|
| Posted by: Tree
- [41512710] Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 14:28
As this nonsense goes on, I am wondering if anyone bothered to watch Benjamin Netanyahu's impassioned speech to the UN.
it was an amazing, sincere, plea to Mahmoud Abbas.
"we are in the same city. Let's meet here today, and discuss peace. I extend my hand, in the name of Israel, in the name of peace."
and it went on like that for 40 minutes. he urged Abbas to stop negotiating the terms of the negotiations, and just come to the table and negotiate peace instead.
if you have not watched it, you should. |
| | | 1 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 15:11
|
Easy for him to say when he's decided to accelerate settlement construction.
"C'mon! I know we're screwing you over, breaking previous commitments, and have no intention of stopping, but let's talk about it!"
|
|
| | |
| | | 3 | nerveclinic
ID: 40352125 Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 16:56
|
we are in the same city. Let's meet here today, and discuss peace. I extend my hand, in the name of Israel, in the name of peace
That's like the fox saying to the chicken just let me in the pen, we can be friends, lets talk about it.
How can a war criminal expect to be taken seriously?
He's like a Mafioso Don playing a violin.
|
|
| | | 4 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 17:47
|
That's like the fox saying to the chicken just let me in the pen, we can be friends, lets talk about it.
no, you're missing the entire point. They are on neutral ground, they are in NYC. if there's a time and a place to meet, that's the time, now's the time.
How can a war criminal expect to be taken seriously?
so you're acknowledging that Abbas should not be taken seriously? he is, after all, violating the Geneva Convention by refusing to release Gilad Shalit.
|
|
| | | 5 | nerveclinic
ID: 40352125 Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 18:07
|
I didn't miss the point but you are delusional.
Israel is the new Apartheid State.
Eastern European Mafia moved there and are the thugs on the block. You are beyond reason, no point arguing with your starry eyes.
But we need them to be Mafioso to bring about the Apocalypse right?
|
|
| | | 6 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 18:12
|
Israel is hardly an Apartheid state. Israel has made numerous offers to sit down and talk peace; the Palestinians have rejected those talks an equal number of times.
you conveniently ignored my point about Abbas.
There are currently 21 Arab states, and one Jewish state. While Israel would make compromises and concessions for there to be 22 Arab states and one Jewish state, the Palestinians only want 22 Arab states - and NO Jewish states.
|
|
| | | 7 | nerveclinic
ID: 40352125 Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 18:26
|
the Palestinians have rejected those talks an equal number of times.
First of all that's a false statement.
Second even if true you cannot hold serious talks when you are blockading a country, keeping out basic goods, medicines, keeping a country impoverished, recently committed war crimes, used sulfur bombs, intentionally killed random civilians (i.e. terrorism) according to Israeli soldiers interviewed by the BBC..attacked a ship in international waters that was carrying only non lethal aid. Killed 10 crew members, confiscated and suppressed all video of the raid.
Tree wake up.
I am not ignoring anything. One of the most corrupt governments on the planet and you don't recognize the Eastern European mob when you see it.
This is all playing out to bring about the apocalypse which, according to the Christian bible didn't end well for the Israelis and Oh by the way...I am an Atheiest.
|
|
| | | 8 | nerveclinic
ID: 40352125 Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 18:39
|
While Israel would make compromises and concessions for there to be 22 Arab states
there are already 22 Arab States, it's just that one of them is a slave state to Israel at the moment.
Please don't read anything into the fact I live in Dubai. I don't read any arab press, I make my conclusions from reading the Western press. The BBC has been the biggest influence on my opinion.
|
|
| | | 9 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 18:53
|
Second even if true you cannot hold serious talks when you are blockading a country, keeping out basic goods, medicines, keeping a country impoverished, recently committed war crimes, used sulfur bombs, intentionally killed random civilians (i.e. terrorism) according to Israeli soldiers interviewed by the BBC..attacked a ship in international waters that was carrying only non lethal aid. Killed 10 crew members, confiscated and suppressed all video of the raid.
you must have missed the independent reviews of this incident, where the incident was provoked by the ships.
you still avoid the topic of Abbas and his responsibility in the kidnapping Gilad Shalit.
Please don't read anything into the fact I live in Dubai. I don't read any arab press, I make my conclusions from reading the Western press. The BBC has been the biggest influence on my opinion.
i didn't read into that fact, nor will i read into the fact that the BBC has been no friend to Israel.
people who support the idea of a Palestinian state without peace talks are the same people who ignore the provocative attacks by Palestinians, who ignore the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, who ignore the fact that the Palestinians have not made any reasonable attempts to talk peace with Israel.
do you REALLY think that the sudden creation of a Palestinian state will make things all better? if you honestly believe that, then i can't fault you for how you believe.
but what happens when the Palestinian state is created - without a peace process - and then Israel is attacked? what happens when 100s of 1000s of people - if not millions - are killed in the ensuring war. what then?
because that's exactly what will happen.
|
|
| | | 10 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 02:14
|
Israel is the definition of an apartheid state. Some parts of that policy have been necessary over the years, others have been gratuitous oppression of an abused people.
Also, I don't see the significance of "neutral ground" (as if the country that funds the oppression of the Palestinians is neutral ground). Exactly what advantage does NYC provide either man over talks held anyplace else? Seems like a pretty nonsensical diversion from the actual issues to make Netanyahu sound more reasonable than he is.
Further, blanket statements like the Palestinians only want 22 Arab states - and NO Jewish states. are dishonest in that they infer that all Palestinians think this way.
Abbas wants recognition for the Palestinian territories and Netanyahu is supposedly willing to give that in exchange for peace from Abbas.
This sounds reasonable. But in reality there is no promise Abbas could make that would get Netanyahu to support Palestinian statehood. There is no deal Bibi is willing to strike. He will demand results that Abbas cannot deliver and then claim it is Abbas who refuses to negotiate in good faith.
Look, we know that Palestinian violence from Gaza continues to be perpetrated against Jewish Israel. But Netanyahu (and I would think, Tree) knows that Abbas does not control Gaza.
