• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed? [W:83]

Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

  • Yes he does

    Votes: 12 38.7%
  • He's mostly right, but not on everything

    Votes: 5 16.1%
  • Kinda...not always

    Votes: 5 16.1%
  • Not really

    Votes: 7 22.6%
  • No, stay out of our affairs!

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Total voters
    31
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

Yeah, I read what you wrote, did you read what I wrote? If you did you'll recall the word "seemingly"

Doesn't matter. Your argument is the same as saying cops support criminals by killing them. Saying I'm seemingly support AQ by killing them makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Well for one I don't know where you get your intel, but I know that Hezbollah had this little skirmish with Israel for oh I don't know a very looooooong time, even claimed they won a few years back.

And where did they get all of those weapons, money and training? Iran and Syria. And it all came through Syria. Without Syria they will wither.

I also don't think you seem to understand Hezbollah's connection to fellow Shiite Iran? No, forgot about them? Yeah, it appears you did. Don't thinkk Iran would love a little puppet to play with?

And how exactly do you think Iran is going to keep Hezbollah around without Syria? Especially now that Iran is entirely cut off from the world's money system. Please elaborate as to how you think this will work. A organization dependent on its benefactors, one who is gone and the other who no longer can fund it and has lost the transit path for delivering goods. Please, tell me how Hezbollah is going to get the strength to take over Syria. Let's your plan for how Hezbollah cut off from its financing and weapons will magically gather strength.

Now, I am certain you haven't a clue, most of Hamas senior leadership resides in Syria, knowing that they be dead if they go into territory which the IDF has no problem bombing

And that is suppose to be a threat how? Leadership is nothing without manpower behind it. Hence why I made the comment about your seemingly large unawareness about Hamas. Also, if you think the IDF or Mossad is afraid of hitting them in Lebanon, you seriously underestimate the Israelis.

Scratch this, reverse, than you've got it!

Uh uh. Syria depends on Hezbollah giving them weapons and money? lol.

No, to a person who thinks he has the pulse of the ME but doesn't know his butt from a bumpersticker, I don't suppose any of this would...

Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that.

I'd love to see your magical plan for how Hezbollah gets weapons and money without Syria and Iran but I don't think you understand the topic at all.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

Sorta of. In the process of bombing Assad, we lob a few missiles towards AQ related fighter cells. They're already afraid we're going to bomb them as well. We should make sure their fears are realized.

In response to me asking if we should help Assad rid himself of the terrorists.

Sorta is sorta seemingly...
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

Doesn't matter. Your argument is the same as saying cops support criminals by killing them. Saying I'm seemingly support AQ by killing them makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

No, that's what we call an Aunt Sally...




And where did they get all of those weapons, money and training? Iran and Syria. And it all came through Syria. Without Syria they will wither.

everyone knows an ant.....can't.....move a rubbertree plant but you've got....



And how exactly do you think Iran is going to keep Hezbollah around without Syria? Especially now that Iran is entirely cut off from the world's money system. Please elaborate as to how you think this will work. A organization dependent on its benefactors, one who is gone and the other who no longer can fund it and has lost the transit path for delivering goods. Please, tell me how Hezbollah is going to get the strength to take over Syria. Let's your plan for how Hezbollah cut off from its financing and weapons will magically gather strength.

Iran is cut off from the world money supply? really? Did someone tell the Ayatollah? How is Hezbollah going to get the strength to take over Syria, perhaps you're unaware of what a power vacuum is, you know, the one you left after you had the US bombing both AL-Qaeda and Assad? You really don't know what's going on over there...



And that is suppose to be a threat how? Leadership is nothing without manpower behind it. Hence why I made the comment about your seemingly large unawareness about Hamas. Also, if you think the IDF or Mossad is afraid of hitting them in Lebanon, you seriously underestimate the Israelis.

and if you think they're out their all by their lonesome....wow man you're a reaching...

I never said IDF is afraid, Aunt Sally kicking up her heels again?

Uh uh. Syria depends on Hezbollah giving them weapons and money? lol.

Where on earth did you pull this one out of?


Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that.

