Drowsy Emperor

It was the same with Hussein, Milosevic, and a host of other, previously western supported leaders. For as long as they did what they were told everything was fine and they could do what they wanted unchecked, when they eventually held enough power to lead their own politics they became a barrier to US political and business interests. The US found out that its much easier to have all or most sides in a quasi democracy on your payroll while playing them against each other than it is to control one man who is not entirely spineless. With his back against the wall he will fight (like Assad is doing) - with a pretend democracy you can always blackmail or pay off someone, somewhere to get the government to collapse. So yeah. This was is about Assad being an independent leader in an area where everyone else is a US puppet or vassal. Neighboring countries: Turkey - NATO vassal Iraq - occupied territory Israel - US policy maker/ally Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. - all US puppets Syria and Iran are the only strictly independent and sovereign countries left in the region. If I was in Iran I'd be pretty worried now. Specifically about 6 years from now. Unless the whole Syria thing escalates into something more.

Lol, almost half of those 100000 (ridiculous number games in any war while its still in progress) are Syrian army and police, so the rebels have in fact, about as much blood on their hands as the regime does. I suppose you're going to claim its self defense next? Please. Nothing in the rebel camp even suggests they could form a semblance of government or why they should even be allowed to form it.

That is a gross oversimplification of any conflict, lapsing into typical good guy-bad guy mentality. You cannot or should not call to action without thinking of the long term consequences. Saddam Hussein for one would have gone away in time. Not a very long time at that. Why did Iraq need to be dragged through hell with countless civilian casualties and destruction on a massive scale that tore the country to pieces? What for? The suffering multiplied a thousandfold for nothing. None of them can even say that it was napalm or who threw it. A jet flew over, so what, it could have just as easily be a mortar attack. Seriously, this isn't even reporting its just an exercise of constructing a story with a single fact. The fact is, a building that is apparently a school was hit with a bomb of some sort. Everything else is pure speculation with intent to inflame the public.

The fleet is already there, the report will be just one of those sad footnotes in history when it eventually appears. Analysts are saying that this attack on Syria will most likely be limited to cruise missiles, because of the Russian anti-air system Syrians are sporting. Its outdated apparently, but still good enough to give the US pause. What will be most interesting are the also Russian made ground to sea missiles that Israel failed to destroy. Some are saying they're a threat, others that US missiles out-range them.

Every nation in the world has principles, you don't possess a goddamn monopoly on morality. Besides, if the US doesn't intervene (fat chance of that now) the various rebel factions (some of them with Al Quaeda links) will be defeated soon. Why is that not an acceptable course of action? The poll is sort of skewered. Questions about chemical weapons presume that the questioned are sufficiently informed about them. Since the majority isn't the prefix chemical just serves to make a bogey man out of something that has been around for a century and that is also notoriously ineffective. The depleted uranium shells that the US used to bomb Serbia are infinitely more sinister and dangerous. Cancer rates spiked tremendously in the years post bombing, especially in Kosovo where the majority of the bombs fell, because the radioactive waste trickled down into the ground and into the water everyone drinks. So yeah, they poisoned the ****ing water for at least a generation. Where is the moral outrage now?

That theory doesn't add up. Assad is a member of a minority shia sect and to stay in power he still needs the, at the very least, silent support of the sunni majority. That majority can't be bullied into submission by mass murder or he'll lose support among those sunni that are still friendly (or at least undecided) to the government. Its one thing to assert your authority as a government by being forceful, but the terror tactics they're accusing him of don't make sense from a political perspective. Its no good to win the war and inflame the majority permanently against yourself. These are the same accusations leveled against Milosevic in '99 and they didn't make sense there either. I know what its like for a government to fight a terrorist insurgency and seek to retain legitimacy with an unfriendly/on the fence population at the same time. The army and the police are ordered to demonstrate power on the terrorists to prove that they're in control, while at the same time avoiding antagonizing civilians so that the terrorists recruitment pools are bled dry. It worked back then, Serbian police had all but wiped out the UCK and then the US intervened before the final mop up could be completed and peace restored. This is what's happening now. Another fun fact: there were more casualties in the '99 war among the Albanian population from NATO bombing than any other cause. in other words, when the missiles start flying the casualties will in fact increase, defeating the whole purpose of the action.