How much violence are West Bank Palestinians responsible for since Abbas became head of the PLO? My understanding is that not a single rocket has been fired into Israel proper in that time. I do know that as recently as 2010, the PA has seized multiple separate munitions from Palestinian militants in the West Bank. It sure sounds to me like Abbas is holding up his end of the deal to the extent that he is able to. Shouldn't there be some reward for that from the side that says it wants to reward efforts toward peace?
Moreover, I believe your demand that Abbas is responsible for the capture of Galid Shalit is either dishonest or sadly ignorant. Shalit was captured by Hamas and is held in Gaza. Hamas has renounced Abbas' authority. He holds no sway with that group.
There has been fighting between Palestinians and Israeli settlers in the West Bank, but those conflicts are over are illegal settlements on territory that is supposed to be reserved for Palestinians. From the perspective of West Bank Palestinians, they were exiled from their ancestral home in what is now Israel proper. And as if that isn't hard enough to stomach, the little slice their millions have been left to divide up for themselves is continually shrinking because Israelis, who are far fewer in total numbers with far more land of their own to populate, continue to encroach upon them. If you think unlimited further concessions of what little scraps of land they've been relegated to is a necessary part of the peace process you aren't really interested in peace.
Hamas in Gaza is a different story and I have far less sympathy for that group.
If I were an Israeli leader with an honest interest in brokering peace, I'd reward Abbas and Fatah for their efforts by supporting West Bank sovereignty and either forcibly evicting the Jewish settlers, or at least telling them they're on their own. I'd then publicly appeal to moderates in Gaza with a promise that Israel will make good on the same exchange of statehood for peace as they did in the West Bank.
Pretending all Palestinians think alike and that there is but a single hostile sphere of influence among them and that there has been no progress in the territory controlled by Abbas and attributing to him atrocities he is not responsible for is not an honest assessment of the conflict from someone who supports peace more than he supports propaganda. Neither is refusing to acknowledge West Bank settlers as an impediment to the peace process with the territory that isn't firing rockets into Israel proper.
|
|
| | | 11 | nerveclinic
ID: 40352125 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 03:29
|
you must have missed the independent reviews of this incident, where the incident was provoked by the ships.
Independent reviews? There were the people on the boats, and the Israeli soldiers. so when you say "independent reviews" you mean the Israeli Military's version?
Easily solved. They confiscated all video equipment and has not offered to show one clip that supports their version.
The Turkish government has had a long standing friendly relationship with Israel and they have cut ties over the raid. One can hardly expect them to completely change their foreign policy toward a friendly nation if the Israeli's version is true.
They should release all the video footage but they won't because you would see a bunch of cold blooded thugs at work.
Your examples are tired. You bring up one kidnapped Israeli Soldier (by Hamas not Abbas) when Israel has had her boot on the back of the neck of Palestinians for years.
There's not much more I could say that MITH didn't say better in the post above.
|
|
| | | 12 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 10:37
|
But in reality there is no promise Abbas could make that would get Netanyahu to support Palestinian statehood.
The Palestinians don't need a deal with Israel. All they need to do is recognize Israel's right to exist, to be handed a state of their own.
And of course they are negotiating in bad faith when every Palestinian leader who hasn't been assassinated believes the destruction of Israel is an absolute non-negotiable demand in the long term.
|
|
| | |
| | | 14 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 14:16
|
i don't disagree. but it's also dishonest for Palestinians and their supports to make blanket statements and hold blanket beliefs. yet, they do, and no one calls them on it.
So you admit you're making dishonest statements and your excuse is that other people do it and seem to get away with it.
Espousing propaganda which you know is malignantly dishonest, demonizing an entire culture even, is mutually exclusive of honest support of brokerage for peace. With your preference of those two priorities personally established, there's no point in discussing this any further, is there? What's the point if you admit yourself that issues will take a backseat to such malicious false platitudes?
In a decade of debating this issue across who knows how many threads, I think that was the most productive post ever written.
Well done.
|
|
| | | 15 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 14:49
|
no, i'm admitting blanket statements don't do anyone a service.
but i'm also pointing out that when those who support the Palestinians do this, no one calls them on it. But when those who support Israel do it, they are almost always called on it.
thanks for proving my point.
well done
|
|
| | | 16 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 17:53
|
Another thing. Turkey didn't take an islamist turn because of the ship incident. Turkey took an islamist turn and because of that, decided to become another anti-israeli player.
It is quite amazing that Turkey can both play at being a partner in the EU and become an islamist player instead of the longstanding secularist state we remember. It really does not bode well for the Turkish Kurds who make up 20% of Turkey's population and are growing twice as fast as non-kurds.
BTW 10% of Turkish citizens self-identify as islamists, [other options - “Turkish first”, muslim first”, "Kurdish first”, “democrat” and “nationalist”, “Atatürkist”].
Consider the implications when Turkey's ambassador calls for Hamas to be a part of the 'final Solution'. They don't hand these ambassador jobs out to tone-deaf people either.
Turkey's initiatives are called re-ottomanization [when they aren't being called re islamization]. Google that to understand the tectonic shift in Turkey today. They are definately out to define the poorly named 'arab spring' as following Turkey's lead.
As I stated from practically day one of 'arab spring' what we may be witnessing is the re-establishment of the Ottoman Empire. It will certainly work out to be the islamist takeover of the moslem world.
|
|
| | | 17 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Sep 25, 2011, 13:49
|
::sigh::
|
|
| | | 18 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Mon, Sep 26, 2011, 17:12
|
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 21 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Mon, Oct 31, 2011, 22:38
|
it bothers me that not one person here commented in the least on the release of Shalit.
anyway, here's a VERY thought-provoking article and interview with Moshe Dayan's widow Ruth.
i don't necessarily agree with a lot of what she has to say, but there are definitely some valid points that she makes.
|
|
| | | 22 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 07:45
|
What bothers me will be the day the first released palestinian kills a Jew. At which time the trade becomes a net negative transaction. I expect it will get very very negative before all is said and done.
The trade is all too understandable, but beyond the Israelis who will be killed by the released, are the next Israelis who will be captured as the next bargaining chips.
And then the realization that no palestinian need fear a life imprisonment for terrorism. He need only await the next prisoner exchange. How many Israeli lives will that realization cost?