I'd love to see your magical plan for how Hezbollah gets weapons and money without Syria and Iran but I don't think you understand the topic at all.

I love how you keep making up arguments with no substantiated facts and only conjecture, poor conjecture and limited knowledge about the area and it's players.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

In response to me asking if we should help Assad rid himself of the terrorists.

Sorta is sorta seemingly...

Sorta was in the context of terrorists. You said terrorists as a whole with no separation between secular fighters and Islamists. I said sorta because I only want to bomb the AQ related groups and NOT the secular fighters.

Please read more carefully in the future. That way you can avoid using the logic that dictates you support people by killing them.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

In an Op-Ed in the New York Times, Putin bypassed diplomatic channels and spoke directly to the American people.

Among his arguments:

-The UN must be allowed to work.
-Attacking Syria will destabilize the region
-The opposition used chemical weapons, not Assad
-Diplomacy must be used instead of force
-America is not exceptional

How much of his argument holds some water, and how much is BS?

For someone like me (a Pole born and raised in Moscow), the most jarring sentences of this address are in the very beginning. "We stood against each other during the cold war". This "we" equates Russia with the USSR, and turns every Russian into a Soviet. No, Mr.Putin: You, the illegitimate totalitarian Communist regime and the monstrous KGB machine in which you, personally, were a tiny happy cog - "stood against America". Russians and other captive nations ("we") had no voice and no choice.

How someone who refuses to make this absolutely crucial distinction - while claiming to a leader of the new, democratic, liberal, even God-fearing (see his last sentence) Russia - can be taken seriously?

And then, of course, the claim that "We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law". Please.

But other than that, I have to admit that "speaking directly to American people" - while saying obvious things the American people are repeating themselves, over and over - was a strong move.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

No, that's what we call an Aunt Sally.

So you have no argument.

everyone knows an ant.....can't.....move a rubbertree plant but you've got....


So you have no argument again.

Iran is cut off from the world money supply? really? Did someone tell the Ayatollah?

Have you seen the state of Iran's economy? Seen the massive devaluation of their currency? The mass reliance on barter for international trade? Yeah, Iran is cut off and it's showing.

How is Hezbollah going to get the strength to take over Syria, perhaps you're unaware of what a power vacuum is, you know, the one you left after you had the US bombing both AL-Qaeda and Assad? You really don't know what's going on over there...

You keep saying that, but you don't demonstrate it. How is Hezbollah going to fund such an endeavor without money and resupply? You have no specifics whatsoever.

So you have no argument yet again.

and if you think they're out their all by their lonesome....wow man you're a reaching.

How am I reaching? Hamas's power base is in the Gaza strip. How are they going to provide any force when all they have is a relatively small group in Lebanon? How are they going to move troops, supplies and money out of the Gaza strip to Lebanon to be used in a Hezbollah push into Syria?

I ask you these questions to see if you understand the topic, but you do not reply with anything that shows you even remotely understand the situation. You aren't even aware of the currency problems Iran is facing due to the sanctions. You keep making claims I don't understand, but you are completely unable to address my points or show you even remotely understand basic logistics.

I never said IDF is afraid, Aunt Sally kicking up her heels again?

Actually you argued just that

"knowing that they be dead if they go into territory which the IDF has no problem bombing"

The IDF and Mossad have no problems bombing Lebanon and carrying out assassinations via bombs in Lebanon. You're saying that Hamas leadership is hanging out in Lebanon because they're afraid to go where Israel will bomb them and thus arguing that Israel won't bomb them in Lebanon. Which is false.

Where on earth did you pull this one out of?

I said that Hezbollah is reliant upon Syria. You said this:

Scratch this, reverse, than you've got it!

Therefore you have argued that the reverse is actuyally true, that Syria is dependent upon Hezbollah. You need to start reading more carefully.

I love how you keep making up arguments with no substantiated facts and only conjecture, poor conjecture and limited knowledge about the area and it's players.

This coming from a guy who thinks that without Iran or Syria that Hezbollah could take over Syria.

Yeah. This discussion is pretty much over, you don't even have the slightest grasp of the topic at all.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

I'm wondering how many Russian newspapers would be allowed to give Obama full access to write an op-ed. Just wow.

