terms. Putin would not have been in a position to act as he did without a long period of high petro prices that allowed him to spend a ton on rebuilding military might or at least getting 'ship shape'. So yes, the US will have plenty of oil, but at low profits whilst allowing other producers to profit more handsomely thus gaining more relative 'Power', even factoring in higher production costs on both sides.
As an aside, the US could gain considerable edge in this argument by investing heavily in building the most awesome electric cars and trucks, along with nuclear and alternative energy resources on a much greater scale and future technologies such as controlled fusion. This should be THE national plan, comparable with Kennedy announcing we will go to the moon and back. These are all achievable goals and I am sure we have the technological know how to do it if only we can get past the petro lobby.
Turkey does have a good bit of wealth, quite industrious with a solid manufacturing base. I wouldn't call them whores but yes I do wonder about their political future. Maybe you or Bill can expound on the whore part as I don't quite 'get it'.
It's not about being involved, but instead how that involvement is formed. I'll support every diplomatic and economic efforts possible, but I don't support covert CIA and other actions that attempt to disrupt political systems from the outside.
The US mainly acts in it's own interests and that's ok with me as long as we take the high road and do not try and force our ideology upon others. Let them learn by example.
I don't believe so.. as the article seems to point out, Putin is quite flexible and adept to avoid past failures and pitfalls. Some may call him a dictator, but I see him more as a very smart and astute leader that is unencumbered by a burdensome political system. Yes he pushes limits in the strategic interests of RU and will take advantage of every opportunity presented. He is showing that RU can stand on the world stage regardless if others like it or not.
...You are correct that Charlie Wison and Philip Seymour Hoffman did not get started with the muj until a year or two after the Soviet military was invited by the Afghan government. Charlie and Gust eventually developed the largest-ever CIA covert operation.
You are kidding, right? :ROFL:
So much so that at a certain point the whole foreign-policy debate in this town got so scrambled that in some ways it was liberating for me. You start realizing at a certain point, well, folks aren’t even trying to be consistent. They’re not even trying to be fair-minded in their assessments or recommendations. In which case the best thing for me to do is to try to figure out what the right thing to do is and just do it, and worry later about how Washington is grading me.
That was a valuable lesson. It was a valuable lesson in two ways. One, because it taught me to trust my judgment. Two, it taught me that I had to be self-critical and build a structure for effective, constructive criticism of decisions I might make, and make sure all viewpoints were heard, because frankly, I just couldn’t trust the noise out there. And if you examined a bunch of the decisions that we made subsequently, whether it was the decision to be part of the international coalition to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people or the decision to go after bin Laden, but most prominently I think the decisions around Syria after Assad used chemical weapons — in these various decisions, part of what I tried to institutionalize is a really rigorous process internally. But also an insistence than I’m not going to simply accept whatever the playbook was here in Washington, in part because it was often incoherent.
You take the case of Syria, which has been chewed over a lot. But it continues to puzzle me, the degree to which people seem to forget that we actually got the chemical weapons out of Syria. The notion seems to be that, “Well, you should have blown something up, even if that didn’t mean that you got chemical weapons out.” There continues to be, I think, a lack of examination of the fact that my decision was not to let Assad do whatever he wanted. My decision was to see if we could broker a deal without a strike to get those chemical weapons out, and to go to Congress to ask for authorization, because nowhere has Congress been more incoherent than when it comes to the powers I have. You had people, I think, like Marco Rubio, who was complaining about us not doing anything, and when I said, “I’m gonna present to Congress,” suddenly he said, “Well, I’m gonna vote against it.” Maybe it was Ted Cruz. Maybe both. They’re all over the map. The primary principle—and this is not true for all of them, but for many of them—was “Just make sure that we don’t get blamed for whatever decision you make.”
On August 21, 2013, the Syrian regime was reported to have used chemical warfare on rebel enclaves, killing some 1,300 civilians. With this atrocity, Assad appeared to have crossed President Obama's "red line" on chemical weapons and risked a strong U.S. response..... on August 27, Washington deployed four destroyers near the Syrian coast equipped with Tomahawk Cruise missiles whose initial mission was to punish the Syrian regime.
...With U.S. forces so close, Putin decided not to permit regime change in Damascus as he had in Tripoli. Still, he must have understood that direct confrontation between his navy and the superior U.S. forces was not a smart choice for Russia. Rear Adm. Vladimir Komoyedov....confirmed this and warned that the Russian navy could not match the U.S. Navy in the eastern Mediterranean.
Putin, however, also wagered that Obama would not opt for a direct confrontation with Russia. Thus, sailing to the fray were some aged Russian navy ships. But equipped with modern rocket systems and nuclear torpedoes, even an old ship can be formidable. Russia also mobilized its armed forces, as did Iran's Revolutionary Guards, while Moscow's foreign ministry warned that U.S. intervention in Syria could have "catastrophic consequences."
On August 27, as Obama met with the three leaders of the Baltic republics, .... the Head of the Baltics section of the Moscow Institute, CIS, ....suggested that in the event of a U.S. attack on Syria, Russia should invade the Baltic states, claiming that "half of the population of Latvia and Estonia will meet the Russian troops with flowers as it was in 1940."
Putin's deterrence, pressures, and public diplomacy—he even went so far as to write a New York Times op-ed—must have ultimately worked. Obama backed down, as Putin foresaw. The Russian president then helped his counterpart to defuse the crisis by brokering a deal to help Assad get rid of his chemical weapons.
Like Syria, [Iran] has been buying Russian weapons systems, engaging in cooperative pipeline projects, and buying nuclear power plants. The conclusion of the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal on July 14, 2015, in Vienna was also a game-changer. Putin, having helped Obama broker the deal, had waited to make any Syria decision until the agreement was concluded. Now, with the deal done and Iran sanctions soon to be lifted, Tehran could readily pay for Russia's long-range S-300 anti-aircraft system. Putin also hoped that, now, Iran-U.S. relations would improve, making it easier for Russia to work with Iran and Hezbollah to protect Assad.
We have to speak with many actors, this includes Assad, but others as well. Not only with the United States of America, Russia, but with important regional partners, Iran, and Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia.
Assad is now on the offensive to take back territory occupied by Syrian rebel groups.
Now steaming through the English Channel headed south is Russia's lone aircraft carrier. Note the black smoke. This is close to a joke. The New York Times referred to it as, "...previously known more as a threat to its crew than anything else." Is Putin trying to bluff Obama again?
(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/10/22/world/22russia-web/22russia-web-superJumbo.jpg)
Their aircraft carrier is a joke. Outdated and prone to frequent breakdowns. (http://warisboring.com/your-aircraft-carrier-is-a-piece-of-crap-f3f52d299588#.jc8uyfsf9)
Yeah but when the bombs land on your head, does the quality of the runway the bomber took off from really matter? The aircraft carrier isn't going to sink because America isn't going to stop Russia's escalation of military equipment in order to close out the Syrian war. Ceasefires are agreed on only to get the other side(America) to pause our activities.
The second ceasefire declared by Syria and Russia seems to be holding. A historical study of ceasefires shows most collapse. Yet, if a second, third,...ceasefire is attempted, the prospects improve for long term peace.
The Russians are deploying more forces to the region. Now steaming through the English Channel headed south is Russia's lone aircraft carrier. Note the black smoke. This is close to a joke. The New York Times referred to it as, "...previously known more as a threat to its crew than anything else." Is Putin trying to bluff Obama again?
(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/10/22/world/22russia-web/22russia-web-superJumbo.jpg)
I believe we will have regular space flight to other planets before we have fusion driven cars.
Above all, Aleppo represents a meltdown of the West’s moral and political will — and in particular, a collapse of U.S. leadership. By refusing to intervene against the Assad regime’s atrocities, or even to enforce the “red line” he declared on the use of chemical weapons, President Obama created a vacuum that was filled by Vladimir Putin and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.
Something we have been discussing for a long time as inevitable
"Aleppo is Obama's Legacy" - Charles Krauthammer.
"Bloodbath in Aleppo will haunt humanity" - Washington Post editorial
No, the USSR would have collapsed even without the invasion of Afghanistan.
The Soviets invaded before the CIA ran covert operations. The CIA did analyze Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion, when Taraki seized power. There was already opposition to him, because of (a) tribal differences; and (b) human rights abuses, and that lead to the mujahadeen rebelling against him.
Brezhnev insisted on invading Afghanistan, against the advise of both the KGB and the GRU. It was then that the US trained the mujahadeen.
The Soviet economy was stagnating even before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It had been stagnating since the 1950's, and was only kept afloat with oil sales and arms deals. The collapse of oil prices in the 1980's probably had more to do with the collapse than the cost of the war in Afghanistan. That, and outside factors, such as Eastern Europe not being kept in check, the influence of Pope John Paul, Reagan's arm's escalation, and the flaws in the KGB's "Khrushchev redux", Gorbachev, and so called "perestroika", including not foreseeing a Yeltsin.
republican congress and figures have been leading the charge to entangle us in syria from the very beginning. we can stay out, should have never fomented, and not armed 'the rebels'.
I think Europe wanted to get involved with Libya and Syria more than Obama but to please our allies, he got involved. Obama has the power to end the war quickly instead of letting it drag on killing over a quarter of a million people and displacing tens of millions from their homes. Ideally it would've been best to leave it alone or end it quickly than what is currently taking place. Obama should take ownership of the mess he got involved with and let grow since he regularly blamed Bush for his mess. The Syrian civilian deaths is one thing but also the greatest terrorist group known to man, ISIS, grew from this. When countries destabilize and law and order ceases to exist, bad guys come out of the woodwork.I don't know about us ending the war quickly...I suspect more serious involvement by us would have escalated the war even more. We didn't need to involve ourselves.
I am not certain the Obama administration can be blamed.
Other than no fly zones, what was the option?
Sending in American troops?
Given that the opposition is now primarily Sunni Islamists, what is the advantage to the West in defeating the Assad regime and installing another Sunni Islamist one?
Yemen, incidentally, is even more vicious than Syria. But we don't hear much about it, as it's so bad, journalists aren't even covering it.
I'll also state that this should tell us something about how much Russia respects human rights. Obliterate apartment buildings, hospitals, even schools full of civilians. It doesn't matter if civilians die en masse. That type of scorched earth policy was used in Chechnya as well.
The US have absolutely no business here, or in any other regions of conflict. Period.
All of these are matters fit for the United Nations' disposition.
Let the European countries continue their colonial hold on these petty little countries again, like the good ol' days. I'm elated to see the UK getting out of that union.
...What do we do if a foreign power with no respect for human rights attempts the same?...
...UN is good for peace-keeping, not bringing peace. The UN will fail...
Not enforcing the no fly zone was huge. Kerry even admits such. Obama could have destroyed Assad's air force. France asked us to join them in doing it. If Assad's air force were destroyed, he would have fallen. Even with his air force intact, the rebels were winning until Putin entered.
Russia does this because their goal is to win, not to be drawn into a quagmire.
For all the liberals reading this thread, do you see what happens when the US withdraws! Bad hombres usually move in. It was ISIS in Iraq and Russia in Syria. Bad hombres don't have rules of engagement.
I Let Europe and the Sunni nations deal with Russia and Iran.
[I have been advocating this position for long time]
Quote...What do we do if a foreign power with no respect for human rights attempts the same?...