But again it's an emotional trap that is all too understandable. How many of us could make the hard nosed decision that Shallit must sit among throat slitters that countless others might be spared?
Myself included. Logic and emotion...who knows what we'd do if the decision were ours?
|
|
| | | 23 | Boldwin
ID: 910431619 Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 20:32
|
That Iron Dome is pretty amazing.
|
|
| | | 24 | Boldwin
ID: 1410591818 Sun, Nov 18, 2012, 21:06
|
Obama has gone around Congress again, this time to ensure that we financially support Israel’s enemy across the border. Yeah, Obama’s got their back:
Times of Israel – US President Barack Obama has lifted a ban on financial aid to the Palestinian Authority.
Obama stated that the aid was “important to the security interests of the United States.”
The US Congress froze a $192 million aid package to the Palestinian Authority after its president, Mahmoud Abbas, defied US pressure and sought to attain UN endorsement of Palestinian statehood last September. The presidential waiver means that aid can now be delivered. …
Section 3 of Congress’s Palestinian Accountability Act, which applies to 2012, stipulates that “no funds available to any United States Government department or agency … may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.” Obama has now signed a waiver, however, the White House said Friday, and asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to inform Congress accordingly.
The AFP news agency quoted White House spokesman Tommy Vietor as saying the $192 million aid package would be devoted to “ensuring the continued viability of the moderate PA government under the leadership of [Palestinian Authority] President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.”
Vietor added that the PA had fulfilled its major obligations, such as recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence and accepting the Road Map for Peace. Someone hasn't been following what that government teaches their kids. Or hopes we haven't been keeping track, more accurately.
|
|
| | | 25 | Boldwin
ID: 1410591818 Sun, Nov 18, 2012, 22:21
|
News from Pallywood. Where phony narratives are created and sold to the media to further palestinian propaganda. CNN Gets 'Fooled' by a Palestinian Child's Death; Real Story Is Hamas Barbarity Against 'Its Own' People
Hamas has once again apparently been caught faking an image of a dead Palestinian child--this time using a child likely killed by its own rocket fire and claiming that an Israeli attack was responsible. CNN's Sara Sidner ran a full report on the child's death, strongly implying that an Israeli bomb had been responsible.
The dead child was paraded before the cameras during the visit of Egyptian prime minister Hisham Kandil, who kissed the dead child in the presence of Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh. But even the New York Times was suspicious.
Bloggers such as Elder of Ziyon quickly pieced together the evidence of Hamas fakery:
... the fact that Hamas and other terror groups were firing rockets throughout Friday morning while the IDF did not, plus the fact that over 100 rockets have fallen short in Gaza (both using past performance and IDF statistics as proof), and the fact that the shrapnel in the video matches almost exactly the shrapnel damage we have seen from rocket fire into Israel, and it is very clear: this child was killed by Gaza rocket fire, not by Israel.
Not every civilian death in Gaza is faked, of course. But almost every civilian death can be attributed to Hamas, which deliberately fires rockets from civilian areas and hides its weapons caches in mosques and homes.
Update: According to the office of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 60 of the 703 rockets fired by Hamas and other terror groups since the start of the conflict have fallen on Palestinian civilians. The Israel Defense Force says that 99 rockets in total that were fired at Israel have hit Gaza itself in four days of conflict.
Update 2: Several sources now report that the child was, in fact, killed by a Hamas rocket, not Israel. Those sources include the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. Will CNN issue a correction to its earlier false report?
|
|
| | | 26 | Boldwin
ID: 1410591818 Sun, Nov 18, 2012, 22:24
|
In other news the Iron Dome technology seems to have an 80% success rate and the palestinians are doing a bangup job of pumping up Israeli military equipment exports.
|
|
| | |
| | | 28 | bibA
ID: 54522612 Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 08:56
|
You've convinced me. That video clearly demonstrates that Obama and the evil Democratic party will certainly side with Satan.
|
|
| | | 29 | Tree
ID: 1810401910 Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 11:40
|
i am so sick of Baldwin' blaming this on Dems, and it being a democrat/republican issue.
it's not. it's a human rights issue, and it's a human rights issue on both sides. there are needless deaths happening on either side, and to politicize it is disgusting.
|
|
| | | 30 | Tree
ID: 010232110 Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 11:23
|
things like this are why i firmly believe there are segments of the population that do not want peace, and why i think it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine there will ever be peace in the region.
Missiles and rockets are awful. but a bomb blast inside a tel aviv bus is a psychological attack that will remind israelis just how easy it is to smuggle weapons into the country, and there will be calls to eradicate the problem once and for all.
-------------------------
here is a good piece discussing why Land for Peace is dead , which is another reason why i think peace is impossible.
there was a shot at peace when Israel made concessions, removing its own citizens from their homes to give land to the Palestinians - instead, Israel become more susceptible to attacks, unfortunately proving the critics of land-for-peace right.
In 2005, Israel undertook a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Palestinians and Israelis might argue about Jerusalem, right of return, and other final status issues, but there were no longer land disputes in Gaza. What followed was a disaster: Whereas southern Israel was once free of violence, suddenly towns like Sderot became targets for hundreds of rockets and missiles. Southern Lebanon, too, became a forward staging base for ever more advanced weaponry, as Hezbollah would demonstrate in 2006. The more land Israel ceded, the more insecure it became and the more violence her citizenry suffered...
...Most Israelis view their experience of land-for-peace in the same fashion that Native Americans consider their experience with the concept.
that last line of that essay speaks volumes.
|
|
| | | 31 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 12:32
|
and why i think it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine there will ever be peace in the region
I've been saying this for years. As long as both sides exist there will be fighting. Its just a situation that does not lend itself to compromise.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 34 | Tree
ID: 5610562112 Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 13:56
|
good to hear the cease fire was worked out. let's hope it sticks.
and thanks for that link to the CSM MITH.
|
|
| | | 35 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 13:57
|
While 32 is definitely good news and a step in the right direction, you have to wonder - how long will *this* cease fire last?
