SYRIA WAR MEGATHREAD - Mod Note First Post

donegal__road

My name is URL wrote: »

That's incredible. Not just the letter, but the fact that Putin would opt to speak directly to the American people in such a candid way.

Really making the Obama administration look like complete amateurs.

It was a master stroke alright... the pen is mightier than the sword.

He also cleverly mentions

Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

which was a story that appeared on RT 2 days ago. Claims were that Syrian rebels were planning a chemical attack on Israel from within government controlled areas in Syria.

dusty207

Just read Putin's Op-Ed in the NY Times and think it's one of the best articles I've ever read. OK, he has an agenda but it's a brilliant synopsis of the Syrian situation. I've been in despair over America's foreign policy has several years as all their interventions seem to end up in disaster for those on the receiving end, mostly civilians. I've no doubt they act with good intentions but their apparent lack of understanding of international politics is appalling. A quote from the book "The Green Zone" about Iraq sums it up for me, "Yeehaw is NOT foreign policy".

Jonny7

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html

A lot of sense coming from Putin on the matter of Syria.

Obama the poor sucker, if he tried to arm Assad and block all the peace proposals they'd slam him... Putin just does it with style.

He's the pied piper for an oblivious Russian public and US critics alike. The KGB school of shrewd politics.

Hagar the Nice.

Like i mentioned on Twitter earlier,would you trust a guy who ordered his army into Chechnya and one one occasion a tank up a side street where 8 young children were playing football and promptly blew them to pieces,I'd trust the devil before I'd trust that wee bastard.

WakeUp

Hagar the Nice. wrote: »

Like i mentioned on Twitter earlier,would you trust a guy who ordered his army into Chechnya and one one occasion a tank up a side street where 8 young children were playing football and promptly blew them to pieces,I'd trust the devil before I'd trust that wee bastard.

I dont believe the question is one of trust neither of them can be trusted in my opinion. Putin isnt seeking trust Russia & the US are playing power politics and Putin is playing better than Obama. Perhaps US foreign policy arrogance has finally caught up with them but Im not so sure. Putin is saying what a large proportion of the world is thinking , apparently oblivious to America, putting the US in a corner that they cant spin their way out of. Or so it appears. Im not convinced Obama is as hopeless and out of his league as it seems. Obama is a student of Brezezinskis realism. Brezezinski has shaped American foreging policy for a long time realists being scholars of Machiavelli and his dark arts. Machiavelli was a firm believer in playing the long game when its needed, appearing to be played and all the ridicule that entails when infact its your adversary thats being played and they dont even know it. The US want to pivot their foreign policy focus to Asia and have stated as much maybe they want the Russians to take responsibility of the mess that is Syria and any future Sunni/Shia war not something you want involvement in. The more it appears the Russians have triumphed the more they become responsible for resolving Syrias civil war. The Americans could be playing everyone I think they are up to something. So I dont think you can trust any of the parties involved they are all doing things for the benefit of themselves none of them can be trusted. I wonder what the Israelis are thinking.

clairefontaine

Putin is exposing Obamas paint by numbers foreign policy for what it is.

Hagar the Nice.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Putin is exposing Obamas paint by numbers foreign policy for what it is.

True but it seems like Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

clairefontaine

Hagar the Nice. wrote: »

True but it seems like Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Obama backed himself into a corner. It's his own stupidity. He did exactly what any intro graduate class in foreign policy would tell you not to do. It's inexcusable. Stupid stupid stupid.

Autonomous Cowherd

WakeUp wrote: »

I dont believe the question is one of trust neither of them can be trusted in my opinion. Putin isnt seeking trust Russia & the US are playing power politics and Putin is playing better than Obama. Perhaps US foreign policy arrogance has finally caught up with them but Im not so sure. Putin is saying what a large proportion of the world is thinking , apparently oblivious to America, putting the US in a corner that they cant spin their way out of. Or so it appears. Im not convinced Obama is as hopeless and out of his league as it seems. Obama is a student of Brezezinskis realism. Brezezinski has shaped American foreging policy for a long time realists being scholars of Machiavelli and his dark arts. Machiavelli was a firm believer in playing the long game when its needed, appearing to be played and all the ridicule that entails when infact its your adversary thats being played and they dont even know it. The US want to pivot their foreign policy focus to Asia and have stated as much maybe they want the Russians to take responsibility of the mess that is Syria and any future Sunni/Shia war not something you want involvement in. The more it appears the Russians have triumphed the more they become responsible for resolving Syrias civil war. The Americans could be playing everyone I think they are up to something. So I dont think you can trust any of the parties involved they are all doing things for the benefit of themselves none of them can be trusted. I wonder what the Israelis are thinking.

