Russia-US relations

[GQBlues]

Perhaps. However, I'm pretty sure Syria and Assad have been in bed with the House of Saud for many many years. I agree with everything else and Saudi being the Puppet Master of this whole affair would make much more sense, than Obama's line was crossed or 1500 died from a gas attack aside from the other 100K murdered by the regime . Somewhere Junior got sideways with the Sultan?...

You should know that DC had changed their tune with this, too. It was the overnight bombardment that did the most damage and took the most toll. Not the gassing...So those numbers are dead wrong. Hence, John Kerry is a liar!!!

...My position remains unchanged in any event. We have no business or interest of national security to drop a single bomb on Syria. It's not our fight. I can't believe these Bozo's in Washington led by Obama, Kerry, McCain, Boehner would fall for this bullshit. Any US bomb dropped on Syria is a victory for Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Brotherhood. Iran is licking it's chops praying Obama pulls the trigger....

I agree completely.

[mendeleyev]

Graffiti on Syrian walls reading, "We started in Syria, we will finish in Russia" suggests that the Islamic rebels intent to claim Russia for Islam.

http://russia-direct.org/content/washington-doesn 't-understand-moscow's-syrian-qualms

[GQBlues]

Graffiti on Syrian walls reading, "We started in Syria, we will finish in Russia" suggests that the Islamic rebels intent to claim Russia for Islam.

http://russia-direct.org/content/washington-doesn 't-understand-moscow's-syrian-qualms

I won't be too concerned about this, Mendy. With Saudis being Sunnis and Russia spoiling their Syrian plot, it's a predictable rhetoric. Even with the US in its hip pocket, there isn't much that can be done at this time. Their 'army' is currently being bombed into submission in Syria as we speak.

[mendeleyev]

Good point, GQ.

I think it provides good context for what the rebels would like to accomplish.

My last trip to Egypt there were Arabic signs of "Saturday People/Sunday People" all over certain areas of Cairo. That phrase refers to the promise of killing the "Saturday people" (Jews) first and then killing the "Sunday people" (Christians) second. If there is one thing I've observed is that the radicals are very transparent about their stated intentions.

[mendeleyev]

Here is a nice tribute from our two friends Sergei and Sergei at Real Russia TV:

12 years ago it was just a usual evening after a routine working day in Russia when we've got the first message about terroristic acts in WTC, New York.
 
We remember that at first our people didn't even understand all the scale of tragedy and for the first hour everything still went as usual in Russia. All entertaining programs kept working. But then all tv and radio channels stopped their programs and started showing only the news from New York, USA.
 
Millions of Russians have been sticked to their screens and suffered for the all American nation.
 
It was the moment that remembered us we all the the children of the same World!
 
Let's remember about this not only when the tragedies happens!
 
Peace to the whole World!

[lordtiberius]

What is your opinion of this?

http://www.france24.com/en/20130911-russia-renew-offer-supply-300s-iran

Russia 'to renew offer to supply S-300s to Iran'

By blade

Created 11/09/2013 - 11:28


Russian President Vladimir Putin will offer to supply Iran S-300 air defence missile systems as well as build a second reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, the Kommersant business daily reported Wednesday.

Putin will renew an old offer to supply Iran with five of the sophisticated ground-to-air missile systems at a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rowhani on Friday, Kommersant said, quoting a souce close to the Kremlin.

Putin is set to meet Rowhani at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation held in Kyrgyzstan on Friday.

Russia in 2007 signed a contract to deliver five of the advanced ground-to-air weapons -- which can take out aircraft or guided missiles -- to Iran at a cost of $800 million.

In 2010, then-president Dmitry Medvedev cancelled the contract after coming under strong US and Israeli pressure not to go ahead with the sale of the weapons system, drawing vehement protests from Tehran.

The source told Kommersant that Russia's offer would depend on Iran's withdrawing a $4 billion lawsuit that it has lodged at an international court in Geneva against Russia's arms export agency.

Kommersant wrote that Putin would offer to supply Tehran with a modified export version of the S-300 systems called S-300VM Antey-2500.

Russia has urged the West to soften sanctions against Iran after the election of Rowhani, a centrist cleric, in June.

The source also said that Putin was ready to sign a deal with Iran on building a second reactor for the Bushehr nuclear plant.

The source said the deal was not "particularly profitable from an economic point of view, but was rather political."