So what? Haven't we learned anything enough about getting stuck for someone else's sake? We have more than enough problems here at home. Trump is right, overatwo trillion dollars in theMiddle-EastIraq alone and what do we have to show for it today? All we get for any of this is bring trouble upon our doorsteps.
Best we attend to our own from here on in and let everyone else fend for themselves for a change.
So what? Haven't we learned anything enough about getting stuck for someone else's sake? We have more than enough problems here at home. Trump is right, overatwo trillion dollars in theMiddle-EastIraq alone and what do we have to show for it today? All we get for any of this is bring trouble upon our doorsteps.
Best we attend to our own from here on in and let everyone else fend for themselves for a change.
This was America's foreign policy before WW I. We changed, and we enjoyed immense prosperity for most of those 100 years. A British diplomat explained to me at a party that English is the international language not because of the British empire, but because of American business in those 100 years. The world benefitted too.
We can not go back. The world is not flat, and the US is not an island. Globalization is here to stay.
We should avoid military conflicts. Our sense for humanity means we can not use Russian tactics. Thus, we can not win.
Instead of military power, we can use sanctions to further our policies. These can work well in accelerating globalization, because most nations depend upon trade. However, ordinary people tend to suffer the most from sanctions (and in Russia, sanctions have had little effect and Putin enjoys high popularity).
For murderous dictators, we can ignore them. It seems Arabs and Iranians are intent on killing each other, something that have done with fervor for centuries. So sell them weapons and let them go at it. Ignoring them means ignoring genocide, beheadings, etc. And if we ignore that, why should we be concerned about human rights such as women's rights in Pakistan? Liberals must stay silent even with such inhumanity around us.
What I am saying, it is not as simple as letting everyone else fend for themselves. It will not be long before they send jihadists to our shores.
So what? Haven't we learned anything enough about getting stuck for someone else's sake? We have more than enough problems here at home. Trump is right, overatwo trillion dollars in theMiddle-EastIraq alone and what do we have to show for it today? All we get for any of this is bring trouble upon our doorsteps.
Best we attend to our own from here on in and let everyone else fend for themselves for a change.
This was America's foreign policy before WW I. We changed, and we enjoyed immense prosperity for most of those 100 years. A British diplomat explained to me at a party that English is the international language not because of the British empire, but because of American business in those 100 years. The world benefitted too.
We can not go back. The world is not flat, and the US is not an island. Globalization is here to stay.
We should avoid military conflicts. Our sense for humanity means we can not use Russian tactics. Thus, we can not win.
Instead of military power, we can use sanctions to further our policies. These can work well in accelerating globalization, because most nations depend upon trade. However, ordinary people tend to suffer the most from sanctions (and in Russia, sanctions have had little effect and Putin enjoys high popularity).
For murderous dictators, we can ignore them. It seems Arabs and Iranians are intent on killing each other, something that have done with fervor for centuries. So sell them weapons and let them go at it. Ignoring them means ignoring genocide, beheadings, etc. And if we ignore that, why should we be concerned about human rights such as women's rights in Pakistan? Liberals must stay silent even with such inhumanity around us.
What I am saying, it is not as simple as letting everyone else fend for themselves. It will not be long before they send jihadists to our shores.
Ya think? Brexit, TPP and Trump say different. I think this globalization thing may have hit it's high water mark (or at least has been slowed for the time being).
Let's be done with all these. too many lives and too much cost. Africa had been just as violent albeit not getting nearly as much exposure. As bad as Syria is today, IMO, still pales in comparison to what the Tutsis went through at the hands of the Hutus.
Isolationism is not the answer.
There is no widely accepted definition of globalization other than trade is a core measure. Besides trade, the term encompasses economic aspects such as movement of capital, monetary policy, etc. Globalization is more than economics and includes political, social, cultural and environmental components.
You can't know, but chances are if you do as Canada did, and only take families, rather than single men, you aren't going to have the problems Europe is having.
You can't know, but chances are if you do as Canada did, and only take families, rather than single men, you aren't going to have the problems Europe is having.
... Things are NOT so rosy with the Syrian refugees in Canada.
That was widely reported outside Rebel Media, and the gist of it was that Fredricton schools, which received 450 Syrian students, had no Arab translators and no ESL courses at all. There was no violence and no one blown up, IIRC. Just a few complaints from parents and lots of cultural misunderstandings in a city with a population of 56,000 that has not had to cope with non English speakers appearing all at once in its education system.
There are over 500 Syrian students in my city, in fact, in one school, they are the majority of the students, and there have been no issues. The difference? Strong ESL programs, which existed long before those students arrived. We went through this in the 1990's with Bosnian students, and there are a lot of Ukrainian refugees here as well.
There are several Arab bilingual schools here, although Syrian students do not yet attend them, as it's been determined they must improve their English language skills first. But they do have daily access to teachers who speak Arabic fluently. Students were given the opportunity to attend summer classes to advance their learning and learn cultural norms, as well.
Things are NOT so rosy with the Syrian refugees in Canada.
..Without debating the options, Obama stressed the US will not lead but will work with its alliances. This was called by his critics "leading from behind." That did not work, and maybe Obama did not want it to work....
No win situation. We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. So why bother?
Russia hasn't gained anything, or lost anything, it didn't already have before in Syria. Iran gaining Iraq only empathize my point as to why we need to bug out of these geo-political maneuvering.
When Syrians or any other non English speaking group immigrates, there has to be a program in place for the children to mainstream them as best as possible. Kids say/do all sorts of awful things especially when frustrated.
Personally, I'm good with immigrating a large number of people, but I don't like the idea of single men being the primary immigrants. In many respects a young couple is ideal, during the vetting it should be determined if they would be a productive addition to our society. Like it or not, the past generation or 2 hasn't produced enough children in the USA (and other countries) without the help of immigrants, both legal and illegal.
When immigrating 10's of 1000's, it is a given there is going to be some bad apples no matter how well they are transitioned. Unfortunately it is a terribly rough and tumble world out there. There is a lot of work to be done, and immigrants can/should provide more benefit than bad.
I realize things sometimes appear clearer from the rear view mirror, FT, but...based on the things you mentioned above, wouldn't be prudent to establish a 'safe zone' for these *refugees* instead? All things considered?
The UN ( :rolleyes:) can provide an INTERNATIONAL peace keeping force until the desert dust settles down.
Russia hasn't gained anything, or lost anything, it didn't already have before in Syria.
We have enough problems at home mopping up what that moron did for the past 8 years.
The UN is no longer capable of dealing with this kind of situation. It's become a third world country club incompetent from the top down.
Even if the security council somehow managed to agree on a resolution (without Russia or the US vetoing one another on principle) the peacekeeping arm is itself now mostly made up of third world militaries and the governments, dictators/generals take the money supplied by the UN to pay for the peacekeeping operations and pocket it then under man, supply and feed their own soldiers.
In some cases the (so called) UN peacekeepers themselves end up preying on the very people they're charged with protecting for criminal gain or simply to survive in the field.
Don't rely on the UN coming to the rescue for anything. It's nothing more than a corrupt money pit. Save one or two institutions within the organization the UN needs to be disbanded.
Brass
Not true. Putin did gain in huge ways....
Having worked for the UN, I can agree with you. However, some effective international body is needed as a neutral body to prevent wars and serve international justice. If not the UN, the world is totally dependent upon international diplomacy among nations and alliances?
As far as protecting human rights and supporting social progress, such programs can be done by NGOs with quite possibly more efficiency.
...However, the security council is a sham and the general assembly considers the UN coffers their own personal ATM....
I couldn't agree with you more Brass..
Even the Queen of Jordan, one of the two biggest host of Syrian refugees, had requested the UN to oust these refugees ASAP and send them all to Europe. Saying: "If Europe won't house these refugees, they will risk terrorism."
Turkey, one of the other 'host', calls the refugees 'guests'.
Neither one is no less spared with terrorism.
An aside (off-topic), UN and the open-ended coffer:
The 'transition' team had recently requested the names of USDE's scientists who created and presented the model to the UN about the impact of climate change. They refused.
When Mr. Perry gets to work, I hope he sues for this information under FOIA, and find out the whos and whats that were given to the UN committee, which led to a decision that the US needed to be *taxed* billion$/yr.
You have to wonder where these guys are...
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC; Arabic: منظمة التعاون الإسلامي; French: Organisation de la Coopération Islamique), is an international organization founded in 1969 consisting of 57 member states, with a collective population of over 1.6 billion as of 2008. The organisation states that it is "the collective voice of the Muslim world" and works to "safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation
...They originally set themselves up as the Arab/Muslim world's UN...But not a peep. Nada. Nothing.
Brass
No win situation. We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. So why bother?
Russia hasn't gained anything, or lost anything, it didn't already have before in Syria. Iran gaining Iraq only empathize my point as to why we need to bug out of these geo-political maneuvering.
I realize things sometimes appear clearer from the rear view mirror, FT, but...based on the things you mentioned above, wouldn't be prudent to establish a 'safe zone' for these *refugees* instead? All things considered?Well, the US can benefit if we screen good enough. Try to determine which refugees would be a benefit in the long term. We can motivated to work individuals. I don't like the idea of the UN going into an area in Syria and making it their own.
I’m with you regarding diversity FT, especially in terms of immigrants since I am one myself. One caveat I’d like to point out however is this…Thanks for making such a strong/reasoned case.
Forget illegal immigration and (refugees which numbers in 100s of 1000s – plus visa lotteries) for now, but here are some interesting numbers we have…
How many immigrants reside in the United States?
The U.S. immigrant population stood at more than 42.4 million, or 13.3 percent, of the total U.S. population of 318.9 million in 2014, according to ACS data. Between 2013 and 2014, the foreign-born population increased by 1 million, or 2.5 percent.
Immigrants in the United States and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 81 million people, or 26 percent of the overall U.S. population.
• Check out the Number and Share of Total U.S. Population, 1850-2014 in MPI’s Data Hub to see how the immigrant share of the overall population has fluctuated over time.
How many people immigrated to the United States last year?
In 2014, 1.3 million foreign-born individuals moved to the United States, an 11 percent increase from 1.2 million in 2013. India was the leading country of origin for new immigrants, with 147,500 arriving in 2014, followed by China with 131,800, Mexico with 130,000, Canada with 41,200, and the Philippines with 40,500….
Citation: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states/ (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states/)
Even our *very welcomed* Snowbird brothers and sisters up north, despite the wonderful social system they have, actually impacts immigration unto our population.
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/canadian-immigrants-united-states (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/canadian-immigrants-united-states)
Maybe some of these snowbirds counseled the likes of Whoopie Goldberg et al about the stupidity of their conviction, no?
The point is, *real* unemployment (including those who settled for work far less than their qualification) is at around 10% of our population. This number doesn’t even include the much larger number of our African-American able-bodied brethren who are not in the labor force. We don't have enough jobs available for our own citizens, much less absorbing a few 100,000s more...
We are not, as many liberal media would like for everyone to believe, xenophobes. Hillary called me Deplorable No. 154,296 and LFU Irredeemable No. 69, but I would argue she's just full of it for making sh!t up. We welcome immigrants, if not invite them over, as long as they submit to our immigration policies and law.
Safe Zones…until all rational, logical and sane assessments can be made. Look at Germany, they don’t even have a clue who drove the truck, much less how to find him. They said they’re looking for someone who left behind his documents in the truck…whoever that idiot is, is still on the loose! How sad, wouldn't you say?