Sorry but I'm just not optimistic about anything over in that region of the globe.
|
|
| | | 36 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 14:30
|
Just read a bit more about the ceasefire agreement in the works (#32). The noted Israel haters the United States and Egypt leading the efforts.
Reality seems to be smacking the rapid Right around these days.
|
|
| | | 37 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 15:43
|
Here's a reasonable question I've never seen answered: If the essential purpose of the blockade were indeed to "thwart Hamas from arming itself," wouldn't restrictions on imports into Gaza suffice?...
What I'd like to see an enterprising MSM reporter ask is: How do Israel's severe restrictions on Gazan exports keep arms from getting to Hamas?
|
|
| | | 38 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 15:57
|
Ill answer that if you keep them poor they can't afford weapons, and if you keep people poor enough they can't cause trouble.
|
|
| | | 39 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 16:22
|
if you keep people poor enough they can't cause trouble.
Did you grow up on a different planet?
|
|
| | | 40 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 17:02
|
not sure what you are saying?
|
|
| | | 41 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 18:04
|
Unless they are kept so poor as to be in a perpetual state of mass starvation, poverty will not keep a people from rising against a perceived oppressor. In fact, as I believe most corners of history have shown, poverty tends to encourage uprising.
Theres a pretty serious humanitarian/poverty crisis in Gaza. Certainly you agree the Palestinian territories have caused more than a little trouble for Israel?
|
|
| | |
| | | 43 | Tree
ID: 201140413 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 14:40
|
Screw You World
while i strongly disagree with the UN vote, i also disagree with Israel's reaction. The UN vote will not even remotely accomplish what it hopes to, rather, it will embolden the terrorists to launch more rockets in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, because in their warped minds, they'll see this as the outcome of their attacks.
awful, awful, awful on both sides.
the last four articles of the linked article sum up my feelings.
The Netanyahu government to me seems like the alcoholic who cannot stop until he totally ruins his life and destroys himself. Then, from the bottom, he may be able to pick himself up and rebuild. We seem to be on a course of self-destruction. It's infuriating to watch something like that happen to a person – or a country – that you love.
It looks like the upcoming Israeli elections in January will only solidify the radical right's stranglehold on the country. It's a difficult time to be a liberal Zionist in Israel.
(on a side note, i feel like i read the alcoholic analogy previously, but couldn't locate it. apologies if this essay has already been posted.
|
|
| | | 44 | Tree
ID: 201140413 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 14:49
|
to elaborate a bit more, i simply don't think the UN vote will change the peace process in a positive way.
this is the second time the UN has made a move like this - the first, in 1947 - was welcomed by the Jews/Israel and soundly rejected by the Palestinians/Arabs - it created both a "Jewish" state, and a "Palestinian" state.
65 years later - to the day i believe - it is the Palestinians apparently welcoming statehood, while Israel rejects it, in part for the reasons i mentioned above.
THERE CANNOT BE A TWO-STATE SOLUTION WITHOUT PEACE FROM BOTH SIDES.
now, i'd love to be wrong here. i'd love to see this prod the Palestinians to first agree with each other to lay down their arms, and then to agree with Israel to something that brings about meaningful and lasting peace. there's nothing i'd love to be more wrong about.
But, as former Israeli diplomat Abba Eban said about the Palestinians after yet another rejected peace accord and bid for statehood, "they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
i hope this time, they don't miss that opportunity.
|
|
| | | 45 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 15:07
|
If I were a big Israel supporter I'd be very worried about the Arafat exhumation.
Scratch that. We should all be worried about the possibility that Palestine might have a legitimate case that the Israeli government assassinated the president of the PA.
|
|
| | | 46 | Tree
ID: 51148414 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 15:48
|
We should all be worried about the possibility that Palestine might have a legitimate case that the Israeli government assassinated the president of the PA.
and what if we find the Palestinians poisoned their own leader? after all, we're talking about a man who was a billionaire who exploited the poor (his own people) for personal financial and political gain.
or, shockingly, a fat old man who was out of shape, worked long hours, and lived an unhealthy lifestyle, died of natural causes.
|
|
| | | 47 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 15:58
|
and what if we find...
I don't understand the question.
Your first suggested possibility would obviously mess with internal Palestinian politics and - if Abbas were connected to an Arafat assassination - could potentially put Hamas in a position to take over the West Bank, which would obviously be terrible.
But not nearly as terrible as if Israel were found to be responsible. Surely you understand this.
Your second suggested possibility would obviously be the best possible outcome.
What is the point of post 46?
|
|
| | | 48 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:00
|
conjecture, to illustrate the folly of playing "what if" and only doing so while looking at the most universally devastating "if".
|
|
| | | 49 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:00
|
I hope it's not that you were offended by my even entertaining the possibility that Israel might have assassinated Arafat.
Be realistic. It's not beyond the realm of possible.
|
|
| | | 50 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:02
|
I don't understand 48 either.
|
|
| | | 51 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:16
|
No, it isnt beyond the realm of possible, But as the only possibility you put forth in playing "what if" with post 45, you gave the appearance of assuming that what if and discounting other possibilities.
Come on MITH, you;re better than this. This is not at all confusing.
|
|
| | | 52 | Boldwin
ID: 101142410 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:30
|
He died of AIDS. He was a pederast of the worst sort. Do your homework.
|
|
| | | 53 | Tree
ID: 51148414 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:38
|
Be realistic. It's not beyond the realm of possible.
it is no more, nor more less, realistic than the Palestinians killing their own leader.
in fact, there have been MANY more Palestinians killed by Palestinians over this conflict, than Israelis killed by Israelis over this conflict.
Come on MITH, you;re better than this. This is not at all confusing.
this. while we may disagree on many points in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the fact remains, either side could have assassinated Arafat. and the Palestinian history of killing their own is significant, if you want to play that game.
|
|
| | | 54 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:44
|
I didn't say anything about likelihood that they are right.
Jeezis this is really stupid.
Lets apply this logic to a discussion topic that isn't as overrun with strong emotional biases which prevent people from thinking straight:
NOAA: The tropical depression forming in the Gulf of Mexico might become a major hurricane and cause terrible damage to heavily populated areas in the Southeastern United States.
MITH: Jeez, if I lived there I'd be worried. We should all hope that doesn't happen.