How many Russian politicians would be trashing Putin as ours are doing to Obama?.

Major Russian newspapers would have no problem with an Obama op-ed. As a matter of fact, they would fall over each other to get it. Too bad the idea had never occurred to the arrogant doofus.

You are confusing the modern Russia with the USSR (not unlike Mr.Putin in a way). Yes, it is a fake democracy, and yes, actual threats to the power of Chosen Ones are "dealt with in a timely manner". But the USSR it is not. The borders are open; the radio jammers that surrounded Moscow had been sold for scrap long time ago; freedom of speech (well, in the capitals and on Internet) is virtually unlimited. You may recall that quite recently hundreds of thousands marched in Moscow with white ribbons and anti-Putin slogans - and only one (loudest) leader of the opposition had been arrested - not for organizing the marches, of course, on trumped-up felony charges - and then released and allowed to run for Mayor of Moscow, finishing strong second and acquiring all but official certificate of the People's Choice.

The Putin's endless tenure is a dark and disappointing period in history of Russia. But it's nothing like the USSR. Not even close.

The only reason Obama did not write an op-ed for Nezavisimaya, or Komsomolskaya Pravda -or better, for the liberal, anti-Putin, pro-American Novaya Gazeta -
is that none of his advisers had thought about it. In contrast, Putin's advisers seem to be able to think on their feet.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

In an Op-Ed in the New York Times, Putin bypassed diplomatic channels and spoke directly to the American peopl
e.

Among his arguments:

-The UN must be allowed to work.
-Attacking Syria will destabilize the region
-The opposition used chemical weapons, not Assad
-Diplomacy must be used instead of force
-America is not exceptional



Of course Putin has a point. The real question is - IS IT A VALID POINT?
How much of his argument holds some water, and how much is BS?
anyone who takes the time to write an Op-ed obviously has a point and is trying to bring others around to his point/points of view.

Anyone who believes what Putin has to say should support him.

Others should offer an alternative plan.

Just being against his plan is not enough.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

So you have no argument.

You mean your straw man? Nah, you keep it.



So you have no argument again.

A lack of comprehension on your part doesn't constitute a lack of argument on mine


Have you seen the state of Iran's economy? Seen the massive devaluation of their currency? The mass reliance on barter for international trade? Yeah, Iran is cut off and it's showing.

Oh dear god, ....

Despite Being Economically Unfree, Iran's Economy Shows Resilience - Forbes

You keep saying that, but you don't demonstrate it. How is Hezbollah going to fund such an endeavor without money and resupply? You have no specifics whatsoever.

So you have no argument yet again.

You act like they're broke and penniless, they've got stockpiles and mullah aplenty... sorry I don't happen to have their accountant on speed dial... Oh, another twist, I ask you for proof and you accuse me of not having any...:lamo

How am I reaching? Hamas's power base is in the Gaza strip. How are they going to provide any force when all they have is a relatively small group in Lebanon? How are they going to move troops, supplies and money out of the Gaza strip to Lebanon to be used in a Hezbollah push into Syria?

With leadership, support and alliances in Syria. Again what do I need to speak in tongues? The entire premise is based on the US blowing all the current power players to smithereens. A relatively small group could easily take control of certain stockpiles and munitions and presto chango, they're in business. I think you're in the throws of a conniption

I ask you these questions to see if you understand the topic, but you do not reply with anything that shows you even remotely understand the situation. You aren't even aware of the currency problems Iran is facing due to the sanctions. You keep making claims I don't understand, but you are completely unable to address my points or show you even remotely understand basic logistics.


I am the only one understanding the topic, you on the other hand are arguing from untenable positions demanding detailed specific answers about imaginary scenerio's that you keep concocting and adding on to or keep trying to send that old broad Aunt Sally my way...

Actually you argued just that

"knowing that they be dead if they go into territory which the IDF has no problem bombing"

The IDF and Mossad have no problems bombing Lebanon and carrying out assassinations via bombs in Lebanon. You're saying that Hamas leadership is hanging out in Lebanon because they're afraid to go where Israel will bomb them and thus arguing that Israel won't bomb them in Lebanon. Which is false.