Anyway, to say Syrian refugees as a whole, despite a realistic unknown number who harness hatred against our society and culture, would be a positive addition unto the mix seem rather careless and callous to me, if not downright fatal. Unfortunately, this is the current climate with which we are confronted with today.
Russia calls U.S. move to better arm Syrian rebels a 'hostile act'Of course it is a hostile act for the USA to start arming rebels, especially when we know darn well that many of the weapons will wind up in the hands of ISIS. We have no business in Syria, whereas Russia has been invited by the elected government to assist in the eradication of US backed 'rebel forces'.
The US for the first time since the Syrian civil war commenced in 2011 approved supplying shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to unspecified rebel groups in Syria.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-usa-idUSKBN14G0K0?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-usa-idUSKBN14G0K0?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563)
The civil war in Syria has many fronts, involving different rebel groups ranging from Islamic extremists to Kurds to Christians. Turkey supports one rebel group yet opposes the Kurdish rebels. The US bombs ISIS yet does not bomb Assad even after Assad violated Obama's red line. Russia bombs rebels directly fighting Assad, with minimal bombing of ISIS.
The US support of rebels groups fighting Assad has not been significant. We have supplied light arms captured in Libya. And lacking defenses against aerial bombardments, the rebel stronghold in Aleppo eventually fell.
Assad with Russian and Iranian support will next attempt to capture rebel strongholds elsewhere in Syria. If these rebels have better anti-aircraft defenses they will reduce the aerial bombardments seen in Aleppo. It will keep the war going for a long time, and draw Russia in more of a quagmire.
...
Does the US Fund Terror? Erdogan Says Turkey Has Evidence Washington
Supports ISIS, Kurds
Russia has been invited by the elected government to assist in the eradication of US backed 'rebel forces'.
Assad's recent Ba'ath Party has been winning recent rigged elections. Originally the Ba'ath Party couldn't win a presidential election so they took over in a coup.
I don't know about Syria's election result being fraudulent.
Besides look at what people are saying about our own elections. A guy wins with a minority of support, and millions less votes than the loser. Other people are claiming there are millions of illegal ballets being cast by illegals. It seems rather hollow for us to start dictating to a country like Syria that their election is rigged or corrupt. We certainly don't need to be fomenting war any more than we already have, especially on the basis of their election process!
Surely you jest..?
I don't know about Syria's election result being fraudulent.
I don't know about Syria's election result being fraudulent.
Besides look at what people are saying about our own elections. A guy wins with a minority of support, and millions less votes than the loser. Other people are claiming there are millions of illegal ballets being cast by illegals. It seems rather hollow for us to start dictating to a country like Syria that their election is rigged or corrupt. We certainly don't need to be fomenting war any more than we already have, especially on the basis of their election process!
I have some friends from Iraq and Saddam's Ba'ath Party in the past has people packing guns at voter locations watching voters fill out their ballots. Saddam routinely got 100% of the votes.
Assad got 100% of the votes every election except in 2014 in the middle of Syria's civil war. To please the people so they'd put their arms down, Assad finally allowed more than one person on the ballot! This generous gesture of providing a "choice" for a president hasn't been offered to the Syrian people in decades. Assad got almost 90% of the vote in the 2014 election. I think there is much more than 10% of the population that hates him so obviously the elections are rigged. Syrian people are tired of over 46 years of Assad family rule. This is the kind of man and government Russia likes to support and do business with.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/bashar-al-assad-winds-reelection-in-landslide-victory (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/bashar-al-assad-winds-reelection-in-landslide-victory)
Our country is pretty much even split on politics yet neither the liberals or conservatives are not at the point of risking our homes, lives, and our families futures by rebelling against those in power with violence and loss of life. If any future president is anything like Assad, we'd get to the point the Syrian people are at.
Stability and slow change weren't so bad.
It isn't our place to interfere/foment.
Google is everyone's friend, FT.
I doubt they've be as dense & stumped as many of our liberal voters and Hollywood celebrities alike here in the US.
Syria is ranked third on the misery index. Assad's brand of ruling is pretty bad. If he had an ounce of love for his people, he would resign so they stop fighting, take a few hundred million dollars worth of tax payer money and retire in Russia for the security. Instead he chooses to slaughter civilians that disagree with his politics and pay Russia for assistance. Syrians, their children and their children's children are going to owe Russia for a long time.
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-misery-index-reveals-the-worst-countries-to-live-in.html (http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-misery-index-reveals-the-worst-countries-to-live-in.html)
Large nations always had influence in smaller nations and always will. China and Russia understand for them to become top dog, they need more land and/or influence to get past America since they can't achieve this goal within their own country. Becoming pacifists will get us to the same place as other pacifist nations and peoples...extinct. They only thing keeping Russia and China from breaking loose is the thought America will get involved with the nations they want to conquer/influence.
It clearly wasn't FT's re his astounding lack of knowledge re Syria:ROFL:
Then he compounds it by posting an article - suggesting it predates the Arab Spring demonstrations - that brought about Assad's ''elections' ..
.
...Indeed more 'dense' folks voted for the other 'guy' and the 'winner's' tweet - from Nov '12 - telling us how 'undemocratic' the EC system is makes for amusing reading ...
LMAO! While the likes of you (RWD members living thousands of miles out of our country, yet feverishly involve themselves in debates about its politics armed only with regurgitated liberal news fed off by our media) are generally stuck in 1st gear, you on the other hand is fully engaged in reverse.
I'll humor your pitiful soul one time as I realize it must sux to high heavens having to 'wait' for more trashy liberal news to reinforce your delusions.
Let me see
THIS was a thread about Syria and Russia .. and you are discussing nations thousands of miles away and referring to one section of the US electorate as dense [ minus the parenthesis ] ....Do you understand irony ?
'newsflash' Some of us enjoy reading the news from many sources .. I think you may be addressing the mirror re the rest of your post. I am in Russia and have far more interesting things to do ... it does not involve reading tabloids ..
Spockoinoi nochi i sladi snov ..
One who doesn't really do anything other than sit around on her aging buttocks, and is only seen hosting huge lavish birthday parties and smiling when she gets out on those massive parades waving to her feeble-minded adoring minions as if to rub their miserable faces with it.
That is a very unfair characterization of Her Majesty. She is involved in affairs of state, and she works her tail off, even at 90 years old.
That is a very unfair characterization of Her Majesty. She is involved in affairs of state, and she works her tail off, even at 90 years old.
She's getting out a little more these days and finally went to see where the commoners buy their food.
'Poor' 'ol LFU..
You DO know HM is in a branch of Waitrose ...the 'commoners' can't afford to shop there ...
Thank you for demonstrating you in depth knowledge of UK brands and lifestyle choices ;)
She's getting out a little more these days and finally went to see where the commoners buy their food.
(http://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/10/28/a17f6994-34b2-44f2-bfbb-40fed22f63ee/thumbnail/620x350g2/72bb48bfd33bd989b31203f44e4968d0/gettyimages-618581234.jpg)
LOL! That pictures begs for a caption. She looks lost!
It looks as though she needed to pee really bad, and her subjects played a practical joke and hid. Leaving her alone to figure out where she is.
LOL! Heard from the PA system: "Mop-up on aisle 11, please!"
LOL! Heard from the PA system: "Mop-up on aisle 11, please!"
...
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/4810550/thumbs/o-QUEEN-ELIZABETH-900.jpg?3)
Perhaps you think posting this might 'rile' ?
Who cares what YOU think?
You ought to take a cue from your own PM:""We do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically-elected government of an ally,"
I'm now quite sure you are inattentive
What has your puerile and ignorant 'SOH' got to do with Russians playing Americans - which your President Elect has played down ?
I'm now quite sure you are inattentive
What has your puerile and ignorant 'SOH' got to do with Russians playing Americans - which your President Elect has played down ?
...Indeed more 'dense' folks voted for the other 'guy' and the 'winner's' tweet - from Nov '12 - telling us how 'undemocratic' the EC system is makes for amusing reading ...
I was more than *attentive* addressing your sorry-arse quip below just to put you in your miserable place.
You, OTOH, really are slower than January molasses on the uptake.
To have done THAT- you'd have had to addressed your totally missing the delicious irony in your 'put down' viz my non proximity to the USA... while you offer up your 'wisdom' re the UK / Syria ....
:) Be careful to not cut yourself when addressing the face you see in your shaving mirror... if your blade is anything like as 'sharp' as your 'wit'...
In the meantime, the thread is STILL about Russia / Syria...
LMAO! Likely riposte from someone who didn't have a clue,..
Russians caused Brexit as well, right?
Obama's foreign policy failed everywhere, especially in the Middle East. Russia and Iran took advantage of Obama's mistakes and became the major powers in the region. Seemingly the two have a plan to destabilize eventually the Middle East, which would raise oil prices and benefit both immeasurably.
Like you, given America's withdrawal from the Middle East, I was content to let Arabs continue to kill each other the way they have been doing for a thousand years. However, the humanitarian cost is unacceptably high. Europe did little, yet it at least accepted the refugees, something I do not want America to do.
Trump met this week with the head of Jordan and Egypt. Earlier he met with a couple of Gulf states. I am certain these moderate nations were begging Trump to do something in the Middle East to reverse the trend started by Obama. After the gas attack, I believe we had to do something, especially after the UN failed to pass any resolution in the Security Council. And Trump did exactly that.
Was it enough? IMO, no. This cruise missile attack tonight was too little, and we warned Russia beforehand. We spent a lot of money to destroy some old aircraft. I thought we would have at least tested our new military toys against Russian toys, especially the new Russian air defense missiles. I doubt this attack will change anything with regard to Assad's war against his people (other than he will not use chemical weapons for a while). This attack did not frighten the chubby kid ruler of North Korea. However, it may have caught Putin's attention enough to destroy his opinion that America is a pussy. And it should demonstrate to moderate Arab nations that the US did not abandon them.
I say we need to do more of this, but no ground warfare.
...
3. Europe should take the lead for two reasons:
a. Refugees from Syria spill over into Europe, not the US.
b. Russia's long term goal is to work with Shia nations to destabilize the Middle East, thereby greatly increasing oil prices (this will affect Europe more than the US because the US is energy independent).
4. Do I expect Europe to take the lead? No. Do I expect the UN to do something? No. Somebody must stand up to heinous acts against humanity.
Like the driest sense of humor ever shown on this board. That should've been posted on the 'Time for some Humor' thread.
You get a nugget for wishful thinking however.
Thanks for the response, Phil
I think the Syrians MIGHT have S400's ... but as you pointed out - there was no action taken to defend - but possibly there were too many and it would have looked 'bad; if any had got through ?
I'm guessing some of those Tomahawks had primary targets - Radar defence systems - if they went active.
I'm glad Trump took swift action.
I think the Syrians MIGHT have S400's ...
I am not sure how that works. The Tomahawks fly 100 feet off the deck so they can not pick up radar easily. There must be drones all over the place collecting data calculated by battle control. (I admit I know little about modern ordnance).
There should have been a Tomahawk planted right on the top of Assad's roof >:D
Specifically targeting leaders of nations opens a can of worms
American military kills over 100 Russians in one attack. Russia does not protest.
http://www.yahoo.com/news/m/73a6ae72-c224-3813-9dae-f809c260f8c0/ss_us-strikes-kill-100-russian.html
Let's see if this will be reported by any Russian news publication.
I noted earlier how the cozy marriages and engagements between WM and RW could start to unravel when the sheeeeeet hits home.
Let's see if this will be reported by any Russian news publication.