There are dead people on both sides and many of them died by US army donated weapons. Many more will die when the cruise missiles start flying. Empty moralizing is empty, because none of this is, or has ever been, about the well being of the people. And here is were you are wrong. Stopping chemical weapons use is about the well-being of the Syrian people. Or at least it was when that option was still on the table. By now it's blindingly clear that no effective intervention will come from the west and endless bickering in UN over reports and security council meetings only prolong the inevitable. As sad it is - given that the best way to handle the conflict is to let Assad gas-away unchecked. But we are far too hypocritical for that. In fact, you're wrong. No one knows who exactly used chemical weapons. Assad is winning the war with conventional weaponry and has less reason to use chemical weapons than the rebels, who desperately need to get the US involved. This is corroborated by the US sending its fleet, as a military operation is planned, as a rule, well before the troops are sent. What this means is that a while ago the analysts in Washington decided that the war cannot be won in the current state of affairs and that intervention would be needed. Some sort of pretext is needed for it to make the decision appear as though it was made in just moral outrage. And how very kind of Assad to play along and bring out the chemicals just when the US is ready to intervene. Its a story as poorly fabricated as Iraq. Assad want's to rule these people and you can't rule people whose children you gassed to death. Its politically counter productive, stupid and short sighted to use a weapon that is only really efficient against civilians,if they're your civilians.

There are dead people on both sides and many of them died by US army donated weapons. Many more will die when the cruise missiles start flying. Empty moralizing is empty, because none of this is, or has ever been, about the well being of the people.

Kinda reminds me of Saddam Hussein's grand WMD arsenal. Seriously, can't the Washington spin doctors come up with something new? The whole UN system is collapsing and it will all end in a major war when the US finally attacks an important country right next to China or Russia and they're left with no choice but to intervene.

Good thing there are still some decent people in the British parliament. I've been following the whole chemical weapons nonsense. Some random dead people, who may have died of god knows what and a room with a few rusted cans of whatever. Yeah, a real potent arsenal... if the wind blows in the right direction. Its the same story all over again. If there was something to really hold against Assad apart from him being independent of the US the media would have been all over it from day one.

Every time I see Megan Fox I think of what triumph the insult dog told her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx3fg5zGSxg

I initially wondered at the uniform, who knew staff officers dressed like that. Watchign this at work as well..nothing to do but torture myself, really. She's really pretty. There are a lot of bombshells on this thread that would look bad without all the makeup and silicone, but this aint one of them

I prefer your rap name, RPGMaster Boo. It was a phase man, give me a break But RPGMaster Boo is really da lvl cap, in the world of role playing nicknames.

Well if there is a lesson to be learned here its: don't put more than 15$ into a kickstarter game.

Yeats. I like the poem and I'm terrible at inventing nicks. I drew and animated the avatar for the nickname, obviously showing the Drowsy Emperor moving the moon while asleep.

Its a good question as to what interests could possibly be served by worsening the relations with Russia. Maybe its a response to the Snowden thing.

The usual double standards.

The do-gooder Western liberal, who will not rest until the world as we know it is wiped out. I blame lobbying. With enough money and resources you can convince the public of anything. A Gallup survey (I believe on a 20000 strong sample) found that Americans believe that over 30% of their countrymen are gay (actual numbers go from 1% to 3.6%). Its beyond incredible. Strong media presence managed to convince people of something that can be refuted by simple observation made by a person of less than average intelligence. A public so overwhelmingly easy to convince of anything, will, eventually, support anything.

I read this comment and I can vouch for the first three sentences. I don't know of the rest (I haven't looked at her hand). I'm not sure who you are quoting, I'm assuming someone posted and deleted their comments? How is it a lie? Obviously these athletes are showing some public display of solidarity. Their ummm...politics are only a matter of interpretation. The point is in the interpretation. Western media is interpreting it as a sign of protest against Putins new law. Others are pointing out that this is a traditional Russian gesture (a peck on the lips) of greeting and congratulations. One reader also pointed out that one of them is married, which renders it very likely that this was indeed a congratulatory gesture and that there was no pro-LGBT politics behind it. If that is true, the entire anti-Putin part of the "news" is just a fabrication.

I read this comment and I can vouch for the first three sentences. I don't know of the rest (I haven't looked at her hand).

Fine, since you're such an expert, are you denying that the new law allows any boy who claims he feels like a girl to use the girl's locker room? I wonder whose clever idea was to turn this into an issue in school for christ's sake. Why don't they just let the person him/her self sort his own issues post-schooling? With free counseling, surgery, drugs, whatever just not in school among other kids.