TREE: Well what if it doesn't hit the US coast, huh? What if it hits Bermuda instead, did you think of that? What if it doesn't even become a hurricane at all?
MITH: Uh... well I guess those are preferable scenarios, but I don't think I get your point.
SARGE: Your conjecture only considered the worst possibility. You're smarter than this, Mith.
|
|
| | | 55 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:45
|
oh good gawd......you are having an off day MITH...seriously...go have some coffee and chill for a bit
|
|
| | | 56 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:47
|
Sounds to me like he's hitting on all cylinders. post 54: +1.
|
|
| | | 57 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:50
|
Really, I'm not allowed to voice my concern over the international fallout that would occur should the accusation turns out to be right?
Unless I also explicitly state the possibility that they are wrong?
Does this make sense to anyone besides tree or sarge?
|
|
| | | 58 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:51
|
TY
|
|
| | | 59 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:58
|
OK, just because I am bored and have nothing else to do atm;
My "you're smarter than this" referred NOT to the content of your post 45, but to your "not getting it" when Tree followed up.
In 47, you ask the point of 46.
The point of 46, was to state that there are other equal possibilities, which do not involve the 'worst case scenario' (or the attendant passing of judgment), on/against Israel. These other possibilities, are probably of fairly equal likelihood.
In 49, you said "Be realistic. It's not beyond the realm of possible."
No, it s not beyond the realm of possible, but that doesnt make it PROBABLE, which is the implication put forth by the conjecture in 45.
The rest, is semantics being entirely, misunderstood.
|
|
| | | 60 | Tree
ID: 51148414 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 16:58
|
Really, I'm not allowed to voice my concern over the international fallout that would occur should the accusation turns out to be right?
you absolutely are. no issues with that whatsoever.
all i did was merely point out there were other possibilities, and you got your panties in a wad about it.
you're allowed to think what you want, and even speculate. never had an issue with any of that. you seemed to take umbrage at other possibilities.
(although the whole dying of AIDS things because he was sleeping with young boys is a bit weird, thanks for your contribution Baldwin).
|
|
| | | 61 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 18:05
|
Tree you got your panties in a wad
No, in post 47 I asked you what your point was. But rather than offer an explanation, you endorsed Sarge's comment; "Come on MITH, you;re better than this. This is not at all confusing." ...which was his response to my asking what your point was.
Sarge but that doesnt make it PROBABLE, which is the implication put forth by the conjecture in 45.
I made no such implication. All I said is that it would be really terrible if they are right. And given Tree's #60, you're apparently the only person who read it that way or saw anything resembling folly of playing "what if" and only doing so while looking at the most universally devastating "if". ...whatever the eff that means. Let's chalk it up to poor reading comprehension.
It's really annoying that we can't have a grownup conversation even express a thought about potential developments in Israel without making sure to arrange the language in a manner that ensures all the babies will be sufficiently pacified.
|
|
| | | 62 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 18:21
|
Let's chalk it up to poor reading comprehension.
fair enough but mine is quite excellent.
|
|
| | | 63 | Tree
ID: 55115417 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 18:37
|
No, in post 47 I asked you what your point was. But rather than offer an explanation, you endorsed Sarge's comment; "Come on MITH, you;re better than this. This is not at all confusing." ...which was his response to my asking what your point was.
um, no.
what i said was "it is no more, nor more less, realistic than the Palestinians killing their own leader.
in fact, there have been MANY more Palestinians killed by Palestinians over this conflict, than Israelis killed by Israelis over this conflict."
again, the point is, that either is as likely as the other. period. if you want to see it as something differently, that's up to you.
|
|
| | |
| | | 65 | Mith
ID: 18451815 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 18:51
|
Tree, I thought you had matured past this but I guess not.
So just for you I will go back to including a disclaimer in every post I write on the topic of Israel that isn't explicitly in praise or defense of that country.
So there is no mistaking intent, I will express this as follows:Standard Israel disclaimer for Tree: goo goo ga ga.
|
|
| | | 66 | Tree
ID: 1910562515 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 20:19
|
Tree, I thought you had matured past this but I guess not.
So just for you I will go back to including a disclaimer in every post I write on the topic of Israel that isn't explicitly in praise or defense of that country.
no where, did i say anything of the sort. i offered an alternative option to the one you suggested. somehow, that made you upset.
|
|
| | | 67 | Boldwin
ID: 51144621 Fri, Dec 07, 2012, 12:29
|
In November 2011, the Pentagon continued the arrangement by awarding a $395 million contract to supply 125 more M1A1 “kits” for final tank assembly in Egypt. [they already own 1,005 M1A1s - B]
The Pentagon has supplied more than 30 of the Army’s front-line attack helicopter, the Apache. It also transfers to Egypt excess military gear valued at hundreds of millions of dollars each year. --- The aid has since resumed, and there has been no sign of another stoppage as Mr. Morsi consolidates power. His military should receive more F-16s and tanks next year. --- Egypt is the second-largest recipient of U.S. military aid; Israel is first.
Most of Egypt’s assistance is in the form of weapons, such as tanks and fighters, bought with U.S. tax dollars through a program called Foreign Military Sales.
According to the Congressional Research Service, Egypt has ordered $14 billion in equipment since 2003. The Egyptian Air Force operates 220 F-16s, making it the 4th largest F-16 operator in the world.
Egypt owns 35 Apaches which by my count puts them sixth in the world in those, having 12 less Apaches than Israel.
|
|
| | | 68 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 12:45
|
Perhaps we can have another Boldwin-free thread to discuss greater Middle East issues? If so this seems like an appropriate enough place, rather than start a new one.
Anyway, Michael Totten's exceptional latest - The Beginning of the end for Hezbollah
|
|
| | | 69 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 10:59
|
Very interesting and informative read Mith, thanks for sharing.
At what point do we simply walk away from the region? I know that we don't want the region blowing up and dragging the rest of the world in. But, until the cultures change and at some point we have to realize that we can't change their culture, they have to want to do it, and we will only be seen negatively for trying to influence their culture. That their culture is deeply flawed, at least to me, is sad. But, which is worse? Staying involved and hated, or letting Iran, or some other country, spread their influence?
|
|
| | | 70 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815 Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 11:11
|
"At what point do we simply walk away from the region?"
