ChatterBank7 mins ago
Putin Speaks To The American People
Vladimir Putin has addressed the American people via the pages of the New York Times.
// The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance. //
http://
Do you agree or disagree with him?
Has he out flanked Obama?
And does the Obamalook increasingly like a lame duck President?
// The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance. //
http://
Do you agree or disagree with him?
Has he out flanked Obama?
And does the Obamalook increasingly like a lame duck President?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Outflanked? Our feckless President ("Lead from behind") doesn't know the meaning of the word since he's clueless and has shown it to the world in Spades over the last few weeks. I shudder to think what would happen if we were faced with a true internationa
16:20 Thu 12th Sep 2013
Hmm...
I'd rather first address the "lame duck" point. Why is it such a bad thing to pull back from military action when an alternative seems to have presented itself? Even as a supporter of intervention in principle I'd still see it as a last resort. The plan to withdraw chemical weapons from Syria, if carried out properly, would certainly be useful and would then allow us to focus on the vital humanitarian aid that is needed. I suppose that it could be a distraction attempt by Russia to keep the US out, but then most people were in favour of (at least the UK, and I assume by extension the rest of the Western world) keeping out so isn't it a good thing then that an opportunity has arisen not to go to War? Obama has, in my opinion, done the right thing by exploring it, although I hope that military intervention remains on the table should this plan fall through. Rather than being a "lame duck", it sometimes takes more strength to change one's mind than to stick to one's guns.
As to Putin's claims -- well, I think he's being far too definite about it but otherwise it's hard to disagree. A strike on Syria could result in more victims, and could spread the conflict wider -- by becoming a proxy war against Iran, for example, or even against Russia given that both of these countries support the Assad regime. On the other hand Putin seems to have given little attention to what not striking could do. The situation is already awful for those involved, and talking and negotiations have long since stopped being options, as long as there is no pressure from outside. Too, what does not intervening say to (some of) the people of Syria as well as to those despotic leaders who might be tempted to follow Assad's lead? To the first, it says that the West is no longer willing to come to their aid when they need it most. Ironically, this could push people towards Islamic extremism just as much as intervening to allow such groups to win might -- because some people, with no support from the West, might see only the support they gained from those extremists. Intervention could do the same thing too, of course, in a different way, because others might perceive any strike as an attack on Islam. It's Catch-22, really.
To other despotic leaders, meanwhile, no intervention would say that they can carry out such grotesque and barbaric attacks against their own people with impunity. This doesn't seem helpful either.
Where I disagree with Putin most is -- well, firstly his claims about "We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law," are a bit of a joke, really -- the certainty with which he asserts that the situation will only be made worse by foreign intervention. Will it really? Might not a series of strikes against key targets push Assad closer to the negotiating table, if he sees that suddenly he is in danger of losing? At the very least, it would provide some incentive, or give him something to think about. That could lead to a better situation, as the violence scales down. Or a worse one, if Assad suddenly feels that he is in a race against time to hold on to power (which he would be) and decides to go down all guns blazing. I don't think anyone can predict with absolute confidence what will happen in the event of military intervention. And in the meantime, staying out just allows things to get worse under their own steam.
What a horrible and tragic mess. But in the end, the only thing anyone should care about is what is best for the people caught up in the middle. That is what should guide the diplomacy, even though we know it won't as people get tied down in petty national interest. But one way or another, any action taken that could help the Syrian people while also avoiding military action should certainly be explored fully. I hope it works and makes a difference.
I'd rather first address the "lame duck" point. Why is it such a bad thing to pull back from military action when an alternative seems to have presented itself? Even as a supporter of intervention in principle I'd still see it as a last resort. The plan to withdraw chemical weapons from Syria, if carried out properly, would certainly be useful and would then allow us to focus on the vital humanitarian aid that is needed. I suppose that it could be a distraction attempt by Russia to keep the US out, but then most people were in favour of (at least the UK, and I assume by extension the rest of the Western world) keeping out so isn't it a good thing then that an opportunity has arisen not to go to War? Obama has, in my opinion, done the right thing by exploring it, although I hope that military intervention remains on the table should this plan fall through. Rather than being a "lame duck", it sometimes takes more strength to change one's mind than to stick to one's guns.