There is something very logical in this assessment. It holds a ring of truth for me...certainly US is focusing on its Pacific strategy, and who the heck would not want to wash their hands of the inextricable mess that is the Middle East.
Thank you for this.

Norwesterner

Thank God for Putin, Hezbollah and Assad.
Defenders of minorities in the Middle East.

clairefontaine

Norwesterner wrote: »

Thank God for Putin, Hezbollah and Assad.
Defenders of minorities in the Middle East.

I never thought is read that sentence in my life.

So here we have a Nobel peace prize winner wanting to bomb a secularist state and an ex KGB agent wanting to do things diplomatically and suceeding.

clairefontaine

How can Putin claim on the one ha d that the rebels committed the attack and on the other way Assad is willing to hand over his weapons.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

How can Putin claim on the one ha d that the rebels committed the attack and on the other way Assad is willing to hand over his weapons.

He could claim the Yanks launched the weapon if he wanted. You think the impotent opposition or timid press would dare challenge the Kremlin?

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

He could claim the Yanks launched the weapon if he wanted. You think the impotent opposition or timid press would dare challenge the Kremlin?

Putin is showing us up, but this kind of ruins it.

If Assad gives up his weapons, bur carries on with the torture, war etc, then we can't intervene because we made such a big stink about the weapons Assad would be playing by our rules.

Putin makes a lot of sense, even if he doesn't deserve to be trusted. He doesn't understand American exceptionalism, or at least pretends not to in that letter. The last paragraph in that letter to the NY Times was a tell, he's playing to the world, playing the world in fact, that letter was for the rest of the world, not Americans, to gain global supportin protecting his interests in Syria, and also not wanting a spill over of Islamic extremists heading to Russia.

So I'm less impressed with Putin after that letter than I was before the letter. Too smart for Obama that's for sure.

Seaneh

The last Paragraph of that letter was nothing short of genius.

clairefontaine

Seaneh wrote: »

The last Paragraph of that letter was nothing short of genius.

Absolutely. He is playing the world.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

Putin makes a lot of sense

He's arming a dictator, fulfilling juicy contracts, obstructing peace efforts, manipulating the media and the home-crowd.

He's just doing what Bush did, but with style, gotta love it right

Unlike people, governments aren't stupid, they see right through it and to be honest Russian long term interests in the Gulf might start to take a hit if he keeps up his showboating.

karma_

Jonny7 wrote: »

He's arming a dictator, fulfilling juicy contracts, obstructing peace efforts, manipulating the media and the home-crowd.

He's just doing what Bush did, but with style, gotta love it right

Unlike people, governments aren't stupid, they see right through it and to be honest Russian long term interests in the Gulf might start to take a hit if he keeps up his showboating.

And are not the west supplying arms to who essentially are hardcore terrorists. Like they did in Libya? Look at the French, supplied arms to those groups in Libya, bombed the military and then had to turn round and send troops to Mali to fight the very same people they armed. Lunacy.

Jonny7

karma_ wrote: »

And are not the west supplying arms to who essentially are hardcore terrorists. Like they did in Libya? Look at the French, supplied arms to those groups in Libya, bombed the military and then had to turn round and send troops to Mali to fight the very same people they armed. Lunacy.

They are arming only specific groups. Specifically within the FSA. They know the groups fairly well after two+ years of close contact, especially along the Turkish border.

Saudi and Qatar have spent billions arming and training the FSA and the Islamist group (the second largest faction), Saudi have apparently even sent condemned prisoners, with pay, to fight in the conflict.

For outlawed and terrorist groups like Al Nusra, they are already very well armed - which was a major reason why numbers of FSA members were switching to those groups, literally more ammunition and better weapons. The US/EU/Turkey have no interest in arming these groups.

Gadaffi had large arms dumps all over the country, the conflict (which he was responsible for) subsequently facilitated the movement of these arms, and foreign supplied arms, to Mali which was already a hotspot.

The US/EU started arming the rebels as the result of several chemical weapon attacks back in June. I think there's valid criticism of that decision.

dublinbhoy88

Jonny7 wrote: »

They are arming only specific groups. Specifically within the FSA. They know the groups fairly well after two+ years of close contact, especially along the Turkish border.

Saudi and Qatar have spent billions arming and training the FSA and the Islamist group (the second largest faction), Saudi have apparently even sent condemned prisoners, with pay, to fight in the conflict.

For outlawed and terrorist groups like Al Nusra, they are already very well armed - which was a major reason why numbers of FSA members were switching to those groups, literally more ammunition and better weapons. The US/EU/Turkey have no interest in arming these groups.

Gadaffi had large arms dumps all over the country, the conflict (which he was responsible for) subsequently facilitated the movement of these arms, and foreign supplied arms, to Mali which was already a hotspot.

