[Ask the Gulch] Is there a good reason to confront Russia over its aggressive action in Syria?
Posted by rbroberg 7 years, 11 months ago to Ask the Gulch
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/...
Stay tuned for more Allahu Akbar expressions of love and thanksgiving.
Me dino calls that being "Merkeled" when Muslims commit rapes and murders in Germany.
Fortunately today's snowflake threatened delegate flip fail spares us all from dino also having to write about murdered citizens here being "Clintonized" by the doubled down horde the evil hag proposed flooding in.
The Russians seem to be stumbling into an Afgahistan-like tar baby with the Syrian conflict, and may welcome a more hard-nosed American negotiating presence. The real solution may be getting the regional nations to agree to divide things up along tribal/cultural lines, recognizing Kurdish, Shiite, Sunni, Alawi, etc. sovereign territories. Joe Biden was right about this being a logical solution.
Our new Secretary of State will be much more intimately knowledgeable in how to deal with Russia and Putin. Trump has been smart about picking figures with an amiable history with Russia and China, which should give us better results than the feckless Obama/Clinton/Kerry foreign policy.
I hate to say it, but as General Sherman said, "War is hell." It is insanity to think it's possible to conduct humane warfare, particularly when it's necessary to break the will of your opponent. The Russians are attempting to win and put an end to the conflict. If we can find a way to help them end the conflict before too much more human damage is done, we should, but confrontation on behalf of "rebels" who are extremist Muslims could draw us into a potential military conflict that will not end well.
We bear responsibility for the Russian-Ukraine conflict. When the elected Russian descended Ukraine President chose not to enter the EU, and chose instead to favor stronger ties with Russia, our CIA engineered a coup to overthrow him and place a "pure" Ukrainian in his place that would oppose ties to Russia. This dunderhead move, compounded by a promise to bring Ukraine into NATO and the EU gave the Russians no choice but to try to ensure their investment in the Crimean Black Sea port wasn't lost. If we can help secure peace between Russia and Ukraine we should, but we need to make it clear to both sides we are staying out of their business.
Your last paragraph is excellent, Dr. Zarkov.
This (Obama's) battle is against an existing regime and we've all seen how those have been turning out, lately.
Personally, I dont want syrian refugees living next door to me. They are way to different in their thoughts about human and property rights for me to feel comfortable with them in the USA.
In this day and age, I think people who want to live here should do so because they believe in our values. Otherwise, go live somewhere else. Refugees are desperate people who will do and say anything, and we dont need that here at this point in our history. REfugees today feel entitled and want to be taken care of here- at my expense. No thanks. I say they should fix their own country
Did you think the Middle East has an abundance of oil? Nothing in comparison to its altruism. When the life of a loved one is lost, that is awful. When the life of a loved one is sacrificed to a false god, that is beyond blasphemous. And yet, we see ISIS doing this quite consistently.
The fact that Russia in its irrational egoism has entered a horror comparable to Vietnam is not surprising, but lamentable to say the very least.
And he has done an excellent job. Unlike America.
The real reason we get into any of the wars is to make money for the gun runners and to satisfy the lust for blood the unconscious evil kakistocrats have.
I would also point out that I am not necessarily defending Ukraine's government. Do not misconstrue my comments. What I pointed out is that we (as NATO) agreed to give them some limited support. The goals were to try to encourage the Ukraine toward membership in NATO (after some political changes) and to discourage Russian aggression. One can disagree with the agreement or its terms, but the fact of the matter is that it was signed and binding. The obligation was assumed voluntarily and until it is voluntarily discharged or amended, we should play the honorable part.
By the way, NATO, and possibly the EU, is DITW.
Where, and when, has the Russian Federation been the aggressor?
You have yet to respond to my PM to you.
"By the way, NATO, and possibly the EU, is DITW."
NATO is a strategic alliance centered in common defense. The EU is a geo-political alliance centered in governmental similarity and economic solidarity. They aren't comparable institutions.
Is the EU dead in the water? I would tend to agree. Why? Because it is an attempt to subvert not only culture and identity, but currency and market behavior under a single socialist banner. Socialism is a defunct ideology - it will always fail and collapse in on itself if given time. I will be surprised if it lasts another 15 years to be honest and the flood of Muslim immigrants is going to hasten that fall.
Is NATO dead in the water? What really matters is whether or not the US takes the lead and that is entirely dependent on the Commander in Chief. Bush was a strong CinC and led NATO to invade Iraq. Obama never wanted to lead in a conflict and bailed out in Egypt, Syria, Iran, and the Ukraine. We'll see if Trump is different. The other problem with NATO is not that their #1 historical target isn't still a danger, but that only the US really has the economic and political will necessary to do anything. Most of the rest of the NATO members aren't carrying their own weight because their socialist policies are destroying their economies and their will to defend freedom. The US effectively is NATO at this point, and that, I agree, does not bode well for the continuance of that institution - especially when for the last eight years our own government has been pushing the same failed ideology which is crippling our NATO partners.
"Where, and when, has the Russian Federation been the aggressor?"
Good grief - when they invaded Crimea, perhaps? Or their cyber attacks on our infrastructure? Or their aggressive air patrols over Syria that killed Allied troops? We could also look at their military buildup along other portions of the border, such as Poland. Remember that Russia was very much against the ballistic missile shield we offered to Poland (and which Obama reneged on). Or we can look at the oil pipeline to the Baltic. Or their arms sales to Iran right after Obama funneled them $400 billion. If you choose to ignore the evidence, that's up to you. There are plenty of signs - you just have to choose not to ignore them. Russia has just been more circumspect than the Chinese in openly challenging the US, but they are far from out of the picture.
Where do you get your facts?
(After 11:15 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Russian President Putin Speaks with President Bush
Edit event
Russian President Vladimir Putin phones President Bush while he is aboard Air Force One. Putin is the first foreign leader to call Bush following the attacks. He earlier called the White House to speak with the president, but had to speak with Condoleezza Rice instead (see Between 10:32 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. September 11, 2001). Putin tells Bush he recognizes that the US has put troops on alert, and makes it clear that he will stand down Russian troops. US forces were ordered to high alert some time between 10:10 and 10:46 a.m. (see (Between 10:10 a.m. and 10:35 a.m.) September 11, 2001) Bush later describes, “In the past… had the President put the—raised the DEF CON levels of our troops, Russia would have responded accordingly. There would have been inevitable tension.” Bush therefore describes this phone call as “a moment where it clearly said to me, [President Putin] understands the Cold War is over.” [US President, 10/1/2001; US President, 11/19/2001; CNN, 9/10/2002] Putin also sends a telegram to Bush today, stating: “The series of barbaric terrorist acts, directed against innocent people, has evoked our anger and indignation.… The whole international community must rally in the fight against terrorism.” Russian Embassy, 9/17/2001
There are two sides to every story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FhCi7....
- Yoda
You rail on and on about me how I should listen to "both sides" of the story, yet you do not "have the time" to read through my post and consider it. What a hypocrite. I'm done with you. Never PM me again.