Please insert a drill bit into your eye. Anyway, I doubt this will have any major consequences for things in Russia. Gay athletes will go untouched up to a point if they go looking for it (Russia's not served by that additional embarassment) and all the groups wanting to beat up gay visitors will go quiet lest they get screwed to a wall. Heh, like a Potemkin village I wonder if people will get on the case of nations with equally or worse treatment of gays being allowed to participate at all. Of course no one is going to touch gay athletes. Unless they leave their lodgings and purposefully go down to the city and start waving flags about in a deliberate act of provocation. And even then nothing might happen. That depends on whose clients they are. I don't hear the calls to boycott the World Cup in Qatar where male homosexuality is a punishable by imprisonment? But I understand why they're making so much noise. The various LGBT political groups depend on foreign funding to do their work in Russia, the new law is effectively shutting them down. No more sweet sweet euros from Denmark, Norway etc. to fund their very much "above the Russian average lifestyle." In the recent gay parade in Budva, Montenegro there was a grand total of 30 participants. Half of those were politicians looking for exposure and the other half were paid around 600 euros to show up. So much for the great "struggle for equality", bleh.

Its not about civil rights and their abuses, that's just a pretense. If it were about civil rights you'd insist that the Saudis organize a gay parade, and stop murdering their own citizens whenever the ruling family feels threatened by the idea of a peasant uprising. Civil rights are just a tool in modern mainly US international politics, (ab)used to give a veneer of legitimacy to realpolitik. Its a clever strategy because it causes moral outrage that is helpful in building enthusiasm for war. The said abuses sometimes exist, but are most often blown out of proportion by flat out lies and propaganda and sometimes they're just invented by PR companies. The real causes of the wars are much more practical in nature. It is the same with the current topic, homosexualism in Russia. Yes there is the occasional violent crime (prosecuted by police like any violent crime, regardless of what western papers say). Yes there are politically insignificant far right groups that engage in political violence towards LGBT activists (just like there are groups around the British BNP, just like there are neo-nazis in the German regional parliament that have people out murdering Turks for fun). Its all disgusting and deserving of police attention. But its also very very minor. I'm sure there are satisfied homosexuals in Russia that lead productive lives and have relationships with whomever they please. It couldn't be any other way because society solves this problem on its own - places and methods spring up for gay people to find others of similar inclinations Its only when faced with public pressure and propaganda that previously uninterested people start becoming angry. In the whole slavic world (less so in the catholic-slavic countries) the basic family unit is still the heterosexual marriage. It commands a respect of sorts, it is seen as something worthwhile. There is no alternative to it. Everything else is considered indecent and to be kept private. Gay activism is seen as a direct attack on those values and all it does is make everyone angry and resentful towards homosexuals. In fact, its the best recruitment tool for far right groups. Putin knows this, because he knows what his voting base thinks. He knows they're overwhelmingly against LGBT activism. He didn't create the disapproval of said activism in Russians, he's merely giving it an official stamp. It may even get him reelected. What is he going to do, sacrifice his political career trying to force his countrymen into something they're not going do and approve of?

Why, what are you using to judge the gayness of that picture, your own hard-on? Or did the male body and horses become gay while I wasn't looking? Seriously, the level of hate in this thread for Russia and Putin shows how thin your veneer of civility and tolerance is over that typical British racism of eastern europeans in general ... now that you can't be racist towards, arabs, blacks etc. without repercussions. PS: before you reply keep in mind you already told oby that his "eastern blood" was showing in another thread after he showed up with some ridiculous theories on the origin of jews. His writing may have been anti-semitic gibberish but your reply pretty much speaks for itself.

What she said was: when in rome do as romans do. 95% of Russian support what she said because they share the same opinion. She knows this, which is why she was comfortable saying it. They don't want rainbow flags, parading of various sexual fetishes etc. If engaging in positive propaganda for homosexuality (the sort that equates it with heterosexuality) is forbidden in Russia the shut the **** up and get on with the program. The athletes are there to engage in sports and win medals not to draw attention to their sexual preferences or political leanings. Or is this the first gay olympics? Seriously people, you need to get a grip on the concept that other countries with democratically chosen leaders can make up their own rules on what's okay, and what isn't okay.