Russia-US relations

[lordtiberius]

Russia is in alliance with China, and Iran.  Iran is a sworn enemy of the United States.  Blood is on the floor with these guys.  Are you defending Iran?  Our partners the Russians are supplying them with nuclear technology.  How is that stabilizing the world?  Their client state Syria underwrites Hiz b allah and engineered the assassination of Rafik Harriri - Andropov style. 

To be clear, I am AGAINST this war.  Boethius rightly cites Juan Cole - MISSION CREEP.  We cannot easily win and as the Pope pointed out it is futile and therefore evil.  But what I cannot abide is your anti-American sentiment.  You can be anti-war and anti-Obama without being anti-American especially when 85% of Americans OPPOSE THIS NEW WAR - what more do you want from us Mendeleyev?

[mendeleyev]

You can be anti-war and anti-Obama without being anti-American especially when 85% of Americans OPPOSE THIS NEW WAR - what more do you want from us Mendeleyev?

I am not against Ronald Reagan's America. Moving forward I have issues.

What more do I want? Is it too much to consider that Russia as a sovereign country does have her own interests which every country should have?

What you don't like is that Russia sometimes refuses to bow down and kiss Washington's ring every time we go marching by to invade someone else. Well newsflash, neither does Ukraine but you seen to overlook that.

When Mr. Hussein at the G20 could only get 5 countries out of 20 to back his attack on another sovereign nation, not only did he LIE at the news conference about half the countries present would support his action (and thank God an American reporter from ABC called him out on his "math") but he came back to repeat that LIE at home.

Even NATO says that it is not their role to participate in these attacks on a sovereign nation. If Hussein can't even convince NATO to come along for the ride...

The USA is running out of goodwill. Unfortunately, for good reason.

[mendeleyev]

To be clear, I am AGAINST this war.

Happy for the change.

[lordtiberius]

I am not against Ronald Reagan's America. Moving forward I have issues.

What more do I want? Is it too much to consider that Russia as a sovereign country does have her own interests which every country should have?

What you don't like is that Russia sometimes refuses to bow down and kiss Washington's ring every time we go marching by to invade someone else. Well newsflash, neither does Ukraine but you seen to overlook that.

When Mr. Hussein at the G20 could only get 5 countries out of 20 to back his attack on another sovereign nation, not only did he LIE at the news conference about half the countries present would support his action (and thank God an American reporter from ABC called him out on his "math") but he came back to repeat that LIE at home.

Even NATO says that it is not their role to participate in these attacks on a sovereign nation. If Hussein can't even convince NATO to come along for the ride...

The USA is running out of goodwill. Unfortunately, for good reason.

The US is 17T in debt.  We have a terrible CinC who is probably a Muslim Brother and definitely an sexually ambiguous corrupt Chicago gangster.  Our people are war weary.  Our military is demoralized and confused.  That said our airlift and strike capabilities are such that we can deal a humiliating blow to Putin.  Putin cannot afford to have a Russo-Japanese War on his watch.  Our weapons and crews are better and more lethal.  Putin - unlike Barack - is a rational actor - and probably the more moral actor.  But he does not see himself as Mithradates or Hannibal which is what he risks by awakening American might.

If Barack backed down, I would support him.  It shows strength to know when to walk away.  I just don't think he has it in his character.

You are a wise man Mendeleyev.  Brilliant and a true patriot, but what is very telling is what you have not refuted.  Your allegiance to Russia as an advocate and justifying Russia's aggression in the Caucuses and let's be fair - Central Asia.  We need more military cooperation with Ukraine.  We have guaranteed their territorial integrity in exchange for their destruction of their weapons.  Georgia is within the Western sphere of influence as the oldest Christian kingdom even though Russia was ruled by a Georgian for a quarter of a century and a Georgian still resides on the pop charts.  We must make a moral commitment to their sovereignty.  As we must for Mongolia and for Chinese and Asian investment in the Asian provinces of Russia.  The Hard facts are is that the Cold War is not over and won't be without a Carthaginian peace between one of the once two great powers.