Context, it's what's for dinner.


I said that Hezbollah is reliant upon Syria. You said this:

Scratch this, reverse, than you've got it!

Therefore you have argued that the reverse is actuyally true, that Syria is dependent upon Hezbollah. You need to start reading more carefully.

Again context, WOW, you really need to start comprehending what you read.

This coming from a guy who thinks that without Iran or Syria that Hezbollah could take over Syria.

Ladies and Gentleman, one more time, let's give Aunt Sally a hand...:applaud

Yeah. This discussion is pretty much over, you don't even have the slightest grasp of the topic at all.

Yeah, that's it buddy...:thumbs: Now run along you obvious child...
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

In an Op-Ed in the New York Times, Putin bypassed diplomatic channels and spoke directly to the American people.

Among his arguments:

-The UN must be allowed to work.
-Attacking Syria will destabilize the region
-The opposition used chemical weapons, not Assad
-Diplomacy must be used instead of force
-America is not exceptional

How much of his argument holds some water, and how much is BS?

Putin has the World status to be taken seriously and knows USA media is manipulated and as an ex-KGB officer knows the value of PR. He has used his position to speak directly to the USA citizens and what he said appears to be true, contrary to mainstream media CIA manipulated reports. We must get the Intelligence agencies out of our media to re-establish an objective press instead of propaganda.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

In an Op-Ed in the New York Times, Putin bypassed diplomatic channels and spoke directly to the American people.

Among his arguments:

-The UN must be allowed to work.
-Attacking Syria will destabilize the region
-The opposition used chemical weapons, not Assad
-Diplomacy must be used instead of force
-America is not exceptional

How much of his argument holds some water, and how much is BS?

-The UN must be allowed to work. - ...says the leader of the country that routinely thwarts pretty much everything everybody else wants to do "just because".

-Attacking Syria will destabilize the region - It's already a destabilized region.

-The opposition used chemical weapons, not Assad - He doesn't know that. I doubt he even really believes it.

-Diplomacy must be used instead of force - He's deathly afraid that our using force will expose him and his country to the world for being completely inept to do anything about it.

-America is not exceptional - Comes off as a serious inferiority complex.

How much of his argument holds some water, and how much is BS? - Maybe a few grains of truth, but for the most part lies, lies-by-omission, and a great deal of hypocrisy.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

Your "boy" Pootin, as you called Obama a "boy" is winning because of the enemy within, the GOP. Own it.

Bush's fault in 3......2......
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

Let us face it. Putin's media campaign won tremendously in this round over Syria. The western media through hibernation have allowed themselves to come to a point to actually want to air or press Putin. Even the poll here majorly says that he is correct and your own President is not.

You are an open society. You welcome all. It seems Putin is using this vacuum here.

But exactly where is the red line not to be crossed in the media though? Who will draw that line? Someone like Obama?
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

Putin is full of it.

Let's recap:

"No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization."


The UN doesn't work when two security council members who have permanent voting rights refuse to allow any action against states no matter how badly those states are butchering their citizens. China is HORRIBLE candidate for the security council because China has internal projection problems in interfering with the matters of others in the fear that eventually its own bad behavior will cause others to interfere in Chinese matters. Thus, China refuses to vote for any real action and thus provides cover for state sanctioned wholesale mass slaughter. Russia is using it to give the finger to the West as Russian power declines in the world. Being able to prevent others from acting is in its self the power that a weaker nation has. Russia doesn't play by any of the world's rules when it feels like it and thus has no shame in using what should be measures to prevent war crimes to gain political standing. Essentially Putin is standing on the proverbial bodies of dead Syrians. As he did with Libya. And Russia on Kosovo.

"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."


There's a good chance that doing nothing will result in unleashing a new wave of terrorism. That's coming either way. As for the Iranian program, doing nothing gives Iran even more cover to get its nuclear program up and running. If we show our threats are meaningless, what does Iran have to fear? We become a paper tiger. Putin is 100% full of **** that this will have any impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What's holding that up is the expansion of Jewish settlements and the fact that its core, Israel doesn't want peace. They get peace with the Palestinian, they have to deal with their own internal problems that could potentially rip Israel apart. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict allows Israel to brush these problems under the rug and let the parties focus on the Palestinians as the problem, not each other. Israel alone faces a welfare entitlement program that could destroy the state. And they do not even remotely have a good way of fixing it.