The real question is will Putin admit to sending ground troops to Syria for ground operations? It would look bad for him if Russian troops are dying in Syria. If the operation was done with covert Russian special ops troops, Putin will say he didn't order them to go there and it was those men's decision following their hearts to help Syrians like they helped Ukrainians.
The 'official line' of Syria / Moscow is that they were / are 'contractors'
Hmm, I realise you are stubborn and keep dodging my Irish British analogy- hint ... Were all German's 'Nazi's'? Were all Irish supporters of violence to achieve a United Ireland ? Did British guys married to Irish lasses 'divorce' over 700 years of differences ?
You analogy is not appropriate.
Au contraire.. it is nigh on perfect
You are still totally wrong with your attempts at comparison.
All of your ideas of that group against this group or that nation against this nation . . .
pale in comparison to the result when a member of 'that group' kills your family member, and your mate supports the killing or at least supports those who ordered the killing.
finem colloquium.
YES, such events can even cause a govt to intern your loved ones (US Japanese ) - but the US didn't round up Germans or Italians ...
Actually we did round up a number of Germans during WWI and WWII. We even forced many countries in Latin America to send us Germans for our prisons here.
My point was that the Japs were the only Axis powers people locked up wholesale.
Think it was around 15,000 Germans. Not a small number. Japanese were 120k or so. I met four Japanese Americans (two couples) on an airport layover who were locked up. They were surprisingly not bitter about it. Of course they were in their 80's at that point.
Both men went on to serve in the military on the European front to secure their release.
I've always had a problem with the way that the US has handled the internees, both Japanese and German. But not for the reason people may think:
After Pearl Harbor, the US was on her knees with the body blow delivered by the Japanese navy. It had no battleships remaining in the Pacific. Had not Halsey sortied the carriers and those carriers were not in port, those would have been lost as well. Had the Japanese hit the fuel dumps in Hawaii, the Pacific Fleet would have been refueling at Mare Island.
The US was actually fighting for existence, and loss of territory, as were many of the other allied powers. Coupled with this sense of impending doom is the fact that the Japanese were a subculture, both in Hawaii and on the West Coast. Because of the absolute differences between cultures, people of Japanese ancestry were obligated to the homeland and the Emperor, who was still considered, at that time, to be a god. We all scoff at that idea today and see Americans of Japanese descent as being totally integrated into American society. Not so back then.
Our generation will never know that Americans living overseas were rounded up and processed into Japanese work camps, as were many other ethnic groups. In China, Japan actually just killed most of the locals in areas that were deemed necessary to the war efforts. The US solution was to remove the Japanese from areas that they might have had access to influence the war.
I believe that they did right to do so.
While I cannot put myself in the shoes of the Japanese internees, I can put myself in the shoes of those trying to defend the country from a ruthless and surprise attack. The Japanese maintained their culture throughout the war years. A number of Japanese 'US citizens' actually committed suicide when Hirohito surrendered.
The other side of the coin, is that those Japanese who were willing to soldier for the US in Italy (which they did) proved that they were more American than Japanese. Like all Americans who fought in WWII, they were honored to the extent possible.
My father lost his four closest friends, growing up, to bullets from Japanese and German (and Italian) soldiers. There was a palpable dislike, bordering on hatred, for people from those countries that were in the Axis.
Had the US not interned the Japanese, I believe there would have been an underground movement, similar to the resistance in France.
The Germans, on the other hand, were not necessarily segregated from American society. Many US employers took German POWs and had them as employees, after the war, even giving them permanent jobs. In my hometown, one such POW is still remembered as being an actual contributor to the community. And I am told that all of the younger girls had crushes on him by one of those gals who did. My society, growing up, was ethnic German. Many in my town spoke German and we had a local Lutheran church and high school, where some of the sermons were in German back in the 40s and 50s. Towns in Wisconsin were named Berlin, New Berlin, Kiel, to mention a few.
I was reading a statement last night of how much German ethnicity is in the midwest. It borders on 45% in States like North Dakota and South Dakota, to 20% in Michigan. But most of those ethnic Germans came to the US in the 1840s through the 1870s. On the East Coast, however, there was not as much German ancestry and, especially in New York and Washington, D.C., there were plenty of German operatives who were able to pass information back to the Third Reich.
I've always had a problem with the way that the US has handled the internees, both Japanese and German.Italo-Americans/Italians, too :(.
As mentioned Igor (Strelkov - rifle) Girkin is bemoaning the losses of RU mercenaries to US strikes
http://themoscowtimes.com/news/us-airstrikes-kill-100-russian-syrian-fighters-reports-say-60445 (http://themoscowtimes.com/news/us-airstrikes-kill-100-russian-syrian-fighters-reports-say-60445)
and the Kremlin spokesman - who laughed when the BBBC suggested Russian military was involved in the Crimea Coup - wants us to believe him ..
http://www.rt.com/news/418819-distorted-data-peskov-syria/ (http://www.rt.com/news/418819-distorted-data-peskov-syria/)
Russia officially withdrew its forces from Syria in December 2017 after two years fighting in support of President Bashar al-Assad, though hundreds of private military contractors from Russia remain in the country.
The Russian Defense Ministry had earlier stated that Syrian militia forces came under fire from the US-led coalition on February 7 due to actions that had not been coordinated with the Russian military. The incident left 25 militiamen injured. There were no Russian military servicemen in the area, the ministry stressed.
The real question is will Putin admit to sending ground troops to Syria for ground operations?
I am curious how these "civilian contractors" working in Ukraine and Syria keep getting medals from Russia if they are no in the military?although there is a decent chance we accidentally killed russians, they may accidentally kill a few dozen of our contractors next.
http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-syria-mercenaries-killed-widow-says-thrown-into-battle-like-pigs/29039898.html (http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-syria-mercenaries-killed-widow-says-thrown-into-battle-like-pigs/29039898.html)
"The government should avenge them somehow"
although there is a decent chance we accidentally killed russians, they may accidentally kill a few dozen of our contractors next.
I read an article that mentions Putin may be testing us. Evidence points to the Russian troops crossing the line to launch an attack on our positions. I believe this could be a possibility.
Yes, they could certainly retaliate. We may be heading into a full on proxy war with "merc" casualties.
why the hell do we have any position in syria...we are uninvited, and have invaded a sovereign country. at some point we will be attacked from all sides...turkey, syria, russia, iran...we don't need to plant our flag there, nor should we. It should be of no surprise that we are seen as grand hypocrites when we attempt to chastise other nations for the same sort of transgressions we are guilty of.
Fathertime!
We need to rename Fathertime Jeanette Rankin.thats fine. So let's not whitewash that we (The US) are completely hypocritical when we chastise other nations when we are the greatest offender.
they may accidentally kill a few dozen of our contractors next.
Russia's official position is that they didn't know Russian paramilitary contractors were fighting in Syria. Russia has some of the best intelligence agencies in the world yet they didn't know Russians contractors using Russian tanks were fighting in Syria? I think they did know and paid them to attack American interests.
Death toll in the last battle was they lost a few hundred and we lost none. If they want to try to accidentally kill a few dozen of our troops, they may lose a few thousand trying. Putin may have wanted to test the abilities of the American military should he have to face them in Eastern Europe in the future. He got his answer. No need for further testing. Massive Russian casualties will hurt Putin's popularity among his people.
I'm not concerned about what Russia's official position is. Our official position is ludicrous.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'american interests', within the borders of a sovereign country like Syria would be. As is practically always the case, we aren't there to actually help anybody, but ourselves.
Just helping ourselves? Silly boy!
We were in Syria to defeat ISIS. To refresh your memory, ISIS was lopping off the heads of innocents and enslaving ethnic peoples in Syria and northern Iraq . ISIS also was terrorizing Europe with planned attacks, and hitting us indirectly. To strike a blow to ISIS ideology, someone had to take away their caliphate. Russia had given the defeat of ISIS a low priority compared to defending Assad against rebel forces. Europe was not doing much. That leaves the US.
So the US took the lead. In defeating ISIS, Kurds did most of the dirty work. Now that ISIS is mostly defeated, the sleaze Erdogan is attacking the Kurds. Evidently we are staying to help the Kurds and some Syrian rebel groups, IMO the Kurds deserve a homeland, and I hope the US is helping these proud people achieve exactly that. I gather we have armed them to their teeth but not the weapons to take on the Turks.
We are not invited in Syria while Russia and others are.
It isn't up to us to force a carving up of Syria. We don't even belong in the region, let alone trying to take the lead in perpetuating the war.
You are talking about the part of Syria controlled by Assad. The part where Russia has made multi-billion dollar investment in a naval base for Russian navy plus airfields, etc. Others? You mean Hezbollah. Iran. Fine people saving the world.No. How about you invite the North Korean army into your city? You don't have that authority. Without question, the US hasn't NOT been invited into Syria. Phony invites and excuses are not going to be accepted in this situation, and then not accepted in the next situation involving Russia, china, or any other country.
We certainly have been invited in some rebel controlled areas, plus Syrian homelands.
A war huh.
You are so myopic. Do you not realize there is a Shia-Sunni war brewing, and the implications are so severe it needs to be prevented.
No. How about you invite the North Korean army into your city? You don't have that authority. Without question, the US hasn't NOT been invited into Syria. Phony invites and excuses are not going to be accepted in this situation, and then not accepted in the next situation involving Russia, china, or any other country.
A war huh.
Sounds like a great big excuse to do whatever helps our own interests. We are not there to 'save' people *unless it a people that can forward our interests*, so the excuse that we are fair-minded liberators is just preposterous. You lack the ability to see reality, but it is entertaining to read the high handed, canned responses from individuals in the states.
Fathertime!
Aha, our 'expert' on the Levant strikes again ..I don't need to be an expert to know that several people are not experts, and that includes slap happy tourists, who want tot try to use their vacations as leverage in a discussion.
1/ Indeed, the Al-ASSad regime is the 'recognised govt' of Syria - but as the last Sec Gen pointed out - the 'elections' for President were hardly legit - bearing most of the nation's population was not under the 'firm hand' of the 'govt'
2/ The Russians and Chinese blocked a no fly zone resolution when Al-ASSad's air force was bombing demonstrators and 'we' stood back and let his happen, followed by the Kremlin trying a spot of Spanish Civil War like 'training' ..
FAR more people have been killed or maimed as a result of western inaction and the Kremlin and Iran propping up this dictatorial dynasty.
You - of course - ain't been there and haven't got a clue - but it doesn't stop you spouting your usual ( clueless) bollox ..
I am ashamed of how the UK parliament didn't back Cameron in a vote to help Obama form a coalition to enforce the no fly zone
I don't need to be an expert to know
that several people are not experts, and that includes slap happy tourists, who want tot try to use their vacations as leverage in a discussion.
Regardless, they have had the continuity of elected leadership for decades.
It isn't up to us *The US* to now set up shop with our military in a sovereign country and attempt to make them abide by what we want. If we had our way, by the time we are done, Syria will be another ineffective and permanent festering wound. We need to leave, and let the country stabilize instead of continuing to perpetuate a resistance that continues to kill people daily.
I, as well, have lived in the Middle East.
Damn right you can defer to me, although I didn't ask you to. It is hilarious that the view I have is such a threat to you.
To say Assad rules Syria is a mis-direct. But, then, that's just me, and my opinion. I certainly defer to Fathertime who knows all and sees all and comments from his arm chair.