[lordtiberius]

Happy for the change.

I am against this war. 

If you're runnin' down my country, man,
 You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/haggard-merle/fightin-side-of-me-496.html

[Faux Pas]

Just as with Uganda, Rwanda, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, and now Syria...lend to reason the UN is de-facto useless.

I am however surprised about the turn-about in our present national strategy. Isn't Washington embarking on a massive campaign to bomb Syria that the Administration, including the media, termed an 'act' feverishly use against the Bush Administration as their major 2008 campaign platform?

Should we be bombed for having our political leaders con the majority of the public the past 6 years?

It is at the point that one must assume that all are lying to us, everybody. Seriously, today in Washington you can not tell the right from the left. The Rep. Speaker is lining up to carry water for Obama over attacking Syria and hoping to line up others to do the same. Look what is going on. The proof that Assad regime shot the gas has not been presented. Even if it were, why is Syria the U.S.'s problem? China, Russia and Iran are leading the way to Syria. Let them have it. Because Obama opened his mouth with a "red line in the sand" remark? Really? This is enough to bomb a country? Do we plan to kill the civilians that the gas missed? Is there a connection to Benghazi, the IRS, and the NSA problems? Who knows, we haven't heard about them since Obama wants to bomb Syria. The time to stay out of the big turd that is the Middle East is now. IMHO

[GQBlues]

I got a chuckle from State Secretary Kerry's speech last night....the dude reeks with inexperience.

(Paraphrased): 'We will not interfere with Syria's civil war. We will not have boots on ground. The strike will be unbelievably limited in both time and effort. The strikes will be aimed solely at weakening Syria's administration so this never happens again'

I think that's just an unbelievably stupid rhetoric!

[lordtiberius]

“But in the event Syria imploded, for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and all of us, the British, the French and others, to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements, I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country,”

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/03/kerry-wants-option-of-ground-troops-if-syria-implodes/#ixzz2eQmcyBeb

The door is open

[lordtiberius]

What if Syria has a nuke?  What if Iran gave them a nuke?  and they nuke the Sixth Fleet?  All options are on the table for them and can you blame him?  Look what we allowed our allies to do to Qadaffi?

[mendeleyev]

Your allegiance to Russia as an advocate and justifying Russia's aggression in the Caucuses and let's be fair - Central Asia.

(Bold added)

Hmm, me thinks that you don't pay attention sometimes cause what I wrote was:

you cannot support self determination for places like Chechnya and Dagestan while refusing the same to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The issue is one and the same as they all stem from the same problem of overreach by the Tsarist Russian Empire into the Caucasus regions and peoples.

(Bold added)

and I went on to write that:

I've written much about it previously, is that the real long term blame lies with the generations of Russian Empirical expansion. Those regions were not worth the fight and shouldn't have been forced into the Empire in the first place. Russia is reaping what was previously sown.

(Bold added)

[lordtiberius]

Russia guarantees that Syria will not use chemical weapons.  Crisis averted?  I support the Russian peace initiative.  How about you?

[mendeleyev]

I didn't know that it was a done deal yet, but if so, of course and with a sigh of relief.

I do see that the NY Times and others are crediting SOS John Kerry with the idea which is funny and yet another example of Kerry swooping in to take credit for the work of someone else.

That suggestion came forward during the first night's dinner of the G20 when Mr. Putin asked the assembled leaders to place Syria on the agenda. The discussion lasted almost four hours and that suggestion was one of several that Mr. Hussein promised to take back to Washington for consideration.

Obviously he took it back and Kerry has taken credit for it. 

I hope it works out but we shouldn't be shocked if more gas is used--the rebels not only have captured some of the stockpiles but they have additional supplies via Iran.

[mendeleyev]

If a resolution has been brokered, then Americans can go on to other news cycles and the rebels can go on about their task of killing Christian minorities and destroy ancient churches.

