The current refugee wave in Europe

[Darkpriest]

@Bruce

 

ME needs their own Mandela, Havel, Walesa, Lincoln or some very influencial Immam in the line of pope Francis... until then just deal with the current regimes... they established themselves like that for a reason... alternative solution is to just bomb the whole area, invade it and occupy with the means of Bolshevik and Nazi methods from WW2...

[BruceVC]

 

 

So you are saying that 'west' should break its own rules and laws?

No, the West needs to abide by the rules of the United Nations Security Council and respect the veto

 

But these aren't the West rules, these are the UN and therefore global rules

 

Yeah, but not everyone on the world follows them - back to the topic - so want is your problem, 'west' can't intervene even if want. So what is your solution?

 

Yes sometimes countries do ignore the UN .....but it always ends badly. People tend to dismiss the UN and say its " useless and a puppet of the West" but when it comes to long term economic support and effective sanctions the UN does work, yes the Veto can be argued is actually a hindrance to action,like Syria, but I accept that we need China and Russia on the Security Council as it adds balance

 

Even the USA learnt this lesson that you cannot dismiss the UN....2005 and the reality started dawning on all of us that Iraq was a complete mistake....a real disaster and correctly so countries like France and Germany refused to help due to being dismissed by the Neo-cons like Rumsfeld 

 

Now back to your question. Lets be clear the West could intervene in Syria, and the UN would support this, if it wanted to...but it mustn't. I am of the opinion that you just leave Syria to the ME and countries like Russia

 

Now you may think " but the war is a   stalemate and its just dragging on "  but I believe the ME needs to learn to resolve its own issues

 

Also you must realize the West does believe in things like human rights and Assad has demonstrated he is one of the worst and most brutal leaders we have seen so its highly unlikely they will help him in anyway . Its quite amazing how this just doesn't  bother the Russians ....they seem to have no problem with the mass murder he ordered of his own people. And he used chemical weapons 

 

So in summary the West will continue to use airstrikes and train people like the Kurds but it won't do more than that so others will need to sort it out 

[BruceVC]

@Bruce

 

ME needs their own Mandela, Havel, Walesa, Lincoln or some very influencial Immam in the line of pope Francis... until then just deal with the current regimes... they established themselves like that for a reason... alternative solution is to just bomb the whole area, invade it and occupy with the means of Bolshevik and Nazi methods from WW2...

Yeah an influential, respected, reasonable  and charismatic Arab leader to unit the region ....but thats wish fill thinking if you consider just the historical resentment between Sunni and Shia

 

But what  really gets to me is the lack of empathy and concern that the likes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE have for the sufferings of the Syrians. These countries are the most stable and wealthiest in the region yet they haven't taken in 1 Syrian ....not one 

 

Now I understand the Shia\Sunni conflict but they are all Arabs....they all belong to the Arab League and you would think under the circumstances they would help the refugees. But no ....so much for this concept of " Arab unity " 

And some of you guys think they would be able to subvert and control the West

[Darkpriest]

The Shia\Sunni conflict reminds me of European Protestants and Catholics conflict...

 

The difference is, European culture grew up on heritage of Greeko-Roman law and state standards, which had a some degree of republic state influence. Other parts of the world have nothing like that in their history and especially ME, which was always entrenched on rules of a strong family / tribe.

 

Europeans slowly retracted to democracy after ages of monarch family rules and a strong influence of a church. Some were immediate and brutal, like French revolution, some where less brutal and more progressive, like UK, Poland, and some even built a Federation of states, like Germany.

 

ME does not have such historical influences to backtrack to... (The only time they had something like that was the time of post-Alexander the Great time of Seleucids, which eventually was dismantled by various ME tribes) hence throwing at them the modern democracy is simply not going to cut it.... learn their history, accept diversity, but be only tolerant to the same degree they are tolerant to your views.... if not, you will simply be abused...

 

Eventually in like 100-200 years the influence of open world, easy travel and exchange of ideas can bring the change... after all some countries were more secular not so long ago... like Afghanistan, Iran, etc.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Gorth]

Western intervention... didn't someone say something about being doomed to repeat history?

 

Libya, helping one tribe overthrowing the ruling tribe and settle old grudges. Heading towards becoming a failed state.

Iraq, helping the Shias overthrow the Sunnis. Country destabilized to the point of becoming a failed state.

Syria, helping a one minority trying to overthrow the other (ruling) minority, making it a defacto failed state in it's current condition. Practically a playground for every regional powers proxy war and settling of scores.