Russia completed the construction of Bushehr, which is Iran's only functioning nuclear power station, despite protests from Israel and the United States.

Iran is at loggerheads with world powers over its controversial nuclear programme, which the Western powers and Israel suspect is aimed at making a bomb despite repeated denials by Tehran.

Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed to Kommersant that Putin and Rowhani were expected to discuss "working together in the nuclear energy sphere" and "questions of military technical cooperation" in talks at the summit in Bishkek.

[fathertime]

What is your opinion of this?

http://www.france24.com/en/20130911-russia-renew-offer-supply-300s-iran

Russia 'to renew offer to supply S-300s to Iran'

By blade

Created 11/09/2013 - 11:28


Russian President Vladimir Putin will offer to supply Iran S-300 air defence missile systems as well as build a second reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, the Kommersant business daily reported Wednesday.

Putin will renew an old offer to supply Iran with five of the sophisticated ground-to-air missile systems at a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rowhani on Friday, Kommersant said, quoting a souce close to the Kremlin.

Putin is set to meet Rowhani at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation held in Kyrgyzstan on Friday.

Russia in 2007 signed a contract to deliver five of the advanced ground-to-air weapons -- which can take out aircraft or guided missiles -- to Iran at a cost of $800 million.

In 2010, then-president Dmitry Medvedev cancelled the contract after coming under strong US and Israeli pressure not to go ahead with the sale of the weapons system, drawing vehement protests from Tehran.

The source told Kommersant that Russia's offer would depend on Iran's withdrawing a $4 billion lawsuit that it has lodged at an international court in Geneva against Russia's arms export agency.

Kommersant wrote that Putin would offer to supply Tehran with a modified export version of the S-300 systems called S-300VM Antey-2500.

Russia has urged the West to soften sanctions against Iran after the election of Rowhani, a centrist cleric, in June.

The source also said that Putin was ready to sign a deal with Iran on building a second reactor for the Bushehr nuclear plant.

The source said the deal was not "particularly profitable from an economic point of view, but was rather political."

Russia completed the construction of Bushehr, which is Iran's only functioning nuclear power station, despite protests from Israel and the United States.

Iran is at loggerheads with world powers over its controversial nuclear programme, which the Western powers and Israel suspect is aimed at making a bomb despite repeated denials by Tehran.

Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed to Kommersant that Putin and Rowhani were expected to discuss "working together in the nuclear energy sphere" and "questions of military technical cooperation" in talks at the summit in Bishkek.

At this point, it makes sense for countries to try to acquire the most advanced, and deadly weapons they can so they don't get bombed by the USA...anything these countries can do to create a deterrent makes more and more sense...We don't bomb counties that have a credible deterrent...we just pick on countries like Libya, Syria, etc etc...


We need to think about starving our govt of funds if they aren't  going to represent what the people want.


Fathertime! 

[Muzh]

It means that Russia got stung with Syria and are trying to revert to their Soviet glory days where they were the other tuff kids on the block and the US would not dream of imposing their will everywhere they went.

So, if <cough cough> the US begins to have problems with Iran, they better go and discuss it with the Don.

Pathetic, really.

[Muzh]

At this point, it makes sense for countries to try to acquire the most advanced, and deadly weapons they can so they don't get bombed by the USA...anything these countries can do to create a deterrent makes more and more sense...We don't bomb counties that have a credible deterrent...we just pick on countries like Libya, Syria, etc etc...


We need to think about starving our govt of funds if they aren't  going to represent what the people want.


Fathertime!

Interesting sentiment.

I wonder if the US, in general, are experiencing deja vu all over again like right after WWI?

The gap between rich and non-rich is at its highest since 1928.
Statements from liberals AND conservatives becoming more isolationist, like in the '20s.

Okay, history quiz.

Name at least 5 similarities between 1920s and 2010s.

Failure to do so means were are to repeat history.

[mendeleyev]

Mr. Putin has just made a brilliant move by asking the New York Times to publish an open letter to the American people. It is brilliant in that he has carefully but effectively done an "end around" the Obama administration while enhancing his image as a world leader and stepping up to a podium uninvited, yet accepted without the careful media control so synonymous with this administration.
In the meantime Mr. Obama can only smile and pretend to enjoy the prospect of Mr. Putin on centre stage of the American political scene with a measure of truthfulness and common sense not common from the current White House.