Here is something that reminded me of the Clinton war on behalf of radical Islam during his tenure. This was a commonplace scene back then in the Balkans. Now, this is Egypt:

[lordtiberius]

This is very tasteless and hard to read Mendeleyev.  We all prayed (or hoped) for peace.  Most of us agreed with you but your hostility to America made agreeing with you, overlooking your statements or even esteeming you difficult if not impossible

[Faux Pas]

I got a chuckle from State Secretary Kerry's speech last night....the dude reeks with inexperience.

(Paraphrased): 'We will not interfere with Syria's civil war. We will not have boots on ground. The strike will be unbelievably limited in both time and effort. The strikes will be aimed solely at weakening Syria's administration so this never happens again'

I think that's just an unbelievably stupid rhetoric!

Of course it is. A limited strike solely to weaken the Syria admin. Give it some serious thought. A strike that basically does nothing but weaken the the regime? Who does he think these bombs are going to fall on? It's not going to be the Syrian regime. It's going to be around perceived strategic targets and kill Syrians with no goal in mind. There is a reason they are pushing so hard to drop a few billion bucks worth of bombs on Syria. They want to be there. I wish I knew why. Seems to me we're just going to do the work for Al Qeada, Iran and the Muslim Bruh'hood. Why would we do that? Syria is no threat to the US. They haven't been an ally ever and they won't be after we win a war there. There's darker forces at work here than they are telling us and it's not wmds. We do more destruction to our country by bombing Syria than they ever could leaving them alone. The world is whacked

[CanadaMan]

It is at the point that one must assume that all are lying to us, everybody. Seriously, today in Washington you can not tell the right from the left. The Rep. Speaker is lining up to carry water for Obama over attacking Syria and hoping to line up others to do the same. Look what is going on. The proof that Assad regime shot the gas has not been presented. Even if it were, why is Syria the U.S.'s problem? China, Russia and Iran are leading the way to Syria. Let them have it. Because Obama opened his mouth with a "red line in the sand" remark? Really? This is enough to bomb a country? Do we plan to kill the civilians that the gas missed? Is there a connection to Benghazi, the IRS, and the NSA problems? Who knows, we haven't heard about them since Obama wants to bomb Syria. The time to stay out of the big turd that is the Middle East is now. IMHO

+1

Of course it is. A limited strike solely to weaken the Syria admin. Give it some serious thought. A strike that basically does nothing but weaken the the regime? Who does he think these bombs are going to fall on? It's not going to be the Syrian regime. It's going to be around perceived strategic targets and kill Syrians with no goal in mind. There is a reason they are pushing so hard to drop a few billion bucks worth of bombs on Syria. They want to be there. I wish I knew why. Seems to me we're just going to do the work for Al Qeada, Iran and the Muslim Bruh'hood. Why would we do that? Syria is no threat to the US. They haven't been an ally ever and they won't be after we win a war there. There's darker forces at work here than they are telling us and it's not wmds. We do more destruction to our country by bombing Syria than they ever could leaving them alone. The world is whacked

+1

[fathertime]

It is at the point that one must assume that all are lying to us, everybody. Seriously, today in Washington you can not tell the right from the left. The Rep. Speaker is lining up to carry water for Obama over attacking Syria and hoping to line up others to do the same. Look what is going on. The proof that Assad regime shot the gas has not been presented. Even if it were, why is Syria the U.S.'s problem? China, Russia and Iran are leading the way to Syria. Let them have it. Because Obama opened his mouth with a "red line in the sand" remark? Really? This is enough to bomb a country? Do we plan to kill the civilians that the gas missed? Is there a connection to Benghazi, the IRS, and the NSA problems? Who knows, we haven't heard about them since Obama wants to bomb Syria. The time to stay out of the big turd that is the Middle East is now. IMHO

Agree 4-square....I have a hard time believing anything our govt says...it is always self serving bs.


Fathertime!

[ML]

I am not as much an expert in this as some; so my comments are more to raise the question rather than give an answer.

However,

I was under impression that following Holocaust of WWII, the nations of the world said (in various ways) that this would not be allowed to happen again.

And, I was under impression that following WWI, the nations of the world said (in various ways) that gas would never be used (allowed) again.