Real answer is when oil is less valuable or gone from the region.
|
|
| | | 71 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Apr 30, 2013, 10:59
|
Continuing the hope that moderators will grant my request in post 68, I'm butting this in response to some of the Syria discussion in the Social Media Wars thread to point to the Michael Totten link, also in #68.
His extensive writeup outlines the complexity of the conflict and Syria's role in the region, noting how crucial the Assad regime is to the Iranian government and Hezbollah.
Further, here's a terrific interview Totten conducted with an Israeli journalist, Jonathan Spyer, who has snuck into Syria with the Free Syrian Army.
This mess is much more complicated than Iraq seemed 10 years ago, and even then I changed my opinion on what American policy should be several times, so I'm not about to clumsily demand one particular course of action or another.
But Totten and Spyer, two men who do not seem to be entangled in American partisanship, speak at length on what the US should do about Syria.
I could be wrong, but I suspect this will be a somewhat more informative read than offered by the friend of Cindy Sheehan who says he formed an opinion after speaking to over 100 Syrian ex-pats.
|
|
| | | 72 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Tue, Apr 30, 2013, 12:42
|
Very good read. Thanks for the link mith.
My initial take, in terms of US action would be to arm rebel groups, but do so judiciously. I don't think we can control it, but I think best case would be a strong secular leader with lesser power sharing by more moderate Islamists. Given the rural power base, you aren't going to exclude Islamists in the final calculus, but you hope to avoid an Islamic state, so ally with groups that may be able to compromise.
Worst case, Assad falls, and religious civil war ensues for a decade. We should use our power to try and avoid this.
|
|
| | | 73 | Boldwin
ID: 36417820 Wed, May 08, 2013, 22:11
|
Two words
Bacon deficiency.
|
|
| | | 74 | Tree
ID: 38322228 Wed, May 08, 2013, 22:27
|
one other word: bigot.
|
|
| | | 75 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Fri, May 24, 2013, 13:59
|
Again, my request in post 68 remains...
Totten's latest: Remember the halcyon days when the Arab Spring hadn’t yet turned into winter? What was Assad facing then? Nothing. He boasted that unlike the crooked Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak, there was so little space between him and the people that hardly anyone could bear to see him go. But when Moammar Qaddafi faced an insurrection in Libya, disgruntled Syrians realized that even the Middle East’s worst totalitarian could be brought to their knees.
Initially, though, Assad faced nothing but non-violent Gandhi-like protests for reform. He responded by maiming and murdering thousands of men, women, and teenagers in the streets like the butchers at Tiananmen Square. He even tortured children to death.
What did he have to say for himself? He said that he was fighting Al-Qaeda. This was but a few short years after he facilitated Al-Qaeda’s bloodthirsty rampage in Iraq. He’s responsible for more American deaths than most in the region, but he told us he was acting as our proxy and fighting Al-Qaeda for us in Damascus. The word for this, I believe, is chutzpah.
The Syrian opposition remained non-violent for months even while being shot to death in the streets. Imagine watching your friends, neighbors, and family members murdered by your own government. Imagine. I would have picked up a rifle a long long time before they did. Most Americans would have. We should take a moment to acknowledge that their restraint was extraordinary. That moment in history has passed, but it happened, and should not be forgotten. Assad doesn’t get to write history. His lies were like something hatched in the old Soviet Union, which is perhaps fitting since his government was a Soviet client state and today it’s one of Vladimir Putin’s.
But since then, Syria’s opposition has picked up rifles and Al Qaeda in the form of Jabhat al-Nusra is part of the mix. Minorities, especially the Alawites, but also the Christians, are in terrible danger, as are the Kurds, Druze, and moderate Sunnis if the worst factions ever take over.
|
|
| | | 76 | Boldwin
ID: 31427247 Fri, May 24, 2013, 16:55
|
CBC News: Syria’s opposition may fight under the banner of the Free Syrian Army, but the groups who have taken up arms against Assad and his regime often fight independently, without coordinated battle plans.
More recently, a number of extremist factions have joined Syria’s civil war, including the powerful Jabhat al-Nusra, which is aligned with al Qaeda.
“The Islamic fighters in Syria have risen in power and numbers,” said Majdalani. “This has raised a lot of fear among ordinary Syrians, who now reluctantly back the regime — which has taken advantage of this.” --- He can count on the support of several international friends, including Iran and Russia, as well as the Shia militant group Hezbollah from Lebanon. --- The strength of the Syrian armed forces is perhaps the key reason why the regime has not fallen. The number of soldiers defecting from the military has dropped recently, while the government has drafted new troops and recalled reserve forces to make up for losses.
“The armed forces in Syria remain united [highly significant since the army is composed of extremely diverse sectors of society including many Sunni's - B],” said Hisham Jaber, a former general in the Lebanese army who now works as a military analyst in Beirut.
“[The regime] has created a new brigade of about 3,000 soldiers. They are very well-trained, motivated and indoctrinated – like special forces – fighting in Damascus [against] the rebels.”
Neither side in Syria has been able to strike a decisive blow to end the fighting. But most analysts agree that right now Assad and his followers are in a position of power.
“If things continue as they are, the government will certainly be the party that has the major advantage,” Charles Lister of the IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre in London told the Washington Post.
That puts the Syrian president in a strong position, as Russia and the United States work to bring a diplomatic solution to end the Syrian crisis. Doesn't quite sound like the MSM version of reality, does it?
|
|
| | | 77 | Tree
ID: 41412416 Fri, May 24, 2013, 17:04
|
it's funny to see Baldwin constantly bash national public radio in the United States, then hold up national public radio in Canada as an indisputable source.
|
|
| | | 78 | Mith
ID: 412561115 Fri, May 24, 2013, 17:05
|
I understand its up to the moderators but I respectfully request that you consider the suggestion in post 68.
Obviously this material can be pasted into any of dozens of other threads and hashed out there. But I resurrected this one for the specific purpose of having a bigotry and intolerance -free discussion of Middle East affairs. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this is a good idea.