Here is his open letter to the American people:

(By Vladimir Putin, Russian President, For New York Times)

Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization - the United Nations - was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack - this time against Israel - cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president's interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

[fathertime]

Interesting sentiment.

I wonder if the US, in general, are experiencing deja vu all over again like right after WWI?

The gap between rich and non-rich is at its highest since 1928.
Statements from liberals AND conservatives becoming more isolationist, like in the '20s.

Okay, history quiz.

Name at least 5 similarities between 1920s and 2010s.

Failure to do so means were are to repeat history.

Well Muzh, I'd like to read about what the 5 similarities you feel are important....and what result you may or may not feel is likely because of it.


Thanks,


Fathertime! 

[lordtiberius]

I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
                                                                                                                                              - Vlad

American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is "qualitatively different" from other nations.[2] In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called "the first new nation"[3] and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, populism and laissez-faire.[4] This ideology itself is often referred to as "American exceptionalism."[4]

Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense.[4][5] To them, the United States is like the biblical shining "City upon a Hill", and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism



Vladimir Putin's parting shot nullified any good will he nurtured in his letter to the American people.  You don't get what you want by insulting the people you want to get things from especially on 9/11 and the 1 year anniversary of Benghazi. 

Proud to be an American.

[Faux Pas]

Mendy

Too early to know if this is a move that benefit Putin and his maneuvers. As you well know, the press/media in the U.S. are more akin to sharks as opposed to the softball treatment he demands from the Russian press. In short, he isn't able to quell his criticism outside of Russia. I don't know that his continuing to call Kerry and Obama a liar is going to be perceived well by the Obama loving lap dog U.S. main stream media.

Although, Putin is sounding like the wiser head here. But, that's not hard to do when one looks at the buffoons currently occupying Washington

[fathertime]

Mendy

Too early to know if this is a move that benefit Putin and his maneuvers. As you well know, the press/media in the U.S. are more akin to sharks as opposed to the softball treatment he demands from the Russian press. In short, he isn't able to quell his criticism outside of Russia. I don't know that his continuing to call Kerry and Obama a liar is going to be perceived well by the Obama loving lap dog U.S. main stream media.

Although, Putin is sounding like the wiser head here. But, that's not hard to do when one looks at the buffoons currently occupying Washington

I got to agree, our media may well spin Putin’s or Assad’s comments in such a way that the American public starts turning on him…it if weird that a large % of American public is on his side to begin with, but given the blatant hypocrisy  and disconnect of our ‘representatives’ it is hard to believe or support them. 
I agree with Putin’s comments about ‘American exceptionalism’ which I think it is a load of crap…there may have been a time where it was true, but not now.  The nation has lost its way, IMO.


Fathertime! 

[lordtiberius]

I agree with Putin’s comments about ‘American exceptionalism’ which I think it is a load of crap…there may have been a time where it was true, but not now.  The nation has lost its way, IMO.


Fathertime!

But we were good once and after the eight men I personally served with who gave the ultimate sacrifice in wars Putin says were for nothing, I can tell you - that we still have good people.  The rest of the world still wants to be like us.  We have the wrong people guiding the ship.   We just need the right people in charge again, no?

[mendeleyev]

LT, not only have you misquoted me, but you have misunderstood what Mr. Putin wrote.

His point on exceptionalism is taken directly from our founding documents. Does this sound familiar?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It was recently pointed out by David Housholder that during Mr. Obama's tenure, Russian President Putin has attended church 12 times for every 1 visit by Mr. Obama. Undoubtedly then Mr. Putin is familiar with this idea: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

And from Saint Paul's letter to the Romans: For God shows no partiality.

Every nationality has its own claim to exceptionalism, some based on good reasons. As someone of Dutch heritage I grew up hearing the phrase "If you aren't Dutch, you aren't much" however my father, a medical missionary, banned that phrase from being spoken in our home as while he was proud of Dutch culture, art and music, he valued the words of Jesus on equality more than a Dutch phrase on nationalism.

Vladimir Putin's parting shot nullified any good will he nurtured in his letter to the American people.  You don't get what you want by insulting the people you want to get things from especially on 9/11 and the 1 year anniversary of Benghazi.

His excellent point on exceptionalism wasn't a "parting shot" by any stretch, nor was it his final thought.