Once again - you post- proving you DON'T know ...!I don't know you personal history, from what I've gathered here, there is some stuff in dispute about things you have stated about yourself, but I really don't pay close attention.
The usual Jone bs qualifier! haha. How about this one? I, for one, have lived in this galaxy. Can I please be qualified to speak? Oh pretty please! Damn right you can defer to me, although I didn't ask you to. It is hilarious that the view I have is such a threat to you.
Fathertime!
You aren't. You're just too dumb to recognize sarcasm.You aren't qualified to characterize anybody. You are too self-centered/self-important, to recognize what an individual would recognize.
You aren't qualified to characterize anybody. You are too self-centered/self-important, to recognize what an individual would recognize.
That was 'it'? Your 'riposte' to being busted re your intimate [ NOT] knowledge of Syrian 'democracy' and your ASSumptions re my visits ? :DWhat you quoted and responded to wasn't directed to you.
One of the many things I've learned is that you are not a reservoir of knowledge. Just a tourist who also has an opinion, and in this case disagrees with the one I have. I continue to hold that the USA doesn't belong in Syria, we have infringed upon a sovereign country and do not have a leg to stand on when we levy high-handed criticism upon other countries doing similar things.
Fathertime : this board is the Russian Woman Discussion forum.
You don't know Russian or Russia or Russian women and you've never been to these places - and constantly prove it ...
You DO like to argue and don't realise when you are just making an arse of yourself ;)
Perhaps this is how you learn stuff ?
What you quoted and responded to wasn't directed to you.
One of the many things I've learned is that you are not a reservoir of knowledge. Just a tourist who also has an opinion, and in this case disagrees with the one I have. I continue to hold that the USA doesn't belong in Syria, we have infringed upon a sovereign country and do not have a leg to stand on when we levy high-handed criticism upon other countries doing similar things.
Sadly, for you - my post was aimed at you and your 'knowledge' of Syria..I feel fine about what I know about Syria, my focus is the US part in it which I don't feel fine about. We have no business involving ourselves on the pretext we are there to help.
Ah, so repeating a fib is your new tactic when busted ?
As I said, I worked in N.Africa / Middle East and there was a smaller element of tourism - involving sailing and seeing places on not work days..
I respect your opinion re the USA not being the world's policeman and note it makes you more akin to 'Trampu' policy than you'd like to admit ...I'm more adverse to allowing genocide.. be it the Balkans, middle east, Africa, or Myanmar
It is noted you ducked my point about the name of this board and what you bring to the table... I'm sure the kopek dropped...
If you are too daft to realise my reservoir of knowledge is better stocked on the board's title- and in this case the Levant - then you'll not be surprised at my noting that you argue for the the sake of it ..
I don't think your comparison holds any water. I'm talking about US involvement, and I happen to be a member of the US. Come to think of it, using your 'logic' why couldn't I say that YOU should butt out? You are not a member of the US OR Syria.
Imagine I tipped up on a board discussing S./ Central American women - what with my 'fluent' Spanish / Portuguese and having travelled there lots [ not ] and trying to chew the fat re ( say ) Columbia/ Venezuela politics..
I'd be the FT of that board...
I feel fine about what I know about Syria
, my focus is the US part in it which I don't feel fine about. We have no business involving ourselves on the pretext we are there to help.
Again, I could tell you all sort of things/experiences but don't feel the need to.
What you say may or may not be accurate, and I really don't care very much. You are no expert, and I don't think I need to act as if you, and your opinions are that important. I'll hear you out on them, but in this case I'm not seeing good enough reason for us to remain in Syria, especially under the phony ploy we are publicly stating.
Trump may wind up being better at keeping us out of other country's affairs, but I'm starting to doubt it. Nobody is attempting to stop you from stating your opinion, I think it isnt' the right one to have, but so be it. I think the US efforts from the start have been more about avarice than genuine help, and have led to plenty more deaths than was necessary.
I don't think your comparison holds any water. I'm talking about US involvement, and I happen to be a member of the US. Come to think of it, using your 'logic' why couldn't I say that YOU should butt out? You are not a member of the US OR Syria.
The simple explanation was it debunked your earlier falsehood.
Yes, their history of elections was a masterpiece of in-depth knowledge...
You do not have the expertise to teach anybody anything much. Those with the expertise are divided on what should be done.
Except you ARE helping - you have stopped the Caliphate in the East of Syria from the Iraqi side..'You' just ( like my country) didn't have the balls to stop genocide, earlier - after the Iraq debacle
I suspect that would be your 'contact' with FSU folk on your own continent ...
You should care - you are basing your 'opinion' on bollox data.
It's hard to prove your bollox notion - but if you seriously think stopping Al-ASSad bombing 'his' people has been conducive to 'saving lives' - your perception filters may need some serious attention .
Laterly, 'we' woke up and ARE involved in Syria - having been part of the campaign to eradicate the Caliphate dream of 'ISIS' from the East ( Iraq) ..
Lets examine what a hypocritical position you are taking. According to you, I shouldn't comment on the US position on Syria, because according to you I haven't lived in Syria. Since that is your position, my position is you shouldn't comment on US involvement because you don't live in the USA and have been merely a transitory tourist in Syria. Seems fair enough to me! :D
It is noted you didn't counter my comparison with ANY valid riposte.. You ARE the guy on the RW board with b all to offer re RW or Russia and you know b all about Syria as demonstrated.
Always pleased to help with your howlers
The simple explanation was it debunked your earlier falsehood.
You do not have the expertise to teach anybody anything much.
Lets examine what a hypocritical position you are taking. According to you, I shouldn't comment on the US position on Syria, because according to you I haven't lived in Syria. Since that is your position, my position is you shouldn't comment on US involvement because you don't live in the USA and have been merely a transitory tourist in Syria. Seems fair enough to me! :D
Yet in our most recent exchanges ONLY I have quoted factual info..and done the debunking ;)
Three times repeating a lie ( transitory tourist ) suggests our FT has serious issues !
You are free to post here and I'm free to point out your nonsense.
MY analogy referred to your singular lack of knowledge re the board's ethos
You simply post opinions on stuff who haven't got the first clue about and 'fight it out' with opponents who wipe the floor with you on most subjects. WHY?... because you post in some threads where your clear like of experience on the subject is laughably obvious
You can't really say Assad was elected. In 2000, he was elected (as the sole nominee) with 99.7% support. In 2007, he was elected with 97.6% support. The last election was held 3 years into a bloody civil war, so those results (giving him 88.7% support) are not legitimate either.
No matter what you believe about Assad, he has been elected in sham elections which have no credibility.
It isn't up to the USA to barrel in and impose ourselves on the region especially in an effort to strengthen ourselves at others expense.
No, he is their version of an authoritarian leader. Not an elected leader.
Too late for that. A lot of this instability is a result of the illegal invasion of Iraq, so I think the US is under a moral obligation to try to broker peace.
while I agree the elections in Syria are not very good, and yes he was the sole nominee earlier, he has been their version of an elected leader.
It isn't up to the USA to barrel in and impose ourselves on the region especially in an effort to strengthen ourselves at others expense.
In other news Russia's official statement said about 5 Russians died from last weeks attack instead of hundreds as reported. That should make their citizens feel better.
Assad was elected in 2000 and in 2007 and in 2014. Close enough to two decades now.
And yes, you were likely a transitory tourist, just trying to bolster your creds, not unlike others. There are plenty of native Syrians, that hold completely opposite views as you do, so by your 'logic' (Not mine) you have been trumped by them.
I say he is elected
'elected' ?Please quote your 'source' :ROFL:Poor you, can't even look up a source. YOU can do your own searches, the info is plain to see.
'elected' ?Please quote your 'source' :ROFL:I have quite a few doubts about what you have stated about your personal history, but I don't feel the need to harp on that very much.
1/ I know considerably more Syrians that you do and even the Christian sects no longer respect Al-ASSad...
2/ FOUR times fibbing won't change a fact ...I was no 'tourist' - setting up comms infrastructure... You remind me of Brass ... facts were hard for him to take, too
If indeed we *The US* are responsible for the chaos, and I don't doubt we have a great deal of guilt, then we could actually help with a solution to end the war. At this point we are merely attempting to forward our own interests, at whatever cost is necessary for anyone who isn't in line with our plans.
I'm not saying you have to use force. But the US must be involved in a solution to the turmoil engulfing the region, as the US inflamed it, we could even argue, caused it.
Syria sponsored terrorism against American interests and allies. Just a little payback happening right now. Other Middle Eastern nations get along with us fine and we will help their nations from becoming destabilized by Iran or Syria.
What in particular are you talking about regarding state sponsored terrorism against American interests? American interests in Syria? What interests are we entitled to have within a foreign country? America should not be the deciding force in this war. We will rightfully be resented and retaliated against.
Fathertime!
Poor you, can't even look up a source. YOU can do your own searches, the info is plain to see.
I have quite a few doubts about what you have stated about your personal history, but I don't feel the need to harp on that very much.
Your overall ignorance/intolerance makes me think you aren't very competent in whatever you do, or have done. I don't care about your little dispute with former posters, based on your own words, you don't seem very credible to me. It is humorous how defensive you become though, so carry on!
FT for. "I'm busted and am just too 'proud' to admit that the Al-ASSad dynasty wasn't elected "- :thumbsdown:A UN delegation stated the elections were free and fair. That doesn't necessarily have to be believed though to state that this is the Government of Syria and the latest election process was iffy...but given the circumstances that is the best that can be done.
I now know they came to power in a coup - no 'elections' and even when one was held - it was a farce - with even the then UN Sec Gen dissing it.. Just don't expect me to thank you for proving I was an idiot"
You seem to think your personal history is very important to the discussion regarding Syria. I really don't think it is, and to be frank, I don't believe the way you comment on yourself. It is odd to me that you would even try to pump yourself up like that.
That'll be because you know I can( easily) back it up... ;)
Na, no valid ripost here, either .. FT's last resort? ..bore us with meaningless 'insults' ..the only 'ignorance' is your repeating fibs and inability to put your hands up when busted re the 'history' you based your 'stance' on.
...You don't know Russian or Russia or Russian women and you've never been to these places - and constantly prove it ...
A UN delegation stated the elections were free and fair.
Too late for that. A lot of this instability is a result of the illegal invasion of Iraq....
...so I think the US is under a moral obligation to try to broker peace.
Moby, I can remember fathertime posting a while ago that he HAD visited Ukraine. As for the rest of it, I couldn't possibly comment.I've done many things, although unlike mody, generally I find it pointless to try to use any traveling for business or pleasure as a currency of great value in a discussion here. It is humorous for a tourist like himself try to pretend he has unique knowledge. Even living in the USA doesn't necessarily mean an individual really has the credentials to act as if his opinion is the absolute truth. Generally it is foolish people that dismiss and think their incomplete and/or biased interpretation of events is the only thing that can be correct. Mody fills that role perfectly and for that I must thank him for his entertainment value. The position I have has been unchanged by his comments.
I'm sure that FT will let me know if I'm right or wrong.
The position I have has been unchanged by his comments.
Moby, I can remember fathertime posting a while ago that he HAD visited Ukraine. As for the rest of it, I couldn't possibly comment.
I'm sure that FT will let me know if I'm right or wrong.
'Positions' like Syria has had free elections under the Al-ASSad dynasty ? !The latest election was considered free and fair by many, other elections were likely done unfairly. As an outsider, it really isn't my business to dictate how Syria is or has been run. Prior to the war they were a stable country, and Assad was considered to be moderate relatively speaking. Now, during a western backed civil war all bets are off.