In the various comments of other posters, I have not seen much attention to these humanitarian concerns when opinions are given as to whether the USA should simply stay out of Syria or even not be 'sticking our nose into' what goes on in Syria.

Doesn't the humanitarian idea have any relevance here?

Now, I am not saying that there is a Holocaust happening in the same manner as in WWII, nor am I saying which faction in Syria used gas.

But is the USA and other nations simply to 'keep noses out of Syria' and other countries under such circumstances?

[cc3]

Fanatically religious cults of Islam are the ultimate enemy to western and oriental Asian (China, SE Asia, Indonesia) civilizations. The Russians and the Chinese understand this at an extremely essential level. Only the politically correct nations of North America and western Europe persist in the self delusion that Islam is a "religion of peace", and then pretend that allying with the Sunni states on the Arabian peninsula, who are energetically supporting the most fanatical Sunni jihadist war-clans in Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan, including al-Quaeda, is in the interest of defeating those self same terrorist groups. In contrast, it is certainly true that Iranian-backed Shiite fanatics are equally dangerous. Assad, Mubarak, and Hussein were fanatics for power, but during their rule, religious fanaticism was suppressed and Muslims and Christians could coexist peacefully.

The denouement of this situation, when the west learns the error of its ways, will, I am afraid, be initiated by blood flowing in the streets of the US, Canada, and Europe. Until then the politically correct will continue in their anti-realist, anti- intellectual, and anti-Christian undermining of western civilization (such as the leftist supporters of Obama beating the drums of war to attack Syria).

[Faux Pas]

I am not as much an expert in this as some; so my comments are more to raise the question rather than give an answer.

However,

I was under impression that following Holocaust of WWII, the nations of the world said (in various ways) that this would not be allowed to happen again.

And, I was under impression that following WWI, the nations of the world said (in various ways) that gas would never be used (allowed) again.

In the various comments of other posters, I have not seen much attention to these humanitarian concerns when opinions are given as to whether the USA should simply stay out of Syria or even not be 'sticking our nose into' what goes on in Syria.

Doesn't the humanitarian idea have any relevance here?

Now, I am not saying that there is a Holocaust happening in the same manner as in WWII, nor am I saying which faction in Syria used gas.

But is the USA and other nations simply to 'keep noses out of Syria' and other countries under such circumstances?

The two are not related. Two different wars. Weaponized gas was outlawed in the Geneva convention of 1925 after WWI. As you may know the Holocaust (Jewish) was in WWII. There is the humanitarian issue of allowing Assad to use gas. The problem is, it doesn't appear at this point any proof that they did use it or who was directly responsible. A lot of folks want the US to intervene and a lot of folks don't. As I mentioned earlier, they are all lying. There are many cases of geneocide since then that nobody wanted to take on the cause based on humanitarian reasons. Syria is involved in a civil war. IMHO, our intervention will only compound the problem and cause more deaths. It's the Arabic Middle East. They've been killing everybody for centuries and they will be long into the future regardless of what we do.

[mendeleyev]

This is very tasteless and hard to read Mendeleyev.  We all prayed (or hoped) for peace.  Most of us agreed with you but your hostility to America made agreeing with you, overlooking your statements or even esteeming you difficult if not impossible

Okay, we agreed.

If telling the truth about John Kerry offended you, then I can't change his known character.

[GQBlues]

Of course it is. A limited strike solely to weaken the Syria admin. Give it some serious thought. A strike that basically does nothing but weaken the the regime? Who does he think these bombs are going to fall on? It's not going to be the Syrian regime. It's going to be around perceived strategic targets and kill Syrians with no goal in mind. There is a reason they are pushing so hard to drop a few billion bucks worth of bombs on Syria. They want to be there. I wish I knew why. Seems to me we're just going to do the work for Al Qeada, Iran and the Muslim Bruh'hood. Why would we do that? Syria is no threat to the US. They haven't been an ally ever and they won't be after we win a war there. There's darker forces at work here than they are telling us and it's not wmds. We do more destruction to our country by bombing Syria than they ever could leaving them alone. The world is whacked

Saudi Arabia, why else.