As to Putin's claims -- well, I think he's being far too definite about it but otherwise it's hard to disagree. A strike on Syria could result in more victims, and could spread the conflict wider -- by becoming a proxy war against Iran, for example, or even against Russia given that both of these countries support the Assad regime. On the other hand Putin seems to have given little attention to what not striking could do. The situation is already awful for those involved, and talking and negotiations have long since stopped being options, as long as there is no pressure from outside. Too, what does not intervening say to (some of) the people of Syria as well as to those despotic leaders who might be tempted to follow Assad's lead? To the first, it says that the West is no longer willing to come to their aid when they need it most. Ironically, this could push people towards Islamic extremism just as much as intervening to allow such groups to win might -- because some people, with no support from the West, might see only the support they gained from those extremists. Intervention could do the same thing too, of course, in a different way, because others might perceive any strike as an attack on Islam. It's Catch-22, really.
To other despotic leaders, meanwhile, no intervention would say that they can carry out such grotesque and barbaric attacks against their own people with impunity. This doesn't seem helpful either.
Where I disagree with Putin most is -- well, firstly his claims about "We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law," are a bit of a joke, really -- the certainty with which he asserts that the situation will only be made worse by foreign intervention. Will it really? Might not a series of strikes against key targets push Assad closer to the negotiating table, if he sees that suddenly he is in danger of losing? At the very least, it would provide some incentive, or give him something to think about. That could lead to a better situation, as the violence scales down. Or a worse one, if Assad suddenly feels that he is in a race against time to hold on to power (which he would be) and decides to go down all guns blazing. I don't think anyone can predict with absolute confidence what will happen in the event of military intervention. And in the meantime, staying out just allows things to get worse under their own steam.
What a horrible and tragic mess. But in the end, the only thing anyone should care about is what is best for the people caught up in the middle. That is what should guide the diplomacy, even though we know it won't as people get tied down in petty national interest. But one way or another, any action taken that could help the Syrian people while also avoiding military action should certainly be explored fully. I hope it works and makes a difference.
I agree they should leave it alone but Putin is not trying to stop US action for altruistic reasons. No he has not out flanked Obama, no Obama does not look like a lame duck precident. Surprised you aren't claiming he was Humiliated. It is testement to the US that it is even possible for the Russian president to address the people via the media. I doubt that would work the other way round.
This sounds about right:
"Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world."
The British media, in an attempt to take the moral high ground (lol!), has become a bunch of sabre rattlers in recent weeks.
"Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world."
The British media, in an attempt to take the moral high ground (lol!), has become a bunch of sabre rattlers in recent weeks.
Tora
Obama is hastily backtracking to avoid humiliation - by Congress.
// President Barack Obama's allies in Congress are using a pause in the Capitol Hill debate on Syria to regroup and try to shore up flagging support for military strikes.
Senators on Wednesday began sketching out the timeline for the next stage of debate, after Mr. Obama told the nation in a televised speech that he had asked Congress to postpone voting on a resolution authorizing military force while he pursued a new diplomatic track. //
Lame Duck.
Obama is hastily backtracking to avoid humiliation - by Congress.
// President Barack Obama's allies in Congress are using a pause in the Capitol Hill debate on Syria to regroup and try to shore up flagging support for military strikes.
Senators on Wednesday began sketching out the timeline for the next stage of debate, after Mr. Obama told the nation in a televised speech that he had asked Congress to postpone voting on a resolution authorizing military force while he pursued a new diplomatic track. //
Lame Duck.
George Galloway didn't sound that lost for words in the Commons yesterday
Where was Putin when Assad was slaughtering his people with conventional weapons BA k before the civil war started in earnest? Was he pressuring Assad then? No.
Arguably - in fact almost certainly - it's the belated threat of force which had finally forced Assad to move. I'd bet this 'initiative' from Russia actually came as a result of a 'what do I do now?' plea to them from Damascus.
What a shame this intervention is only happening now, thousands of lives and millions of refugees down the line
Where was Putin when Assad was slaughtering his people with conventional weapons BA k before the civil war started in earnest? Was he pressuring Assad then? No.
Arguably - in fact almost certainly - it's the belated threat of force which had finally forced Assad to move. I'd bet this 'initiative' from Russia actually came as a result of a 'what do I do now?' plea to them from Damascus.