I really don't think you need to apologize. What would be better is to respond what is said, rather than trying to discredit the individual making the point. Reminds me of what Laura Ingraham just tried to do to LeBron James this week. His response and her response to his response is putting her in a tight spot.
If FT has been to Ukraine, that is indeed the FSU and unlike him, I'm willing to apologise for posting bollox ..
The latest election was considered free and fair by many,
other elections were likely done unfairly. As an outsider, it really isn't my business to dictate how Syria is or has been run. Prior to the war they were a stable country, and Assad was considered to be moderate relatively speaking. Now, during a western backed civil war all bets are off.
I really don't think you need to apologize. What would be better is to respond what is said, rather than trying to discredit the individual making the point. Reminds me of what Laura Ingraham just tried to do to LeBron James this week. His response and her response to his response is putting her in a tight spot.
Fathertime!
More FT obuscation
Fess up man - you're busted and you know it..
1/ NOT as you claimed by the UN. - you'll know the feelings of the then UN Sec Gen, by now - I've pointed them out to you 3 times, already - such is your obstinance to fact when presented
You knew b all about the Al-ASSad dynasty and 'moderate' was an aspiration the west hoped for - under Al-ASSad mark II... sadly, it has become clear that his advisers were more concerned about not being arrested by a victorious democratic movement - oppression it from the get go with unreasonable and disproportionate force .
IF the west had imposed a no-fly zone - it is likely Al-ASSad and his cronies would have gone ..
Had the west had attempted a no fly zone, we can't say for sure what the result would have been. The war would have likely been wider, and involved many of the world powers is what I think.
Maybe this duplicates something already posted by others.
Wagner’s failed attack on US forces in Syria ‘led by former Russian Marine officer’
http://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/wagners-failed-attack-us-forces-syria-led-former-russian-marine-officer.html (http://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/wagners-failed-attack-us-forces-syria-led-former-russian-marine-officer.html)
That's because you have no balls at all. A no fly zone would not have led to war and would likely have reduced the number of Syrian casualties and refugees.
I don't think we need to 'stand up' to Putin. It is more like more nations need to stand up to the US. We are the ones doing as much pushing as anyone, probably more. Due to our wealth, we can afford tactics that are sometimes less barbaric but it is still us pushing. It is only those that are willfully blind that can't see it.
When do you believe we should stand up to Putin? When they take military control of the future Artic shipping lanes? Never?
No one likes war, but there comes a time when one has to take a stand. If not, tyrants will push you again and again.
That's because you have no balls at all. A no fly zone would not have led to war and would likely have reduced the number of Syrian casualties and refugees.
There is more. As stated in much earlier posts in this thread, a crisis developed in 2013 when Assad used chemical weapons against the rebels, thus crossing Obama's red line. Putin bluffed Obama into not bombing Assad even though I showed in my posts the Russian Navy told Putin they could not defeat the US Navy in the Med. Obama's weakness emboldened Putin, who already felt untouchable after Bush did little when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. So Putin felt free to take an even more aggressive step - he seized Crimea from Ukraine in early 2014.
At least in regard to Crimea, the West hit Russia with sanctions. Noteworthy, upon being hit with sanctions, the Russian government started its program to interfere in the US elections.
When do you believe we should stand up to Putin? When they take military control of the future Artic shipping lanes? Never?
No one likes war, but there comes a time when one has to take a stand. If not, tyrants will push you again and again.
On Al Jazeera today, apparently Assad's forces are to join the Kurds in throwing back the Hungarian army in a cross the border incursion to punish the Kurds in Afrin. Hungary is emphatic that if such support is provided, that there will be war between the two countries. However, Assad cannot claim control of his state if he cannot demonstrate control over this area.
Not only do you lack balls, but also lack the wisdom to make a good judgement as it pertains to wars or individuals. I think ultimately a no fly zone would have created a larger and unnecessary war, in a place where we are not wanted.
I don't think we need to 'stand up' to Putin. It is more like more nations need to stand up to the US. We are the ones doing as much pushing as anyone, probably more. Due to our wealth, we can afford tactics that are sometimes less barbaric but it is still us pushing. It is only those that are willfully blind that can't see it.
I think you meant Turkish army, not Hungarian army.
a crisis developed in 2013 when Assad used chemical weapons against the rebels, thus crossing Obama's red line. Putin bluffed Obama into not bombing Assad even though I showed in my posts the Russian Navy told Putin they could not defeat the US Navy in the Med. Obama's weakness emboldened Putin
Unlike you I gave an analysis of why this would not lead to larger war. Where is your analysis of why it would lead to larger war.I don't agree with your speculative analysis, it is not a requirement for me to give a detailed speculative analysis to disagree with yours. In a broad stroke, I don't think Russia would have stood idle had we started to get more aggressive.
How many Syrians would have been saved if Syria could not bomb rebel positions? Another way of pahrasing this is to ask how many Syrians were killed, injured or made homeless by barrel bombs?
This suggests that you believe the US is a greater threat to world stability than Russia. If true, I am stunned. Folks we have found someone working for the Russian troll factory and doing it wittingly. Someone report it to Mueller.
I don't think Russia would have stood idle had we started to get more aggressive.
We just took out some of their best forces and they are sitting idle.Without knowing all the details that may be true, and it may or may not have been a situation where we unintentionally targeted them. Perhaps they are biding their time for now, but if indeed we targeted and killed a bunch of Russians, I'd expect some retaliation when the opportunity arises, doesn't have to be today or tomorrow.
t if indeed we targeted and killed a bunch of Russians, I'd expect some retaliation when the opportunity arises, doesn't have to be today or tomorrow.
Two months ago Putin announces mission in Syria is accomplished and orders the withdrawal of troops. There's not supposed to be any Russian troops left in Syria and if there are, there should be no activity from them since the Russian mission is accomplished and over. With the election next month, Russian citizens can feel comfortable voting for Putin now since he got the job done in Syria and pulled out it's troops with minimal casualties. Of course all this good news is happening right before an election. What a coincidence.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/11/vladimir-putin-orders-russian-forces-to-start-pulling-out-of-syria.html
before we cast too many stones elsewhere, look at how Donald J. Trump's truth meter stacks up on Politifact:
(http://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/4jR02YY.JzNzHnTNeI9GwA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/52f0f4b07ea5a8f6509bbe66a04119f2)
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/)
Nonetheless, I agree that Trump has a way of looking at things askew from the rest of reality.He just flat out lies. He knows it doesn't matter very much, so it is calculated in a rough way. Our society has allowed him to get away with it...while many encourage him to continue or even repeat things they know are lies as if they are facts. This is partially why we are so 'exceptional' here in the USA!
before we cast too many stones elsewhere, look at how Donald J. Trump's truth meter stacks up on Politifact:
Politifact is owned by the Tampa Bay Times. They haven't endorsed a Republican candidate at the state or federal level this century. Politifact almost always claim Republicans are lying and they rarely claim a Democrat is lying. The media has been cruel to Trump making up stories on him yet they feel qualified in making these "independent" sites that know what is and what isn't true. What honest journalist is so well respected that people elected him/her to Congress? I don't think highly of most journalists either. They care less about truth and more about the entertainment value of their work so they can get people reading.
It seems any that publication/website that doesn't agree with the conservative view on certain issues is considered biased by conservatives.
When a "truth" website never endorses Republicans and always endorse Democrats, they are bias. I don't need a conservative website to tell me that. Trump lies a lot because the liberal media says he lies a lot. To me that means Trump doesn't lie a lot. I do not have faith the media owns the truth and I don't think they are qualified to judge Trump because they have an agenda against him.
Here is a link to some of Trump's lies.
I don't have time to address all the politifact crap but lets take the first one since it's been in recent news "Donald Trump falsely says he never denied Russian meddling"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/19/donald-trump/donald-trump-falsely-denies-he-denied-russian-medd/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/19/donald-trump/donald-trump-falsely-denies-he-denied-russian-medd/)
Can you show me anywhere on the internet where he denies Russian meddling of the elections based on Muellers recent revelations of Russia's activities on social media?
Trump denies collusion. He said it may be Russia, China or a 400lb man hacking into Hillary's emails. Because Trump said that in the past, Politifact is claiming Trump lied but Trump didn't lie. Trump has never denied Russia being involved in meddling. He only denies collusion with Russia and he was always open to Russia possibly being involved with the meddling.
Politifact says "During an overseas trip to Asia in November 2017, Trump spoke of his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A reporter asked how Trump brought up the issue of Russian meddling in the U.S. election."Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn't do that,’ " Trump said. "And I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it."
While politifact is reporting truth, they are leaving out truth so their truth is a lie. I remember that time and all the irresponsible journalism that came out giving us the impression Trump is believing every word Putin says. In the link below is responsible journalism where Fox News actually reported everything Trump said pertaining to his meeting with Putin and Trump said "As to whether I believe it, I'm with our agencies,” the president added. “As currently led by fine people, I believe very much in our intelligence agencies.”[/color]
[/size]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/12/trump-says-stands-with-us-intel-agencies-on-russian-meddling.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/12/trump-says-stands-with-us-intel-agencies-on-russian-meddling.html)
[/color]Currently, as you been reading, the mainstream media is claiming Trump never believed Russia was involved with the meddling of our elections but I remember a few times he admitted it was Russians. So the media and Politifact is lying to you, not Trump.
He told Putin, to his face, that he believed that the Russians weren't involved in our campaign.
Interesting interview on the Wagner merc recruiter in Russia. And details on troop losses from US airstrikes several weeks back.
http://www.france24.com/en/20180223-russia-fighters-syria-exclusive-interview-mercenary-wagner?ref=fb (http://www.france24.com/en/20180223-russia-fighters-syria-exclusive-interview-mercenary-wagner?ref=fb)
They got their assess handed to them before American ground troops could get into the fight.
Ahem,
The relations DO know when their loved ones are killed
1/ They read / see /read about it ..
I posted an article about merciany casualties in Syria from Oct / Nov 2017 and a Moscow Times article that predates yahoo and company ..
We are talking about a battle that happened Feb 2018.
Utter stupidity to me...
The UN [security council] meets to vote on a cease fire.
Why did they have to all agree on stopping the bloodshed?
Utter stupidity to me...The UN [security council] meets to vote on a cease fire. Why did they have to all agree on stopping the bloodshed?Unfortunately implicit in the UN Charter, produced by the winners of WWII, the US, UK, Russia, France and China: they made sure that any of them could veto an unwelcome resolution ;).
BillyB
What did firing a few Tomahawks do to stop Al Assad and his sponsors?
Did the wholesale slaughter stop?
Liberal leaders call for challenge to Gabbard over Syria skepticismhttp://www.cnn.com/2017/04/09/politics/democratic-leaders-gabbard-syria/index.html
A handful of mavericks in Congress have said they want to see more evidence of Assad's involvement (CNN)A pair of veteran leaders on the left, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden, called on Hawaiians to vote Rep. Tulsi Gabbard out of office after the Democrat questioned whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for last week's chemical attack."People of Hawaii's 2nd District -- was it not enough for you that your rep met with a murderous dictator? Will this move you?" Tanden tweeted Friday in response to Gabbard's comments on CNN that she is "skeptical" Assad is responsible for the chemical attack.
So far Trump has been better than hillary would have been...who knows how far she would have went in an intervention but I think it would have been further than Trump.
Remember that H Clinton wanted to remove Assad?