Syria is mostly Sunnis although the regime is ran by Shi'ites, which is why Iran is its biggest ME ally. Which is also largely why the unrest in Iraq prevails today. Methinks Hezbollah was behind the gassing. These group also have a vested interest to see Assad stay in power because this preserves not only their existence in Syria, but also in southern Lebanon and the Palestinian territory. SA empowers both the Sunni rebels in Syria as they do in Iraq. Iran is the counter weight in Iraq and now Syria.

It was Saudi Arabia that tempered the Iraqi Sunni to momentarily 'side' with the US forces to cease the war against the occupation and exert it's force against the 'foreign fighters'. Now it's payback time. Except, Iran and Hezbollah doesn't see it that way.

We now have a choice to make...Hezbollah/Hamas or Al Qeada? My choice will be let Hezbollah/Hamas go phock with Al Qeada. Let them do it in their doorsteps for a change instead of ours.

Coincidentally, how can Syria have stockpile of chemical weaponry (WMDs) when they couldn't find a drop of it in Iraq?

If the Syrian regime gets weakened and tips the balance to these militants, will they be more responsible in the handling of these weaponry? Isn't this a greater threat to the security of the US and Israel?

Depleted Uranium, largely used in the US and British conventional weaponry, have been killing, and is still killing people today. The *silent* weapon of mass destruction.

Hard as it is for me to say, Putin had taken the leadership gap in this zany event with his proposal to have an international committee go into Syria and harness all their weapons of mass destruction and destroy it. Of course that proposal also serve Russia's interest and that is to prevent the US from establishing a foothold in yet another ME nation that happens to be nicely located along a precious waterway. Where else will Russia park its naval base in the Mediterranean if not in Syria?

These events are a major part of the Presidential debate during our presidential elections. I am appalled why the majority of Americans are not fixated in what and how their candidates say and do during those crucial debate so we don't ever have to second guess what our politicians do when that ship comes resting upon our harbor.

I honor our president because he was chosen by the majority to lead us for his elected term. But man, this guy is clueless. Of course, I do not believe Romney would have fared any better but there might have been a good chance, had he been elected, he would've chosen a much better candidate to be the Secretary of State. Kerry is a joke.

[lordtiberius]

Saudi Arabia, why else.

Syria is mostly Sunnis although the regime is ran by Shi'ites, which is why Iran is its biggest ME ally. Which is also largely why the unrest in Iraq prevails today. Methinks Hezbollah was behind the gassing. These group also have a vested interest to see Assad stay in power because this preserves not only their existence in Syria, but also in southern Lebanon and the Palestinian territory. SA empowers both the Sunni rebels in Syria as they do in Iraq. Iran is the counter weight in Iraq and now Syria.

It was Saudi Arabia that tempered the Iraqi Sunni to momentarily 'side' with the US forces to cease the war against the occupation and exert it's force against the 'foreign fighters'. Now it's payback time. Except, Iran and Hezbollah doesn't see it that way.

We now have a choice to make...Hezbollah/Hamas or Al Qeada? My choice will be let Hezbollah/Hamas go phock with Al Qeada. Let them do it in their doorsteps for a change instead of ours.

Coincidentally, how can Syria have stockpile of chemical weaponry (WMDs) when they couldn't find a drop of it in Iraq?

If the Syrian regime gets weakened and tips the balance to these militants, will they be more responsible in the handling of these weaponry? Isn't this a greater threat to the security of the US and Israel?

Depleted Uranium, largely used in the US and British conventional weaponry, have been killing, and is still killing people today. The *silent* weapon of mass destruction.

Hard as it is for me to say, Putin had taken the leadership gap in this zany event with his proposal to have an international committee go into Syria and harness all their weapons of mass destruction and destroy it. Of course that proposal also serve Russia's interest and that is to prevent the US from establishing a foothold in yet another ME nation that happens to be nicely located along a precious waterway. Where else will Russia park its naval base in the Mediterranean if not in Syria?