 

Sometimes you just can't rush things by pointing a gun at people and tell them to be "be happy". A desire among the locals for a change of balance of power is not the same as a desire for a different kind of society.

[Malcador]

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/02/officials-pentagon-weighs-protections-us-trained-rebels/73194508/

 

 

 

WASHINGTON — Russia's launch of airstrikes in Syria is prompting discussions within the Pentagon about whether the U.S. should use military force to protect U.S.-trained and equipped Syrian rebels if they come under fire by the Russians.

 

U.S. officials said Thursday that senior military leaders and defense officials are working through the thorny legal and foreign policy issues and are weighing the risks of using force in response to a Russian attack.

 

Defense Secretary Ash Carter declined to discuss the problem when asked about it this week. But U.S. officials acknowledged that this is one of the questions being asked as they debate the broader dilemma of how the administration should respond to what White House press secretary Josh Earnest described as Russia's "indiscriminate military operations against the Syrian opposition."

 

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss ongoing deliberations publicly.

 

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are escalating over Russian airstrikes that apparently are serving to strengthen Syrian President Bashar Assad by targeting rebels — perhaps including some aligned with the U.S. — rather than hitting Islamic State fighters it promised to attack.

 

Turkey's Foreign Ministry says Ankara and its allies in the U.S.-led coalition are calling on Russia to immediately cease attacks on the Syrian opposition and to focus on fighting Islamic State militants.

 

Meanwhile, a joint statement by the United States, France, Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Britain expressed concern over Russia's military actions, saying they will "only fuel more extremism and radicalization." The text of the statement was released by the Turkish Foreign Ministry on Friday, and confirmed by the French Foreign Ministry.

 

The Pentagon on Thursday had its first conversation with Russian officials in an effort to avoid any unintended U.S.-Russian confrontations as the airstrikes continue in the skies over Syria. During the video call, Elissa Slotkin, who represented the U.S. side, expressed America's concerns that Russia is targeting areas where there are few if any Islamic State forces operating. Slotkin is the acting assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.

 

A key concern is the prospect of the U.S. and Russia getting drawn into a shooting war in the event that Russian warplanes hit moderate Syrian rebels who have been trained and equipped by the U.S. military.

 

At U.N. headquarters in New York, Secretary of State John Kerry said: "What is important is Russia has to not be engaged in any activities against anybody but ISIL. That's clear. We have made that very clear."

 

"We are not yet where we need to be to guarantee the safety and security" of those carrying out the airstrikes, he said.

 

In an interview late Thursday on CBS's "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," Kerry described the military consultations as "a way of making sure that planes aren't going to be shooting at each other and making things worse."

 

"What is happening is a catastrophe, a human catastrophe really unparalleled in modern times," Kerry said of the Syrian crisis, adding that Russia should help the U.S. "persuade Assad to be the saver of his country, not the killer of his country."

 

U.S. officials made it clear earlier this year that rebels trained by the U.S. would receive air support in the event they are attacked by either IS or Syrian government troops. Currently, only about 80 U.S.-trained Syrian rebels are back in Syria fighting with their units.

 

The U.S. policy is very specific. It doesn't address a potential attack by Russian planes and does not include Syrian rebels who have not been through the U.S. military training, even though they may be aligned with the U.S. or fighting Islamic State militants.

 

So far, the Russian airstrikes have been in western Syria. The Syrians trained and equipped by the U.S. have primarily been operating in the north.

 

U.S. officials said the issue is one of many being hashed out by top leaders within the department and the military's Joint Staff. One official said they are weighing the potential fallout.

 

At worst, if Russia bombs rebels trained by the U.S. and American fighter jets intercede to protect the Syrians, the exchange could trigger an all-out confrontation with Russia — a potential disaster the administration would like to avoid.

 

Fueling the concerns is the fact that Russia has aircraft in Syria with air-to-air combat capacity, even though IS has no air force and the only aircraft in the skies belong to U.S.-led coalition or the Syrian government.

 

Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook would not provide details of the talks with Russia. But much of the discussion involved proposals for avoiding conflict between U.S. and Russian aircraft flying over Syria.

 

Kerry said he foresees further consultations with the Russians about air operations. And Cook said the U.S. side proposed using specific international radio frequencies for distress calls by military pilots flying in Syrian airspace, but he was not more specific about that or other proposals.

 

Russia's defense ministry said that over the past 24 hours it had damaged or destroyed 12 targets in Syria belonging to the IS fighters, including a command center and ammunition depots. A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, Col. Steve Warren, said he had no indication that the Russians had hit Islamic State targets.