What a shame this intervention is only happening now, thousands of lives and millions of refugees down the line
There seems to be a good deal of progress on this front now -- breaking news on BBC says that Assad "Syria will apply to join chemical convention 'in next few days' and submit arms data a month after signing".
He also said it was down to Russian intervention, rather than US threats. I can't say that I believe him on that. Since the US intervention was always going to be based on Chemical weapons use, what better way to keep the US out than to get rid of their excuse to get involved?
He also said it was down to Russian intervention, rather than US threats. I can't say that I believe him on that. Since the US intervention was always going to be based on Chemical weapons use, what better way to keep the US out than to get rid of their excuse to get involved?
Outflanked? Our feckless President ("Lead from behind") doesn't know the meaning of the word since he's clueless and has shown it to the world in Spades over the last few weeks.
I shudder to think what would happen if we were faced with a true international emergency. The people that I fear for the most though are the Israelis', although I suspect they are much tougher and smarter than anyone in our leaderless government...
I shudder to think what would happen if we were faced with a true international emergency. The people that I fear for the most though are the Israelis', although I suspect they are much tougher and smarter than anyone in our leaderless government...
A preview of Assad's address to the Russian people on Rossiya 24 (now that really IS preaching to the converted!) suggests giving details of whereabouts of his chemical weapons one month after signing a treaty against their use and provided all other chemical weapons countries sign up also and provided the US drops its threat of force. If Obama falls for that old nonsense he will indeed be a lame duck: at the moment I'd say he's more of 'late duck'
I don't like posting links but this is worth a read
http://
http://
Apologies for the tardiness, coccinelle... but "what would Mitt Romney do.." is pure speculation, but being more of a Libertarian than a Republican, I'd take a lead from Ronald Reagan (and... yes, Margaret Thatcher) who told Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall.." and shortly, it was done, no? Additionally, Reagan's clear headed determination to recognize the Soviet Union as the true enemy ("Evil Empire" seems familiar) and not just the lackeys they support brought the Soviets to a screeching halt for decades. Reagan's willingness to leave Russia in the dust in the arms race was just as significant and he (Reagan) did that in the face of significant protest here in the U.S.
Look, Obama is the worst possible President in a situation like this. He gets his advice from "Yes" men, including the drivel from the Vice-President and obviously wants nothing to do with international relations with the possible exception of more ass kissing and bowing and scraping to get the "World" to like us, when there is no one left anywhere that is able to confront the Evil Empires of the world.
Cameron chose a wise path, in my opinion... let's wait and get the real information. As terrible as it is, is there any real difference in children meeting their deaths at the end of a Russian supplied rifle as opposed to a gas filled canister? They are both as equally evil and unspeakable... but we (the U.S.) have allowed thousands of children to die throughout the world (does Rawanda ring a bell?) simply because Obama (and other recent past Presidents) haven't had the will to actually lead.
The next big blotch on the radar is Iran. They will launch a nuke towards Tel Aviv as soon as they are able, again, through the auspices of Russia and we are going to leave it to the Israelis to fend for themselves (which isn't a bad choice since they do very well for themselves). The one world leader that I can truly admire is Netanyahu for his singular vision of protecting his people and nation, but that's another debate...
Look, Obama is the worst possible President in a situation like this. He gets his advice from "Yes" men, including the drivel from the Vice-President and obviously wants nothing to do with international relations with the possible exception of more ass kissing and bowing and scraping to get the "World" to like us, when there is no one left anywhere that is able to confront the Evil Empires of the world.
Cameron chose a wise path, in my opinion... let's wait and get the real information. As terrible as it is, is there any real difference in children meeting their deaths at the end of a Russian supplied rifle as opposed to a gas filled canister? They are both as equally evil and unspeakable... but we (the U.S.) have allowed thousands of children to die throughout the world (does Rawanda ring a bell?) simply because Obama (and other recent past Presidents) haven't had the will to actually lead.
The next big blotch on the radar is Iran. They will launch a nuke towards Tel Aviv as soon as they are able, again, through the auspices of Russia and we are going to leave it to the Israelis to fend for themselves (which isn't a bad choice since they do very well for themselves). The one world leader that I can truly admire is Netanyahu for his singular vision of protecting his people and nation, but that's another debate...
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
How it Works14 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Family & Relationships14 mins ago
Festive Drinks Quiz - 5 January
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.