These events are a major part of the Presidential debate during our presidential elections. I am appalled why the majority of Americans are not fixated in what and how their candidates say and do during those crucial debate so we don't ever have to second guess what our politicians do when that ship comes resting upon our harbor.

I honor our president because he was chosen by the majority to lead us for his elected term. But man, this guy is clueless. Of course, I do not believe Romney would have fared any better but there might have been a good chance, had he been elected, he would've chosen a much better candidate to be the Secretary of State. Kerry is a joke.

Agree 100%

I agree with everything most every one has said on this thread.  The bringing together of folks like Dennis Kucinich and Pat Buchanan, Senators Udall and Paul, and similarly strange bedfellows has been a hallmark of this sad crisis.   . . .

Mendeleyev, where have I praised this Obama administration?  I agree with most of what you have written.  Your criticism of the American people is not new.  De Tocqueville, Solzenitysn and Sayd Qutb have said as much.  And your critiques are valid.  But I am still proud to be an American.

[Faux Pas]

Saudi Arabia, why else.

Syria is mostly Sunnis although the regime is ran by Shi'ites, which is why Iran is its biggest ME ally. Which is also largely why the unrest in Iraq prevails today. Methinks Hezbollah was behind the gassing. These group also have a vested interest to see Assad stay in power because this preserves not only their existence in Syria, but also in southern Lebanon and the Palestinian territory. SA empowers both the Sunni rebels in Syria as they do in Iraq. Iran is the counter weight in Iraq and now Syria.

It was Saudi Arabia that tempered the Iraqi Sunni to momentarily 'side' with the US forces to cease the war against the occupation and exert it's force against the 'foreign fighters'. Now it's payback time. Except, Iran and Hezbollah doesn't see it that way.

We now have a choice to make...Hezbollah/Hamas or Al Qeada? My choice will be let Hezbollah/Hamas go phock with Al Qeada. Let them do it in their doorsteps for a change instead of ours.

Coincidentally, how can Syria have stockpile of chemical weaponry (WMDs) when they couldn't find a drop of it in Iraq?

If the Syrian regime gets weakened and tips the balance to these militants, will they be more responsible in the handling of these weaponry? Isn't this a greater threat to the security of the US and Israel?

Depleted Uranium, largely used in the US and British conventional weaponry, have been killing, and is still killing people today. The *silent* weapon of mass destruction.

Hard as it is for me to say, Putin had taken the leadership gap in this zany event with his proposal to have an international committee go into Syria and harness all their weapons of mass destruction and destroy it. Of course that proposal also serve Russia's interest and that is to prevent the US from establishing a foothold in yet another ME nation that happens to be nicely located along a precious waterway. Where else will Russia park its naval base in the Mediterranean if not in Syria?

These events are a major part of the Presidential debate during our presidential elections. I am appalled why the majority of Americans are not fixated in what and how their candidates say and do during those crucial debate so we don't ever have to second guess what our politicians do when that ship comes resting upon our harbor.

I honor our president because he was chosen by the majority to lead us for his elected term. But man, this guy is clueless. Of course, I do not believe Romney would have fared any better but there might have been a good chance, had he been elected, he would've chosen a much better candidate to be the Secretary of State. Kerry is a joke.

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?

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.

Putin is leading diplomacy and Iran is taking the moral high ground. How bizarre has this world under Obama flipped?

Assad has nothing to gain by waging a gas attack on his own peeps. I'm have no inclination it was the Syrians that did it. Even if they did. It's a Russian, Iranian and Chinese problem to deal with

[lordtiberius]

There is a marriage connection:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Assad_family

Rifaat al-Assad (born 1937). Formerly a powerful security chief who was responsible for the 1982 Hama massacre. After attempting a coup d'état in 1984 he went into exile in France and now lives in London.[27] He is married with four wives.

Lina al-Khayer, sister in law of Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz

The infirmed King of Saudi Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia

One of his wives is the sister of Rifaat al-Assad's wife.[

This is about to get tribal