Thanks.
|
|
| | | 79 | Tree
ID: 41412416 Fri, May 24, 2013, 18:19
|
i'd second that. hard enough to argue my points regarding Israel when someone else who believes the same can't do without dehumanizing Muslims.
|
|
| | |
| | | 81 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Wed, May 29, 2013, 12:56
|
According to TPM, the WH was aware of the trip.
|
|
| | | 82 | Mith
ID: 412561115 Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 09:28
|
Foreign Policy Magazine: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as he Gassed Iran According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations.
In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.
In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons' use -- even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.
It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States' knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.
|
|
| | | 83 | Boldwin
ID: 23825216 Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 17:25
|
|
|
| | | 84 | biliruben
ID: 7751279 Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 13:43
|
The moron was stupid enough to join the f'in navy.
What did he think, it was all Cirque-du Soleil, buffets, shuffle-board and voting among the sailor boys to see who everyone thought it was cool to shoot missiles at?
|
|
| | |
| | | 86 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 16:37
|
Both implicitly before, and now apparently more explicitly
|
|
| | | 87 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 19:01
|
Wasn't B pretty hawkish about invading Iraq, or am I misremembering? (Of course, that was a Republican President putting boots on the ground vs a Democrat President intending to fire off some missiles. Sort of like Clinton did in 1998s Operation Desert Fox. A surgical strike, intel later credited with dealing the death blow to Saddams Chem/Bio weapons programs.)
|
|
| | | 88 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 21:39
|
Rand Paul proving that he is a total fkn dick, w/o redeeming value.
One does not obstruct, in matters that potentially impact national security. You discuss, you debate, and you make a decision. You do NOT, play parliamentary games to act like a spoiled 6 yr old.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., suggested he would require any resolution approving U.S. military involvement in Syria pass the Senate by a filibuster-proof majority.
Paul hinted Tuesday that he could invoke the parliamentary procedure to delay or effectively block a vote to approve President Barack Obama's request for authority to launch strikes against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
"I can't imagine that we won't require 60 votes on this," Paul said in a conference call with reporters. "Whether there's an actual standing filibuster, I've got to check my shoes."
|
|
| | | 89 | Boldwin
ID: 23825216 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 00:04
|
The only chem weapons being used are by al qeada operatives who know they can get america involved if they frame Assad. The UN even said so.
|
|
| | | 90 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 08:23
|
"What did he think, it was...?" - bili
He probably thot the navy was used against America's enemies, not on their behalf.
|
|
| | | 91 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 08:34
|
How is launching bombs into Syria a matter of national security? International reputation, yes. National security seems like a stretch.
I think Obama is pawning the decision onto Congress to limit blowback towards him. Not a bad political move, if Rand Paul blocks the resolution, he comes out looking better with both sides.
|
|
| | | 92 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 09:26
|
When you count among American's enemies the current sitting president, your credibility on who is and isn't America's enemies is a bit suspect.
|
|
| | | 93 | Pancho Villa
ID: 40610217 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 09:55
|
The UN even said so.
Can't seem to find any top UN official stating The only chem weapons being used are by al qeada operatives who know they can get america involved if they frame Assad
I suppose that kind of made-up info is a step better than this gem:
The Forbidden Truth: The U.S. is Channeling Chemical Weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria, Obama is a Liar and a Terrorist link
|
|
| | | 94 | Pancho Villa
ID: 40610217 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 10:01
|
Let me add that Al Qaeda no longer has any real meaning. It's a generic term. That's why it's usually printed Al Qaeda-linked or Al Qaeda-affiliated. Or, to get maximum propaganda effect, just eliminate the use of Al Nusrah, and simply call them Al Qeada.
|
|
| | | 95 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 10:03
|
The UN hasn't said anything bout who used the chemical weapons--it is specifically outside their mandate to do so, in fact.
This is the opposite of what our fiction writer asserts to be true.
|
|
| | | 96 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 11:38
|
The last time a phony accusation was made against Assad, Just three months ago Assad's enemies tried to pull this same stunt and the UN did in fact identify his opposition as having done so for the obvious purpose of framing Assad and triggering Obama's 'redline'.
There is no reason to suspect this instance is any different as it makes no sense for Assad to drag America into this, the only real threat that could topple him or to use chem weapons in block by block urban warfare.
|
|
| | | 97 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 11:47
|
Rand Pauls amendment: “The amendment quotes from a response Obama gave The Boston Globe back in 2007 as a Senator, in which Obama said that ‘the President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.’” - instapundit
|
|
| | | 98 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 11:51
|
President Obama: "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line."So we're going to go to war to defend the credibility of a comment Obama won't take responsibility for. - Ramesh Ponnuru on twitter
|
|
| | | 99 | bibA
ID: 48854410 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 11:54
|
Baldwin, I see you and the Daily Kos are in agreement re this matter - but why do you think Israel is lobbying Washington to take forceful action against Assad?
|
|
| | |
| | | 101 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 12:33
|
biba
I don't particularly trust Israel nor do I think their positions should necessarily be our positions nor is there a unified Israeli position, other than fear of Assad's sabre rattling towards them. Sabre-rattling which is just muslim-speak for 'why are we fighting amongst ourselves when we should all be killing Jews?'.
|
|
| | | 102 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 12:37
|
Further there should be no explicit Israeli favoritism in this. Assad's shia anti-semitism isn't any more virulent than the Muslim Brotherhood's sunni anti-semitism.
I suppose they feel safer with USA troops as a buffer but that is shortsighted. A unified muslim brotherhood caliphate is far more dangerous than a fragmented muslim world.
|
|
| | | 103 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 12:43
|
The last two months in Libya have been a disaster. Let's not repeat it.
|
|
| | | 104 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 13:06
|
The polls
|
|
| | | 105 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 13:25
|
Where is everyone who demanded a unified international coalition for anything Bush did?
|
|
| | | 106 | Pancho Villa
ID: 40610217 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 13:43
|
#96 This has been covered previously, and you were soundly spanked at the time. So, for the record, no one from the UN made any claims. Carla Del Ponte, a member of the independent commission of inquiry, spoke of a report she had seen(but had no copy). And, as the article states, testimony from outside Syria suggesting rebels, not Bashar Assad's regime, may have used chemical weapons.