 

"While there is always danger of conflict, of inadvertent contact" between coalition and Russian warplanes, "we are continuing with our operations," Warren told reporters at the Pentagon.

 

___

 

Associated Press writers Josh Lederman and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.

 

 

 

[BruceVC]

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/02/officials-pentagon-weighs-protections-us-trained-rebels/73194508/

 

 

 

WASHINGTON — Russia's launch of airstrikes in Syria is prompting discussions within the Pentagon about whether the U.S. should use military force to protect U.S.-trained and equipped Syrian rebels if they come under fire by the Russians.

 

U.S. officials said Thursday that senior military leaders and defense officials are working through the thorny legal and foreign policy issues and are weighing the risks of using force in response to a Russian attack.

 

Defense Secretary Ash Carter declined to discuss the problem when asked about it this week. But U.S. officials acknowledged that this is one of the questions being asked as they debate the broader dilemma of how the administration should respond to what White House press secretary Josh Earnest described as Russia's "indiscriminate military operations against the Syrian opposition."

 

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss ongoing deliberations publicly.

 

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are escalating over Russian airstrikes that apparently are serving to strengthen Syrian President Bashar Assad by targeting rebels — perhaps including some aligned with the U.S. — rather than hitting Islamic State fighters it promised to attack.

 

Turkey's Foreign Ministry says Ankara and its allies in the U.S.-led coalition are calling on Russia to immediately cease attacks on the Syrian opposition and to focus on fighting Islamic State militants.

 

Meanwhile, a joint statement by the United States, France, Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Britain expressed concern over Russia's military actions, saying they will "only fuel more extremism and radicalization." The text of the statement was released by the Turkish Foreign Ministry on Friday, and confirmed by the French Foreign Ministry.

 

The Pentagon on Thursday had its first conversation with Russian officials in an effort to avoid any unintended U.S.-Russian confrontations as the airstrikes continue in the skies over Syria. During the video call, Elissa Slotkin, who represented the U.S. side, expressed America's concerns that Russia is targeting areas where there are few if any Islamic State forces operating. Slotkin is the acting assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.

 

A key concern is the prospect of the U.S. and Russia getting drawn into a shooting war in the event that Russian warplanes hit moderate Syrian rebels who have been trained and equipped by the U.S. military.

 

At U.N. headquarters in New York, Secretary of State John Kerry said: "What is important is Russia has to not be engaged in any activities against anybody but ISIL. That's clear. We have made that very clear."

 

"We are not yet where we need to be to guarantee the safety and security" of those carrying out the airstrikes, he said.

 

In an interview late Thursday on CBS's "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," Kerry described the military consultations as "a way of making sure that planes aren't going to be shooting at each other and making things worse."

 

"What is happening is a catastrophe, a human catastrophe really unparalleled in modern times," Kerry said of the Syrian crisis, adding that Russia should help the U.S. "persuade Assad to be the saver of his country, not the killer of his country."

 

U.S. officials made it clear earlier this year that rebels trained by the U.S. would receive air support in the event they are attacked by either IS or Syrian government troops. Currently, only about 80 U.S.-trained Syrian rebels are back in Syria fighting with their units.

 

The U.S. policy is very specific. It doesn't address a potential attack by Russian planes and does not include Syrian rebels who have not been through the U.S. military training, even though they may be aligned with the U.S. or fighting Islamic State militants.

 

So far, the Russian airstrikes have been in western Syria. The Syrians trained and equipped by the U.S. have primarily been operating in the north.

 

U.S. officials said the issue is one of many being hashed out by top leaders within the department and the military's Joint Staff. One official said they are weighing the potential fallout.

 

At worst, if Russia bombs rebels trained by the U.S. and American fighter jets intercede to protect the Syrians, the exchange could trigger an all-out confrontation with Russia — a potential disaster the administration would like to avoid.

 

Fueling the concerns is the fact that Russia has aircraft in Syria with air-to-air combat capacity, even though IS has no air force and the only aircraft in the skies belong to U.S.-led coalition or the Syrian government.

 

Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook would not provide details of the talks with Russia. But much of the discussion involved proposals for avoiding conflict between U.S. and Russian aircraft flying over Syria.

 

Kerry said he foresees further consultations with the Russians about air operations. And Cook said the U.S. side proposed using specific international radio frequencies for distress calls by military pilots flying in Syrian airspace, but he was not more specific about that or other proposals.