With Assad gone who would be in charge there?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/09/politics/democratic-leaders-gabbard-syria/index.html
No one ever came up with absolute concrete proof that Assad launched the attacks last year or did this time.
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=21587.msg480685#msg480685
No one ever came up with absolute concrete proof that Assad launched the attacks last year or did this time.
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=21587.msg480685#msg480685 (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=21587.msg480685#msg480685)
UN found Assad guilty last year.Diminished anyway.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons.html) ISIS .... is wiped out so it couldn't be them.
Exactly :-\
You have a city surrounded. All you have to do is conduct a siege. So you piss off the whole world by throwing in a bunch of weapons of mass destruction. And threaten your own government...
So, why wasn't Assad arrested then?
Something smells fishy in Syria. You have a city surrounded. All you have to do is conduct a siege. So you piss off the whole world by throwing in a bunch of weapons of mass destruction. And threaten your own government and the government that is protecting you (Russia.)Trump doesn't have it within him to do such a thing in my opinion, so unless the CIA is acting on it's own I'd take the US off of that list.
What a Ko-Inky-Dink.
Most likely candidate list who really set off the weapons:
1. CIA
2. Israeli Army
3. Kurds
4. Anyone but Assad
The UN makes International law. They don't enforce International law. They'll send inspectors, observers and peacekeepers but they never send peacemakers.
Which illustrates the point that the United Nations is useless.You - meaning the USA - were those who most pressed for its creation :D.
Will the actions result in Russia ending support for the Al assad dynasty?
True help would be aid forr refugees ..
Russia has stated they will target where the missiles come from. Generally the US strikes from afar with impunity. If what Trump/Putin say is accurate, this will be different. It is an unnecessary escalation, likely based on a lie. Even many Trump supporters suspect it wasn't assad that suddenly used chemical weapons, yet we have bolton/trump leading the way, so bad things may happen.
Upcoming attack on Syria may be big. France and UK may participate. French prez Macron said the upcoming attack will target Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles. Seems like Russia failed to rid the country of chemical weapons yet we know where they store them. Trump sending a carrier group over there. Russian and Iranian forces moving into safe zones in preparation for the anticipated spanking.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ap-sources-us-france-and-uk-discuss-gas-attack-response/ar-AAvKbrt?ocid=ientp
Russia has stated they will target where the missiles come from. Generally the US strikes from afar with impunity. If what Trump/Putin say is accurate, this will be different. It is an unnecessary escalation, likely based on a lie. Even many Trump supporters suspect it wasn't assad that suddenly used chemical weapons, yet we have bolton/trump leading the way, so bad things may happen.
Fathertime!
Based on your record of failing to accept defeat when your 'assumptions' - based on bollox data - are proven somewhat lacking - you'll forgive the guffaw ;)Despite your insistence, I don't believe you know much of anything about Syria, so I'm not buying your all encompassing creds.
I am NO Trump supporter and I know MUCH more about Syria than you.... Without doubt it was used in April last year - dropped from Syrian war planes - and the regime keeps denying it has such weapons - yet only one side - the anti-Assad side keeps getting gassed ..
BillyB
You quote my points / questions but respond as if you never read them.
Let's try again... Will a response stop Al Assad from doing what he wants? Did it last time?
So, why not do something USEFUL, instead of using ordinance that will need to be replaced?
The time to act was long ago.
To those that do not believe Assad gassed his encircled enemies here is an alternate point of view.....
To those that do not believe Assad gassed his encircled enemies here is an alternate point of view.
When a city is surrounded and dug in it can be very difficult to finish up the task at hand. There are special tools or weapons designed to finish off the difficult task of urban warfare. In Fallujah we used SMAW's. Assad does not have access to these types of weapons, he has chemical weapons that are used to penetrate the hard to reach nooks and crannies.
All that said, I don't see the evidence or motive for Assad to use gas at this time, with the war well in hand.
Interesting, we (The US) perhaps like to claim we use more humane weapons
All that said, I don't see the evidence or motive for Assad to use gas at this time, with the war well in hand.
Which only goes to PROVE how little you know about SyriaSo far that is the extent of your incredible 'reasoning'. Haha. :ROFL:
So far that is the extent of your incredible 'reasoning'.
You have had chapter and verse, before..
You have never been there, do not know as many Syrians as I do and would not know what you were ordering in a Syrian restaurant..I am lucky enough to have seen places such as Palmyra before Daesh
You would be clueless in the Levant
I see, you have been to a Syrian restaurant, and feel that is very relevant to chemical weapons, Trump, and the American response. Very sound reasoning, to be expected.
Ri-ight - so even irony is beyond you..Thank you for posting more of your “all knowing” ignorance!
*I* gave been to Syrian Restaurants IN Syria ...
Unlike you, I can name every UN resolution that Russia and China have blocked to prop up Assad...
You couldn't understand how utterly daft you sound every time to post something you thing you know about Syria ..
I leave the floor to your ignorance
Russia isn't doing anything. Putin called Netanyahu earlier and begged him not to interfere.So far, it is Trump that isn't doing anything...although he said he was going to. We shall see.
So far, it is Trump that isn't doing anything...
I seriously doubt 'putin' begged netanyahu regarding anything...but if you have a transcript I'd like to see it.
The use of the word 'maybe' should be enough to give Trump pause....I suspect the word to use is 'probably', but either way, the US shouldn't be even thinking of firing missiles on a 'maybe' or a 'likely' etc etc. The war hawks would like an immediate response before people even have time to think about it. If missiles come to pass this time, I think we will indeed see a stiff Russian response, so this could be for all the marbles so having a president that has a few marbles missing isn't a good situation for us *The US*.
I might not know 'all about Syria' but I am keen to the ways of propaganda.
Not saying necessarily it is but then maybe it could be?
Today the Russians are saying that someone else dropped the weapons, not the Syrians. They can't get their excuses correct.
Having second thoughts?
Mattis says US ‘still assessing intelligence’ on alleged Syria attack Published time: 11 Apr, 2018 17:28
Amid Donald Trump’s bullish rhetoric, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis suggested that the US remains uncertain about the details of what exactly occurred in Douma on April 7, adding that no decision has been made to strike Syria.
http://www.rt.com/usa/423857-mattis-syria-intelligence-trump/ (http://www.rt.com/usa/423857-mattis-syria-intelligence-trump/)
I seriously doubt 'putin' begged netanyahu regarding anything...but if you have a transcript I'd like to see it.
I read Mattis's thoughts elsewhere. He said our military will be ready when the president asks to perform the task. Mattis and our Navy are preparing as if they are on a bombing mission 100%
I don't have the transcript of their private conversation. There are a number of articles with the general gist. Israel wants Iranian blood and Putin is trying to talk them down. Israel has S400 killers in their arsenal...
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/in-call-to-netanyahu-putin-urges-israel-not-to-take-action-in-syria-1.5992415 (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/in-call-to-netanyahu-putin-urges-israel-not-to-take-action-in-syria-1.5992415)
And Israel calling for a strike after the talk with Huilo.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/netanyahu-calls-action-against-syria-699493981 (http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/netanyahu-calls-action-against-syria-699493981)
I read somewhere that Mattis slipped up and used the past tense in regards to the decision to strike.
4. The Russian Foreign Ministry welcomes the sending of the OPCW mission to Syria. Groups of experts can arrive to Douma at the end of the week. If experts begin their work, the war probability will decrease, so the period before their arrival is optimal for a strike in order to disrupt the investigation.
I don't believe those obscure articles.
hehe that was a cool link!
http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=putin+netanyahu (http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=putin+netanyahu)
I don't doubt the two of them spoke on the phone....but the word you used was "Begged". I'd believe the articles saying "urged, warns, asks"....Articles using the characterization "begged" are the ones I don't believe.
If Israel is the one that acts they could face a serious repercussion, that Russia would prefer to not give. Seems like a fair warning. The stakes could become too high and Israel may be more aware of this after the phone call.
Of course he did not literally beg man :)
Putin definitely is trying to keep Israel out of the fray though for obvious reasons.
If Israel is the one that acts they could face a serious repercussion, that Russia would prefer to not give. Seems like a fair warning. The stakes could become too high and Israel may be more aware of this after the phone call.
A year ago, the Americans were sure that the zarin in Syria was used by Assad's troops, but recently the US Secretary of Defense admitted that there was no evidence... BillyB, any comments? :D
China Says U.S. Should Give Syria's Assad 'an Opportunity to Explain' Before Trump Attacks
Russian state TV tells viewers to pack essentials for WW3 bomb shelters - including iodine to protect against radiation
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/state-run-russian-tv-tells-12349859
Are we heading for World War 3 and who would win? From Russia and US tensions over Syria to North Korea’s nuclear tests
http://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2070034/ww3-world-war-three-russia-usa-north-korea-who-would-win/
Israel called for a military strike and was quite firm on Iran's presence in Syria AFTER the call with Putin.Israel probably benefits from turmoil in syria, they seem to perpetuate when they can get away with it. In my opinion, Israel shouldn't expect compliance with their attempts to govern who is in Syria and who isn't. That would be like Canada telling us that we may not associate with Germans, or Russians, etc etc.
Are we heading for World War 3 and who would win? From Russia and US tensions over Syria to North Korea’s nuclear tests
http://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2070034/ww3-world-war-three-russia-usa-north-korea-who-would-win/
The report said that the United States government had been secretly run by a "shadow government" of space aliens since 1945.
According to a few UK domestic and foreign media sources British special forces operating in Syria been captured by the Syrian Army? Maybe they're not British special forces only British troops or maybe only militants of some nationality somehow allied with the UK or US or NATO?
The USA has been wrong on Syria from the beginning of the Obummer debacle almost 8 years ago. That idiot, and I apologize to idiots everywhere for lumping him into their fine brotherhood, wouldn't know foreign policy if it passed him on the street.
Obviously all life on the planet loses if nuclear weapons are used.
Obama was quite right to suggest a no fly zone as ASSad was putting down Syria's version of the Arab Spring by simply bombing areas that were historically Suni - the protests were PEACEFUL
Suggesting something without enforcement is silly. Obama made it clear a long time ago he wasn't going to get deeply involved in the Syrian war so Russia took the lead. If Russian planes bomb civilians they call terrorists, American fighter planes won't do anything about it.
BillyB
You may actually have the attention span of a Goldfish
Implimenting a no fly zone has stopped Saddam further gassing Kurds...
Saddam didn't have the backing of Russia nor did he have the protection of Russian veto power at the UN.
Obama should've claimed the skies before Russia entered the war so that a no fly zone could be enforced.
Now Russia owns lots of the Syrian sky and there would be no way to enforce a no fly zone.
Try rational thinking sometimes. It works.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1409853/Russia-threatens-to-veto-Iraq-resolution.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1409853/Russia-threatens-to-veto-Iraq-resolution.html)
"America's campaign to obtain United Nations backing for military action against Iraq has virtually collapsed after Russia signalled it would veto any new Security Council resolution threatening force against Saddam Hussein's regime."
Er, that WAS the plan ..British MPs let him down and 'bang' - no coalition...
Hello, anybody home? In your link the USA was asking UN backing for a war on Iraq, not a no fly zone. Russia benefited from Iraq violating UN resolutions. They didn't want Saddam to leave. YUUUUGE different between asking for war over a no fly zone.
So Obama has a scapegoat why he couldn't get a no fly zone going in Syria to save lives and prevent chemical weapons attack?