The US/EU started arming the rebels as the result of several chemical weapon attacks back in June. I think there's valid criticism of that decision.

the fact of the matter is Britain and America are arming terrorists which makes these two countries rogue states,the same as Libya arming the IRA

MonaPizza

Jonny7 wrote: »

"President Hugo Chávez, who governed Venezuela for 14 years, was elected to another six-year term in October 2012. He died in March 2013. During his presidency, the accumulation of power in the executive branch and the erosion of human rights guarantees enabled his government to intimidate, censor, and prosecute Venezuelans who criticized the president or thwarted his political agenda. President Chávez and his supporters used their powers in a wide range of cases involving the judiciary, the media, and human rights defenders. Prison violence and police abuse remain serious problems."

Cannot be argued with. Even the present pro-Chavez government have been forced to admit the country is in a ****e state.

And yet in calling Venezuela ths most abusive state in Latin America HRW totally ignores Colombia.

MonaPizza

Leftist wrote: »

yes, because every other country has six term heads of state and one of the most violent capitals in the world.

If Chavez was such a tyrant why did he keep legitimately winning the popular vote? And FYI his elections weren't rigged.

MonaPizza

dusty207 wrote: »

Just read Putin's Op-Ed in the NY Times and think it's one of the best articles I've ever read. OK, he has an agenda but it's a brilliant synopsis of the Syrian situation. I've been in despair over America's foreign policy has several years as all their interventions seem to end up in disaster for those on the receiving end, mostly civilians. I've no doubt they act with good intentions but their apparent lack of understanding of international politics is appalling. A quote from the book "The Green Zone" about Iraq sums it up for me, "Yeehaw is NOT foreign policy".

Are you fcuking serious?

MonaPizza

Hagar the Nice. wrote: »

Like i mentioned on Twitter earlier,would you trust a guy who ordered his army into Chechnya and one one occasion a tank up a side street where 8 young children were playing football and promptly blew them to pieces,I'd trust the devil before I'd trust that wee bastard.

Would you trust a guy who routinely orders air an drone strikes on wedding parties blowing the celebrants, including young children, to chopmeat?

Jonny7

MonaPizza wrote: »

If Chavez was such a tyrant why did he keep legitimately winning the popular vote? And FYI his elections weren't rigged.

He wasn't a tyrant, he was a popular leader - doesn't mean his policies weren't **** though.

Bush kept winning the popular vote in the US - enough said

dublinbhoy88

MonaPizza wrote: »

Are you fcuking serious?

I know slaughtering and terrorising people for financial gain is good intentions,I've heard it all now

donegal__road

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

the fact of the matter is Britain and America are arming terrorists which makes these two countries rogue states,the same as Libya arming the IRA

how sick were we of listening to Bush's rhetoric for 8 years about the 'War on Terror' and 'these evil terrorists..'? Al Qaeda this and Al Qaeda that...and what was it all for in the end?.... Fukall

now, in the 'most grotesque about-turns in history' (as George Galloway put it).... America is fighting side by side Al Qaeda.


They really must think we are stupid.





.

MonaPizza

clairefontaine wrote: »

How can Putin claim on the one ha d that the rebels committed the attack and on the other way Assad is willing to hand over his weapons.

It's a tactic and a brilliant one. Obama wants to invade and destroy Syria (ala Iraq). Putin has thrown the curveball of chemical weapons decommissioning and that has thrown a spanner in Obama's works because he's now faced with a dilemma. Refuse the offer and expose himself as a warmonger or accept the offer which fcuks up his plan.

[-0-]

I don't care what kind of weapons were used in Syria. A weapon is a weapon. I don't see why using chemical weapons crosses a line when the Syrian government have been killing rebels and rebel supporters for a long time - and lots of them. Surely if it was a morality issue, the US would have intervened ages ago. There are lots of civil wars going on all around the globe, I'm just not sure if anyone outside of those conflicts have a right to get involved - and that means arming either side as well as intervening. At the same time, I do not agree with the Syrian government's use of force against the rebels, and I do not view the rebels as terrorists.

If Putin gave the chemical weapons to the Syrian government, which I believe he did, then he needs to be held accountable. However, the US coming after someone for arming someone else would be hilarious given their history of arming people in the Middle East.

The US are arming the rebels, Putin is arming the Syrian government. Neither of them should be involved at all.

MonaPizza

Jonny7 wrote: »

He wasn't a tyrant, he was a popular leader - doesn't mean his policies weren't **** though.

Bush kept winning the popular vote in the US - enough said

Not so fast Jonny.
The 2004 election was hailed as a farce by the Viennabased OSCE who left the country amid widespread vote-rigging and disenfranchisement.
We all know what happened in 2000

And WERE Chavez's policies sh1t, though? Millions were lifted out of grinding poverty, poor health, illiteracy and hopelessness under his steerage. Hardly a catalogue of failure.