 

Russia's defense ministry said that over the past 24 hours it had damaged or destroyed 12 targets in Syria belonging to the IS fighters, including a command center and ammunition depots. A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, Col. Steve Warren, said he had no indication that the Russians had hit Islamic State targets.

 

"While there is always danger of conflict, of inadvertent contact" between coalition and Russian warplanes, "we are continuing with our operations," Warren told reporters at the Pentagon.

 

___

 

Associated Press writers Josh Lederman and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.

 

 

 

That's a good read and raises several valid concerns but the main ones should be mitigated, for me these are 

 

• Russia and USA accidentally shooting each others planes down but they are communicating so this seems unlikely 
• The Syrian rebels aligned with the West getting attacked....I cant see how this is going to work out if the Russians stay committed? Surly they would at sometime attack this group? But they are in the North and ISIS is in the West so this also should be negligible 

Edited October 2, 2015 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

Western intervention... didn't someone say something about being doomed to repeat history?

 

Libya, helping one tribe overthrowing the ruling tribe and settle old grudges. Heading towards becoming a failed state.

Iraq, helping the Shias overthrow the Sunnis. Country destabilized to the point of becoming a failed state.

Syria, helping a one minority trying to overthrow the other (ruling) minority, making it a defacto failed state in it's current condition. Practically a playground for every regional powers proxy war and settling of scores.

 

Sometimes you just can't rush things by pointing a gun at people and tell them to be "be happy". A desire among the locals for a change of balance of power is not the same as a desire for a different kind of society.

I don't know Gorth...your view seems to me like someone who is just prepared to let genocide happen....the world and the West has a moral responsibility to prevent this. But it cannot also have to govern the country once the dictator is removed 

 

This is up to the citizens of the country...and all those examples you mentioned are cases where the new rulers and or leaders failed to govern properly. Surly  you cannot blame the West for leaving countries to there own political destiny?

[Gorth]

I don't know Gorth...your view seems to me like someone who is just prepared to let genocide happen....the world and the West has a moral responsibility to prevent this.

That's twentieth century colonial power thinking

 

But it cannot also have to govern the country once the dictator is removed

No. But you can't always force a cultural change at gunpoint. Sure, it would be nice to accelerate the process, but cultural changes sometimes takes generations. And without a cultural change and the embracing of new ideas, outside intervention will most likely have no positive long term effect. I.e. point in case the 3 above examples. Would you say the world is a better place now than it was before the west encouraged (and in some cases outright supported militarily) the destabilizing of the ruling regimes in the countries above?

 

All of those conflicts had one thing in common, it was never about accepting "Western ideas", it was about religious differences, old grudges and tribal/clan affiliations.

[licketysplit]

http://news.yahoo.com/finlands-no-good-disappointed-migrants-turn-back-152042061.html

 

Tornio (Finland) (AFP) - Hundreds of predominantly Iraqi migrants who have travelled through Europe to reach Finland are turning back, saying they don't want to stay in the sparsely-populated country on Europe's northern frontier because it's too cold and boring.

 

...

 

"You can tell the world I hate Finland. It's too cold, there's no tea, no restaurants, no bars, nobody on the streets, only cars," 22-year-old Muhammed told AFP in Tornio, as the mercury struggled to inch above 10 degrees Celsius (50 Fahrenheit) on a recent blustery grey day.

 

 

Should we be sorry that our country is too boring after escaping war and persecution or something like that? 

 

Spoiled cry babies who can't handle the cold. Why the hell did they leave then??

[213374U]

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/02/officials-pentagon-weighs-protections-us-trained-rebels/73194508/

 

«It would be well for your government to consider that having your ships and ours, your aircraft and ours, in such proximity... is inherently DANGEROUS. Wars have begun that way, Mr. Ambassador.»

 

(lol @ "moderate rebels" btw. Yeah, the whole three of them need protecting!)

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/02/officials-pentagon-weighs-protections-us-trained-rebels/73194508/

 

«It would be well for your government to consider that having your ships and ours, your aircraft and ours, in such proximity... is inherently DANGEROUS. Wars have begun that way, Mr. Ambassador.»

 

(lol @ "moderate rebels" btw. Yeah, the whole three of them need protecting!)

 

Okay that is true ....what exactly is a " moderate rebel " in the context of the whole ME actually 

[Malcador]

International affairs sometimes end up like a match of DOTA,

[Gorth]

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/02/officials-pentagon-weighs-protections-us-trained-rebels/73194508/

 

«It would be well for your government to consider that having your ships and ours, your aircraft and ours, in such proximity... is inherently DANGEROUS. Wars have begun that way, Mr. Ambassador.»