YOU told us that Saddam's Iraq didn't have protection .. I demonstrated you were clueless - Russia constantly pointed out that UN resolution 668 did not cover a NFZ
I'd also speculate that whoever did release gas did it in such a way that it would look like it was Assad.
There was no release of chemical weapons. The official position from the Russian and Syrian governments is there are no traces of chemical weapons. Russia can disprove the photos and videos exist so they are claiming it was staged at the direction of the UK. Russian isn't supplying evidence how they come to that conclusion. They don't even have photos and videos of their own investigation to show they did it.
I"d like to see the USA back up their statements with fact.
Why would Assad suddenly partake in an outrageous event like this, in order to keep Trump in Syria, to a far greater extent? Makes no sense at all.
Is all the partner clinics lying in unison or is Russia lying when they say there was no trace of chemicals in their investigation?
Well, while we sleep it seems the US FR and UK insulted the Russian President..
Is there anything we can do to make Putin feel better? :sad:
And of course, all talk from Russia. Nothing done on their end, they even let RAF Tornados in to bomb targets in areas under their control.
Well, they can hardly shoot em down if outside Syrian airspace
I could be mistaken
It's all a game. Trump huffs and puffs, Putin moves his ragged navy out of port for a planned event, flies his planes to Iran, and Syria moves the chemical weapons to a new location. We shoot missiles at empty warehouses for a fireworks show. Everyone is happy and saves face.
Trump says "Mission Accomplished" ...
That's what W said [I recall]
These members sole connection appears to be the fact that they have a Russian wife, although some are not even in a relationship with a Russian. Makes me wonder why they're so pro Russia and anti American/anti UK?
New to these forums and I was looking at one of RWD's competing sites that has been mentioned here before, RUA. Their opinion of the Syrian conflict seems to be diametrically opposed to what is generally stated here. Many of RUA's members back Russia and Syria, most without reservation, even though the members appear to be mostly Americans and Brits.
None of RUA's members appear to live or have lived in Russia/FSU and appear to spend little time in the FSU. These members sole connection appears to be the fact that they have a Russian wife, although some are not even in a relationship with a Russian. Makes me wonder why they're so pro Russia and anti American/anti UK?
You were ! ))
As soon as the Tornados leave Akrotiri and clear Cypriot airspace they can fire without being in Syrian airspace - the range of the fire and forget missiles used is 300 miles
I lived on the front at the extreme RHS of the photo ( Limassol, Cyprus)
(http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/27B5/production/_100856101_c30229d0-e0c6-4055-ae62-96b7849fb633.jpg)
The members on the other forum are mostly Brits married to Russian women. Many of them currently live, have lived, or own second homes in Russia. The site owner and admins are all very pro Russian and lean that way. Several of them have been involved (paid?) with Russian media.
Some of those guys there leaned extreme left before they got married. I've debated a few of those guys in the past. Although extreme left to us Americans, they are just on the left from a European viewpoint.
As the Tornado is close to retirement I wonder if any increased pace of Operations will accelerate the retirement schedule. I can't see the RAF paying for airframes to undergo deep maintenance.
There is a very different style of moderation elsewhere.
What is interesting the number of lurkers on forums has only slightly dipped over time.
Bleed their faltering economy dry so they turn over and expose their weak underbelly.
This would be a rerun (of sorts) of the Reagan play book.
Will it work this time around ?
There's 2 Brits who live in Russia, one who says he lives in Estonia, knows b'all Russian and posts as if he is an expert on women and is perennially single.
48 hours after Western missile strike, undamaged Syrian air force resumes its operationshttp://theduran.com/48-hours-after-western-missile-strike-syrian-air-forces-resumes-operations/
Syrian air force returns to the skies of Syria, bombing Jihadis as it did before the missile strike
The missile strike launched by the US, Britain and France continues to puzzle.
It appears that no-one was killed during the strike, and that the only damage done was to a number of civilian buildings – first and foremost those of the Syrian Scientific Centre in Damascus – which according to reports the Syrian authorities – amply warned by the Russians, Western media reports and President Trump’s tweets – had evacuated three days before.
Meanwhile no part of the Syrian armed forces seems to have been damaged in the least. Where the strike on Al-Shayrat air base last year did at least do some damage to the base and did destroy a few aircraft, the latest strike has not damaged a single one.
Yes, W said that in 2003 pertaining to the end of the war in Iraq and it came back to haunt him.
From the few photos released I've seen of the damaged buildings they appear to be empty. Just concrete and rebar shown. No signs of office equipment or paperwork littering the outsides of the buildings. Trump told them we're coming so they had time to empty the buildings and hide all valuable equipment and military hardware on Russian bases.
It's all a game. Trump huffs and puffs, Putin moves his ragged navy out of port for a planned event, flies his planes to Iran, and Syria moves the chemical weapons to a new location. We shoot missiles at empty warehouses for a fireworks show. Everyone is happy and saves face.I guess so.
Operation Desert Stormy is over. Strike package Bravo has been delivered. Trump says "Mission Accomplished". It's a much weaker attack than Trump promised targeting known chemical weapons facilities. Putin will feel the threats and pressure he applied had made an impact on Trump's decision. Assad's conventional weapons systems are still intact and they will take their revenge out on the rebels and civilians while the rest of the world is too tired to pay attention to their never ending war.that seems like a good analysis to me, except for the assad comment regarding him taking out revenge on civilians. He is still going to decimate 'rebels' though, which is what happens in a war.
that seems like a good analysis to me, except for the assad comment regarding him taking out revenge on civilians. He is still going to decimate 'rebels' though, which is what happens in a war.
Fathertime!
The majority of the ethnic Russians regard the Estonian judicial system has far more equitable than the Russian judicial system and have used it to fight against what they perceive as injustices.
The Estonian government is very much anti Russia and everyone must learn and master Estonian to have Estonian citizenship. Many ethnic Russians returned to Russia in the last almost 3 decades. Those that stayed believe their opportunities are better in Estonia than in Russia.
Sadly, I cannot agree with your vision.
As you move closer to the border with Russia... like in Latvia, many ethnic Russians resent having to learn, let alone speak the lingo and won't sign the declaration at the bottom of the language test.
Lithuania was much wiser when automatically making residents citizens.
This would be a rerun (of sorts) of the Reagan play book.
Will it work this time around ?
I agree with your assessment that many ethnic Russians living in the border region with Russia probably aren't fluent in Estonian, won't speak Estonian or simply have never bothered to learn it which means no Estonian citizenship. Lithuania's path may have been wiser although ethnic Russians in Lithuania are a much smaller percentage of the total population so their influence in Lithuania is greatly reduced.
However, according to the locals when I was there most of these ethnic Russians in the border areas are the older generation and most of the younger generation of ethnic Russians grew up speaking Estonian in the larger population centers of Estonia instead of the border areas with Russia. Also while the border regions with Russia have the highest percentage of Russian speakers. The majority of the Russian speakers are concentrated around the larger population centers of Tallinn, Tartu and other larger towns and cities according to Wikipedia. I would guess because jobs and lifestyles are better in more urban environments.
Haven't heard of Russia giving out Russian passports and citizenship to anyone who wants it in Estonia and the other Baltic States but I wouldn't be surprised if Putin tried it in the future.
My wife was in, Estonia last year. She said none of the young people speak Russian anymore. Like Dave says it is mostly the older ethnic Russians that still cling to it.
There was quite a bit of animosity towards the Russians. My wife was expelled from the country for illegal entry due to this. They detained and interrogated her for not having an entry stamp in her passport (most countries fail to stamp when entering via private jet). Wife is a Uke, but all the passengers were Russian celebrities and immigration was not excited to be blessed with their presence.
I bet you weren't in Narva.
Trump is going to apply sanctions on Russia again due to their support of the Syrian chemical weapons program. Obama had the same intel and did nothing about it. Trump continues to do more against Russia in less than two years than Obama did in eight years. At this pace, I think Russia is going to support the Democrats in the next few elections...
I wonder if the alleged (that apparently never happened) chemical attack was used to justify bombing Syria for no other reason than to 'test' Russian defensive capability.
I wonder if the alleged (that apparently never happened) chemical attack was used to justify bombing Syria for no other reason than to 'test' Russian defensive capability.
Of course you can take the test theory one step further. Putin knew of the coming attack and deduced that the attack was really a 'test' of the Russian missile defense capability so Putin ordered the Russian missile batteries to stand down. This would account for the fact that, according to the Americans, none of their missiles were intercepted.
It seems the new consensuses is that their wasn't THAT much evidence that Assad was the one releasing chemical weapons.
It seems the new consensuses is that their wasn't THAT much evidence that Assad was the one releasing chemical weapons.
Breaking News, RT are reporting that the Kremlin Foreign Ministery spokes person Maria Zakharova is claiming the rebels were using 'smoke canisters made in Salisbury' :) )
“In the liberated areas of Eastern Ghouta, Syrian government troops have found containers with chlorine – the most horrible kind of chemical weapons – from Germany, and also smoke grenades produced – please pay attention [to this] – in the city of Salisbury, the UK,” Zakharova told a news conference in Moscow on Thursday."
Of course you can take the test theory one step further. Putin knew of the coming attack and deduced that the attack was really a 'test' of the Russian missile defense capability so Putin ordered the Russian missile batteries to stand down. This would account for the fact that, according to the Americans, none of their missiles were intercepted.
No idea where you are reading that except for the Russian trolls. The French report has been declassified.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-france-intellige/french-declassified-intelligence-report-on-syria-gas-attacks-idUSKBN1HL0N1 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-france-intellige/french-declassified-intelligence-report-on-syria-gas-attacks-idUSKBN1HL0N1)
"For the first 15 minutes, American military officials called their Russian counterparts and urged them to stop the attack"
http://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html)
They've tested their equipment against ours. Syria is a great place for testing and understand how Russian will fare in a larger scale war against America.
Russia has some of the best intelligence in the world and they give intelligence to Syria and Wagner. Someday the young Syrian and Russian men who survived that battle will understand their leaders knew the situation and sent them into a fight with America's elite soldiers and into an area where America had control of the skies. They will someday understand they were used as guinea pigs.
Russia has some of the best intelligence in the world
You base this 'theory ' on ?
You base this 'theory ' on ?
You base this 'theory ' on ?
You upset Russia can sneak WMDs into UK and use them on people UK is trying to hide? Wake up and look around what's going on in the world. Russia hacked into the Pentagon, White House, among many other less important things and extract information. They are very good at getting information in a variety of ways and they haven't outlawed torture.
1/ Did Sergei Skripal change his name ? Did he 'retire' - or was he 'active' and annoying to the Kremlin? It's not like he was hiding ..
2/ Getting a binary nerve agent into the country isn't that difficult - until the two compounds are mixed - it ain't a nerve agent
3/ Ukraine also has a reputation for 'hackers' and you assume the best ones work for govts ? The pay is crap and most aren't 'patriots' .. Example ... Telegram is banned in Russia - there were active moves to block it .. yet a received a call on it from a Russian - who didn't KNOW it was banned ;)
10 Russian spies were traded for Sergei. His brother died two years ago. In unknown circumstances his son died last year on a trip to St. Petersburg. He's still in the game but you think he has no reason to hide from Russia and I'm daft.
So you're saying it's easy to import ingredients to make chemical weapons into your country and I'm daft.
Intelligence agencies proved it was Russian hackers that hacked everything American, not Ukrainian. They could not prove I'm daft.