I think it's funny how Putin promotes Democracy put actively tries to destroy it in Russia and FSU states. This guy is more hypocritical than some users here.

"Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria?"

And the longer the fight, the more hardened they get and the bigger threat they become, so therefore do nothing and prolong the fight? What kind of crap logic is that Putin?

"From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. "

Which is largely more bull****. There is no ZOPA between the Rebels and Assad. Assad wants to stay in power. Rebels will never allow this. There can be no peaceful dialogue because each of them has a condition that excludes a potential zone of possible agreement. And yes, you are protecting the Syrian government. If you gave a **** about international law, you'd be pushing hard to remove Assad or his weapons. The transfer of chemical weapons is a sham because it cannot happen in a war zone. Putin is buying time for Assad and nothing more. The whole chemical weapons transfer plan is doomed from the start and was deliberately designed that way.

"Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council."

Ignore the fact that Russia and China will veto any plan they don't like, even if it lets murderous rampages continue.

"ut there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. "

Is that why we have emails from Syrian officials planning, coordinating and mopping up from the planned chemical attack? Heck, we have dialogue between them that has reactions from one who was amazed at the damage it did, way more than he expected. Syrian rebels did this? Only if you're blind, deaf and dumb....or have an ulterior motive for lying.

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

This is the stupidest thing I have read so far. Attacking Israel would unleash the might of the Israeli Air Force who has no problems bombing the crap out of people it believes to be terrorists. The rebels are already getting pounded by Assad's subpar air force. They will get demolished by a proper air force.

I can't keep reading this. It's that bad.

Seriously, if you take that article seriously, you are extremely ignorant.
I agree completely. This is not Putin as a benevolent wise world leader. This is Putin as an arrogant bastadge given the opportunity to grind his thumb in Obamas eye.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

Bush's fault in 3......2......

Bush has been a Statesman since leaving office, something that cannot be said for the rest of his warmongering clowns, and he is to be praised. Try again?
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

-The UN must be allowed to work.

*I'd rather it didn't. It's mostly socialist economic programs that make things worse. But in this case yeah, I'd rather the UN raise opposition to a US invasion.

-Attacking Syria will destabilize the region

*Undoubtedly. As if it wasn't unstable enough.

-The opposition used chemical weapons, not Assad

*At this point I throw up my hands and say that there is no evidence to prove ANYTHING.

-Diplomacy must be used instead of force

*Always this is the preferred option.

-America is not exceptional

*Absolutely.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

Major Russian newspapers would have no problem with an Obama op-ed. As a matter of fact, they would fall over each other to get it. Too bad the idea
It is my idea and it would never be allowed, nor would the criticism from the other party or the (not) right wing media...
You are confusing the modern Russia with the USSR (not unlike Mr.Putin in a way). Yes, it is a fake democracy, and yes, actual threats to the power of Chosen Ones are "dealt with in a timely manner". But the USSR it is not.
The smile on Pootin is fake. Your own words say he is a fake. All he cares about is what the USSR and Maoists have always cared about, destroying the USA with proxy states. As for now, he will help Obama on the condition that all goes well at the Olympics. They will cement Pootin in the history books and on TV...
The Putin's endless tenure is a dark and disappointing period in history of Russia. But it's nothing like the USSR. Not even close.
It is worse than the USSR since it is NOW. You don't get to call it endless and dark and disappointing and then make light of it, though you did...
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

This sounds like the two Pauls. Do you agree with Ron Puke that America triggered 9/11? How about Rank Paul as a sitting Senator giving aid and comfort to the enemy by praising Pootin over Obama in public? They both need to go to Russia and try slamming Pootin in public. Traitors both.
-The UN must be allowed to work.

*I'd rather it didn't. It's mostly socialist economic programs that make things worse. But in this case yeah, I'd rather the UN raise opposition to a US invasion.