The man who Thursday morning attended church to pray that his letter would touch the hearts and make sense to American citizens made this his parting plea had you read all the way through his letter:

We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

[pitbull]

In case this hasn't been posted yet.
Say what you will, this is what I call "leadership"
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?smid=fb-share

[mendeleyev]

In spite of being a 'conservative' K T McFarland "gets it" on the Putin letter. I'm not surprised as I've often thought of K T as a person of great intelligence and wisdom.

If you're going to copy and paste in order to debate what is really undebatable, please quote her as these are her words and I don't deserve the accolades.

"K.T." McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and in bucking the usual "Russia is bad" mentality around Fox, she hits the nail on the head here.

In one of the most deft diplomatic maneuvers of all time, Russia’s President Putin has saved the world from near-certain disaster. He did so without the egoistical but incompetent American president, or his earnest but clueless Secretary of State, even realizing they had been offered a way out of the mess they’d created.

The eventful day started out Monday morning with the Obama administration making a full court press  for an American attack on Syria: lobbying members of Congress, scheduling an historic series of presidential interviews with top news anchors, and sending Secretary Kerry to London to persuade our reluctant allies to scramble their jets, too.   

Then Secretary Kerry made an off-hand comment that the only way an American attack would be called off is if the Syrians turn over all their chemical weapons to an international body.  Then he added, “but that isn’t going to happen.”

In 24 hours an off-hand phrase  was picked up by Putin, became a Kerry proposal and ultimately  the Obama Peace plan, proving once again the Washington dictum that "success has many fathers." The words were hardly out of his mouth when Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov essentially said, "we can live with that," and the Syrian Foreign Minister chimed in with "we can, too." 

Meanwhile, the State Department  dismissed it, saying Kerry didn’t really mean what he said, it was just a "rhetorical" answer to a hypothetical question.  It was as if Team Obama couldn’t take "yes" for an answer.

So, in stepped former Secretary Clinton, looking like the only adult in the room, to say that the Kerry Proposal made sense.  Well,  that got Team Obama’s attention!  The president, never one to let a crisis go to waste, told journalists that the proposal was something he and Putin had discussed at the G-20 Summit last week. 

By Tuesday night’s speech President Obama will surely be taking full credit, saying the Syrians and Russians caved only because Obama drew the "red line" a year ago, and threatened military action against Syria. 

So in 24 hours an off-hand phrase  was picked up by Putin, became a Kerry Proposal and ultimately  the Obama Peace plan, proving once again the Washington dictum that "success has many fathers."

The fact is Obama seemed headed for an attack on Syria that no one wanted and few thought would succeed.  Most thought it would only end in disaster, either with the U.S. drawn into an attack/retaliation cycle of escalation that could go on for years and spread into a regional war, or result in the overthrow of President Assad by an Al Qaeda affiliated rebels.  While the Russians may have toyed with the idea of letting American get bogged down in yet another losing Middle East war, they didn’t want to risk a war that might pull them in, or lose control of the Assad government to radical Sunni jihadists.

So Putin stepped in and threw Obama a lifeline. For a few hours it seemed Obama might not grab at it.  But he  has, and will no doubt claim full credit for it being his idea all along.  The Washington press corps will no doubt believe him, as usual, and lavish their usual praise.  But the world knows that Vladimir Putin is the one who really deserves that Nobel Peace Prize. 

It turns out that leading from behind left a big opening up front. Putin stepped right in.  And Obama still hasn't figured it out.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/10/putin-is-one-who-really-deserves-that-nobel-peace-prize/#ixzz2ehueeijl

[lordtiberius]

President Obama has done everything to make me and my people feel like second class citizens and trash.  If that man could kill me or my family or my people I am sure he would without a second thought, he probably do it with a smile on his face.  But there are some things that are stronger than politics and he is still the President of the United States - symbol of American power and the legitimate representative of the American people. 


You tell Mr. Putin that he has offended this nation. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/menendez-putin-vomit_n_3910927.html

Bob Menendez: Putin Op-Ed Almost Made Me Want To Vomit

Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) nearly said goodbye to his dinner when he read Russian President Vladimir Putin's op-ed in The New York Times cautioning the U.S. against military intervention in Syria.

Writing in the Times, Putin criticized American militarism. "It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States," he wrote. "Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan 'you’re either with us or against us.'"