 

(lol @ "moderate rebels" btw. Yeah, the whole three of them need protecting!)

 

You have to hand it to the Russians, they are good at this sleight of hand stuff. How many are currently thinking about the Ukrainian conflict?

[Varana]

"Moderate rebels" are those who started the uprising and were the main force carrying it in the beginning. After they were left out in the cold instead of getting support from outside (like the West), they were crushed between Assad's forces and the Islamic groups (pre-ISIS mainly backed by the oil monarchies). There were "moderate rebels" who could be called that; it's just that they've been basically annihilated since. That all opposition was Islamic from the beginning is an outright lie that Assad's consistently been trying to sell in order to present himself as the only source of stability and secularism.

 

Zoraptor: That map (as most maps of Eastern Syria) is quite misleading (not intentionally) at first glance. The majority of Homs Governorate may be coloured black for the IS but in terms of actually usable and settled land, it much less clear. And in terms of population, the government wins by a large margin.

So yes, not the city of Homs. But Russian airstrikes have been aimed at rebel territory just north of Homs, and northwest of Hama. That has absolutely nothing to do with the IS.

To be fair, that's not the first time someone has used that tactic. A few weeks back, as we remember, Erdogan started bombing the Kurds under the pretence of fighting against the IS.

[Darkpriest]

International affairs sometimes end up like a match of DOTA,

 

If everything around you goes full retard, stop resisting it and go full retard as well?

[Malcador]

If everything around you goes full retard, stop resisting it and go full retard as well?

Well, was thinking of it being powers fighting each other but mainly helping mooks 'win'. But that works as well, it seems.

[BruceVC]

 

I don't know Gorth...your view seems to me like someone who is just prepared to let genocide happen....the world and the West has a moral responsibility to prevent this.

That's twentieth century colonial power thinking

 

But it cannot also have to govern the country once the dictator is removed

No. But you can't always force a cultural change at gunpoint. Sure, it would be nice to accelerate the process, but cultural changes sometimes takes generations. And without a cultural change and the embracing of new ideas, outside intervention will most likely have no positive long term effect. I.e. point in case the 3 above examples. Would you say the world is a better place now than it was before the west encouraged (and in some cases outright supported militarily) the destabilizing of the ruling regimes in the countries above?

 

All of those conflicts had one thing in common, it was never about accepting "Western ideas", it was about religious differences, old grudges and tribal/clan affiliations.

 

Okay I see you guys seem to misunderstand what I mean by  " regime change  "  and " western intervention " 

 

I need to clarify a few things first, I'm just going to be direct. Please don't take this wrong way and think I'm being condescending or rude. I'm confidant you won't take offense....oh I'll also make some assumptions about your view which you can obviously correct if you want. Its easier to explain my overall point if I make assumptions about what I think you believe 

 

So firstly please lets try to  not even use the word " colonial " when I talk about Western intervention. I'm not trying to tell you what words to use but the words like " colonialism " , " neo-colonialism" , ''  imperialism", " white capital " are used by people as an insult to the West for the historical injustice many people suffered under due to Colonialism. But we aren't talking about anything even remotely like what the  Colonists did hundreds of years ago in Africa. So what I often find in my own country is people will use the word "colonialism " when they don't want to transform something in our society that needs to change...they prevent certain changes in our society that are for the good of everyone 

 

For example so you see I'm not joking, read this 

 

http://www.dawn.com/news/1210357/safrican-tribal-chief-gets-12-years-jail

 

So you may think " yeah this seems fair" and it is except for the fact last night on one of the radio talk shows there was real debate where some people were saying " its not right to charge an African Chief " and one guy was seriously raising a point that basically said  " we as Africans shouldn't be judged under Colonial Western law systems ...its un-Affrican " 

 

He wants African tribal law to have precedent which means NOTHING would happen to this chief ...so thats there  idea of justice 

 

Of course our Constitution and normal legal system  always wins but you then have this group of people who will phone in and make  these irritating comments like " we need to stop following the West"  .....they would just prefer these Chiefs, who live on Taxpayers money,  to be above the law 

 

So those are types of people who still use words like " colonial "

 

Anyway thats PART 1 .,....I need a break before I continue

[obyknven]

BruceVC has been deanoned!

http://youtu.be/nXUSBwYqcS8

 

[obyknven]

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/02/officials-pentagon-weighs-protections-us-trained-rebels/73194508/

 

 

(lol @ "moderate rebels" btw. Yeah, the whole three of them need protecting!)