-Attacking Syria will destabilize the region

*Undoubtedly. As if it wasn't unstable enough.

-The opposition used chemical weapons, not Assad

*At this point I throw up my hands and say that there is no evidence to prove ANYTHING.

-Diplomacy must be used instead of force

*Always this is the preferred option.

-America is not exceptional

*Absolutely.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

I think America is exceptional in many ways.

So is Russia. Their men have an exceptionally short life span. They drink exceptional amounts of vodka. They have an exceptionally high abortion rate and therefore an exceptionally low birth rate. They have an exceptionally low per capita income for a developed nation. Their goods are of exceptionally poor quality. Having spent so much on armaments over the years they have exceptionally good cold war type military equipment including exceptional fighter jets, helicoptors and other aircraft and submarines. They still build exceptionally good manned rockets. Newspaper reporters are in exceptional danger if they criticize Putin. And no people on earth has suffered quite as much, sometimes at the hands of their own leaders, over the years.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

radcen;1062306280[I said:
How much of his argument holds some water, and how much is BS?[/I] - Maybe a few grains of truth, but for the most part lies, lies-by-omission, and a great deal of hypocrisy.

Same old USSR only a higher-tech 21st century addition. Meanwhile, China sits quietly in the background waiting to cross the border colloquially as they did in Korea.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

Newspaper reporters are in exceptional danger if they criticize Putin. And no people on earth has suffered quite as much, sometimes at the hands of their own leaders, over the years.
Do you support our papers and media and loyal opposition trashing Obama and doing what Putins' Soviet citizens would never dream of, giving the two leaders a different persona on the World stage.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

I agree completely. This is not Putin as a benevolent wise world leader. This is Putin as an arrogant bastadge given the opportunity to grind his thumb in Obamas eye.
With a little help from his friends and supporters in the USA.
The (not) right-wing media machine and the loyal opposition.
Especially the vocal Pauls, blaming the USA for triggering 9/11 and throwing Obama under the Tank with Pukin. Thanks for less than nothing.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

Putin, while smug and obviously playing to an American audience he already knows agrees with him, does make a compelling case for peace. That took a little to get out, as I'm frustrated that I'm supporting Russia's former KGB head over my own President on this issue. Usually, when the UN is feckless (and that's nearly all the time) and corrupt (at least half the time), the major issue is Russia and/or China are not supportive and therefore the security council option is a waste of time. In this case however, that may not be the issue. The real issue is America's reticence in believing Russia and China have Syria's best intentions at heart. Isn't it Russia has invested in Syria and has a base there and they want to keep it? Isn't it that Syria may be another thorn in America's side like Iran, and it would be a shame to lose them to U.S. intervention yet again? What Putin doesn't bring up is the constant ways the U.S. has in the past 60 years been a thorn in the Soviet/Russia rear end and how the entire East Block fall of Communism stung like a mofo. It's not all about revenge I'm sure but hell, why not make it sting a little while looking like the grown up in an international incident.

Will something actually happen and can the international community get those chemical weapons while a civil war rages around them?
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

Its laughable that you think anyone 'threw' Obama under the bus and that he didnt take a running dive and do it to himself.
I didn't say Obama was thrown under the bus. I said he was thrown under the TANK and it stands as a monument to the level of Treason and Sedition the USA has reached in his less than 5 years.
You think people are HAPPY that he has done it. That just shows how completely up his ass you are. Pathetic.

I KNOW you are HAPPY. Anything that may help in the next election. As for up his ass and being pathetic, (not quite) right-wingers report me for saying far less as a personal attack. I don't play that cheap game like you folks.
 
Re: Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

I didn't say Obama was thrown under the bus. I said he was thrown under the TANK and it stands as a monument to the level of Treason and Sedition the USA has reached in his less than 5 years.

I KNOW you are HAPPY. Anything that may help in the next election. As for up his ass and being pathetic, (not quite) right-wingers report me for saying far less as a personal attack. I don't play that cheap game like you folks.
Bus...tank...either way no one 'threw' Obama anywhere. He took a running leap all of his own accord.

Treason...like...getting in bed with AlQaida?

FM
 
Back
Top Bottom