"I have to be honest with you, I was at dinner, and I almost wanted to vomit," Menendez said in an appearance on CNN Wednesday night. "The reality is, I worry when someone who came up through the KGB tells us what's in our national interest and what is not. And, you know, it really raises the questions of how serious this Russian proposal is."

Putin proposed earlier this week to take Syria's chemical weapons and dismantle them, putting a potential U.S. military action on hold.

Menendez, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had been in favor of a military strike prior to Russia's offer. "Assad has made a calculation now ... that he can use chemical weapons, or he believes he can use chemical weapons without consequence," Menendez said at a Senate hearing earlier this month. "And in doing so there is a global message that in fact other state actors and other non-state actors may believe they can do so as well."

Speaking to CNN's Jake Tapper on Wednesday, the senator didn't rule out the possibility that the U.S. and Russia will be able to work out a diplomatic solution to deal with Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons. But he argued that, given the tone of Putin's op-ed, the U.S. should proceed with caution.

"I believe, as someone who helped author the resolution that got bipartisan support in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that it would be foolish to close the door on a potential diplomacy -- we have to test it."

The Assad stuff is probably lies.  The insult stuff is definitely REAL.

[mendeleyev]

The only Americans offended are those who are not willing to let go of the past and live in the future instead of insisting on reheating up the Cold war as if it was some treasured leftover found in the back of the fridge.

Bob Mendendez? Please.

Given his reputation, the very mention of his name makes many want to vomit.

[lordtiberius]

The only Americans offended are those who are not willing to let go of the past and live in the future instead of insisting on reheating up the Cold war as if it was some treasured leftover found in the back of the fridge.

Bob Mendendez? Please.

Given his reputation, the very mention of his name makes many want to vomit.

The Senator is who is, but the people of the state of New Jersey elected him.  Can we say that about the elections inside Russia?  He is standing up for America against the democratically elected leader of Russia.  Your boy is not helping the cause of peace by insulting the people he may potentially go to war with. 

He can talk that way to Navalny and Obama but this KGB thug will not talk to the American people that way.

[Daveman]

...

You tell Mr. Putin that he has offended this nation. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/menendez-putin-vomit_n_3910927.html

Let's put aside for the moment all of the unconstitutional orders/actions and war crimes committed under the current AND prior administrations...


With what, in the following statement, do you disagree?

... "It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States," he wrote. "Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan 'you’re either with us or against us.'"

[mendeleyev]

He can talk that way to Navalny and Obama but this KGB thug will not talk to the American people that way.

Even with a rigged election, yes, he did garner a majority of the voters who had no clear alternative.

You must remember that the Russia that refused to obey the British blockade and threatened war with England while continuing to supply the Colonies, the Russia that was our close ally up until the Bolshevik power grab, the same Russia that again thwarted English claims to parts of Northern California by delivering Russia's claims on parts of Northern California to an expanding USA, is the Russia you so sincerely wish to hate.

Again, you have read Mr. Putin's letter thru dark glasses and failed to see that while he has again outsmarted a feeble American leader, he has also given the American people a voice in whether or not we go to war-again. Without that, the Feeble-in-chief would almost certainly bypass a Congress divided and gotten us into another mess we couldn't handle.

She had a brief period of brutal socialism, and a return is never smooth or uneventful, but a normal Russia is coming back. Stop the hate.

[lordtiberius]

Let's put aside for the moment all of the unconstitutional orders/actions and war crimes committed under the current AND prior administrations...


With what, in the following statement, do you disagree?

{edited out cheap shot}

[lordtiberius]

Let's put aside for the moment all of the unconstitutional orders/actions and war crimes committed under the current AND prior administrations...

With what, in the following statement, do you disagree?

I reject the premise of your question. 

But whatever, let's take your rosy assessment at face value, sometimes it's not what's said but who's saying it.  Putin maybe a good man.  You wouldn't know it by the way he treats his enemies.  For him to be the apostle of peace, freedom and democracy over the dead bodies of Georgians, Chechens and others who say 'I disagree' is a specious point, that I may have allowed if he didn't use his last paragraph to run down my country sir.

I am the last person to defend Obama.  The guy will sooner stab me in the back as I turn to defend him.  But he's still an American.  And where I come from that still means something.  What's it mean for you?