 

 

[Zoraptor]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the IS.

To be fair, that's not the first time someone has used that tactic. A few weeks back, as we remember, Erdogan started bombing the Kurds under the pretence of fighting against the IS.

 

Everyone who has intervened has used that tactic- the US bombs 'Khorasan' as well as ISIS too. That's Al Qaeda/ Al Nusra but as with Qatar banning Al Jazeera from mentioning the connection it's all about wanting to be able to complain about Russia bombing Al Nusra with a straight face. Specifically with the Rastan (N Homs) bombing that area is held by Al Nusra/ Al Qaeda at least partly, as is the al Ghab plain area (NW Hama) where JAN is an integrated part of Jaish e Fatah. Some of the non AlQ aligned islamist rebels- Islamic Front/ Jaish e Islami, iirc- were also stupid enough to 'declare war' on Russia prior to strikes even starting and try to hit the airfield at Latakia.

 

There certainly were moderate opposition at the beginning, that's true. As always though the problem with moderate opposition is precisely that they are moderate. Moderate opposition failed in Egypt with less violence and failed in Libya with western intervention; the money and arms flow in to the radicals or the reactionaries, the only thing moderates ever get is some self serving political service. And you have to deal with the political reality that sees Obama explicitly saying 'sunni opposition' and which has maybe one moderate rebel group in the largest five rebel groups.

[BruceVC]

BruceVC has been deanoned!

[

Yeah its easy to suggest what the USA should be doing as an ardent and vociferous opponent of the current president ...because you don't have to deliver on it  

[Wrath of Dagon]

Actual quote from the Obola/Putin meeting : "Bend over, lady-boy!"

 

How low have we sunk when Putin looks good by comparison? http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/putin_the_indispensable_man.html

Hard to argue with his facts.

 

Don't think cooperating with Russia is a good idea though : http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424930/four-dangerous-realities-putins-middle-east-power-play-david-french

[BruceVC]

Actual quote from the Obola/Putin meeting : "Bend over, lady-boy!"

 

How low have we sunk when Putin looks good by comparison? http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/putin_the_indispensable_man.html

Hard to argue with his facts.

 

Don't think cooperating with Russia is a good idea though : http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424930/four-dangerous-realities-putins-middle-east-power-play-david-french

 WOD I cannot believe you are taking those links seriously...they are full of biased, untrue, scurrillous and ignorant points. Please don't believe them...I get you don't like Obama but that doesn't mean you have to let people manipulate you. Just a few examples of what is patently false or ignored in those articles 

 

• He clearly thinks Putin is this great leader and seems to admire his ruthlessness....lets analyze that for a moment. The Russian economy is in a recession....I'll repeat that...The Russian economy is in a recession

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-19/russia-rewrites-blueprint-for-growth-as-recession-dooms-consumer

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/11/news/economy/russia-crissis-gdp/

 

And its not just the fact the global oil  price has dropped and Russia never diversified its economy ( another sign of a " great "  leader, placing all Russia's economic  eggs in ONE  basket ) its also a result of the Western sanctions as Putin, the "great " leader has in his infinite wisdom believed he could illegally take the Crimea and basically get Eastern Ukraine to secede and join Russia like he did in Georgia....and he thought the West wouldn't actually use a military option..." Obama is weak remember " 

 

Yes the West wouldn't use a military option but battles and ideological conflicts can be won or ended without actually attacking a country...sanctions did work and are working 

 

So it amazes me that  a Texan and I assume  a Capitalist is not concerned with a leader who had made decisions that have caused his country to enter recession 

 

And then I keep explaining this and its getting a little frustrating ....the USA is not more involved in Syria as it  doesn't want to be. This is not a sign of weakness but prudence ...and who exactly should the USA be ashamed in front of ? No Western country is prepared to send ground troops so it can't be them he is referring to...oh wait he means the countries of the ME

 

Seriously the USA needs to feel humiliated by a group of countries that are currently the most dysfunctional in the world ... countries that despite all being Arab have a major problem where certain members just refuse to help fellow Muslims and Syrian refugees

 

And you want the USA to beg to be liked by these counties....why? The USA and Obama have nothing to prove to the ME and once again as a Texan this surprises me that you hold these countries in such high regard?

 

He also dismisses the Iran negotiations and considers them "failed " 

 

Anyway I could honestly go on and on ...but I think I made my point 

Edited October 3, 2015 by BruceVC

[Malcador]

Apparently not wanting Ww3 means you lack balls, to some.