Del Ponte herself admits,suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas
So, as Del Ponte was speaking independently, not in a capacity as a UN spokesperson, she never mentioned Al Qeada, nor America, it's clear the UN never stated
The only chem weapons being used are by al qeada operatives who know they can get america involved if they frame Assad
given the information in that link.
|
|
| | | 107 | Pancho Villa
ID: 40610217 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 13:53
|
Along the same lines, though, the Obama administration hasn't made the case that Assad, without a doubt, is the one that used sarin in the August 21st attack.
But, if I were a propagandist, I could simply say Assad did it, because Hezbollah says so.
|
|
| | | 108 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 13:57
|
re 105...we didn't demand it for "everything Bush" did. We demanded it, when Bush wanted to INVADE a foreign nation who had no part in attacking us. We didn't demand it for putting boots on the ground in Afghanistan, we demanded it for invading Iraq.
|
|
| | | 109 | nerveclinic Leader
ID: 05047110 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 14:13
|
when Bush wanted to INVADE a foreign nation who had no part in attacking us.
Actually at the time Bushes people claimed Hussain was in bed with the 9/11 attackers.
|
|
| | | 110 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 14:29
|
And they claimed he had chemical and biological weapons, which he was planning to pass along to them to use against us.
|
|
| | | 111 | Mith
ID: 412561115 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 14:30
|
Nerveclinic is correct, tho few detractors took that claim seriously.
For the record an international coalition is only relevant to the extent that misery (in this case, that which results from terrible foreign policy) likes company.
Just as Iraq War supporters deflect responsibility for that wrongheaded mess with the argument that many of America's allies supported that effort, supporters of a Syria strike hope to have the same card in their pockets for when this thing escalates into the next lengthy foreign war boondoggle.
I think bombing Syria will be easily the worst mistake of Obama's presidency.
|
|
| | | 112 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 15:35
|
Oh I see, it's only a psychological crutch for miserable allies. No one ever demanded actual coalitions be produced before taking military action.
Selective memory was never more popular around here.
Well France is for it! Hard to argue with French foreign policy. You know it's good for America if the French are for it.
|
|
| | | 113 | nerveclinic Leader
ID: 05047110 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 16:10
|
Why should the world believe the USA when they say that Assad is the one who used Chemicals? We have no credibility.
Even if you (for some reason) trust Obama you must know he is only parroting what the CIA and Military are telling him?
Putin makes the most sense when he says it makes no sense ASSAd would have done this.
1) He knew UN inspectors had just entered the country.
2) He had by all accounts taken a dramatic lead in the conflict and had no reason to go to this extreme that might give the USA a reason to attack.
It makes no sense.
And by the way, as much as I disagree with Baldwins politics, and opinions, he has been right about the Islamists taking advantage of the Arab spring, well before it was mainstream news (Or the sources he cited were ahead of the curve) He was out in front even before Mubarak was toppled predicting it would be the Muslim Brotherhood who would gain power in Eygpt. (Which was easy enough to predict, but the MSM was ignoring it) So even though I have strong disagreements with his political positions, he definitely was right about this.
Anyway, USA, sorry I don't believe you, Bush Obama Clinton Bush Sr. I don't believe. We been lied to so many times. It's at least as likely that the rebels were desperate enough to set this up to give the USA a reason to get involved and make it look like Assad did it. In fact that makes more sense then Assad having done it under the circumstances.
|
|
| | | 114 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 16:24
|
Having gotten his marching orders from George Soros years ago, John McCain didn't have anything better to do than play poker while they debated going 'Full Cowboy Land War in Asia' for entirely no good reason.
|
|
| | | 115 | Pancho Villa
ID: 40610217 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 17:22
|
sorry I don't believe you, Bush Obama Clinton Bush Sr.
Nerve, you left out Reagan. He was president, after all, when Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja, then tried to blame it on Iran.
|
|
| | | 116 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 17:38
|
No one ever demanded actual coalitions be produced before taking military action.
I don't think I have, and I certainly would not today. Not even if it might happen to be a conversationally convenient stance for me at the moment.
The main reason I oppose it is that I fear the response to any strike would be made with the goal of drawing the US into a much greater international conflict, just as the brief sojourn we were promised Iraq would be turned into the second-longest war in American history.
However Boldwin, if you want to talk about selective memory, it wasn't me who previously supported war on the grounds that use of chemical weapons and Ba'athist thuggery were each separately legitimate reasons for President Bush to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, regardless of any UN sanction or violated resolutions.
And yet you oppose President Obama's Syrian adventure despite the fact that it has all the same elements you say validated Bush's war: use of chemical weapons, open hostility to west-friendly nations in the region, documented torture and executions of dissidents and reports of state-ordered rape squads. Assad is even a Ba'athist.
You are the Rotoguru posterboy for selective memory.
Last, I'm not yet as caught up to the Obama administration's case that Assad was responsible as I should be (mostly because I don't support action even if it is confirmed) but what do they do if this turns out to be credible?
|
|
| | | 117 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 17:44
|
but what do they do if this turns out to be credible?
The logical response would be the same response that the majority of Syrians have taken, namely that even if Assad is no saint he's a less scary alternative than the rebels.
|
|
| | | 118 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 17:58
|
"...than the rebels."
There are some 50-60 groups that comprise "the rebels", not all of which are friendly to one another, or (un)friendly toward us. Little too much generalization there for my blood B.
Am I for or opposed to action? IF, it can be done ala Pres Clintons Operation Desert Fox, then I am whole-heartedly in favor.
Why?
Iran has heard us promise Israel, that we would be there for her if the Iranians acquired nukes. Iran heard us say, no to chemical weapons by Assad. Now if we do nothing, Iran assumes, perhaps rightfully so and perhaps not, that we'd do nothing again. Assad assumes, we would do nothing and he is then free to gas who ever in hell he wants to. So is anyone else for that matter. Part of me, feels like we have to do something, just to demonstrate that when we say we wont stand idly by, we don't. Of course, part of me also thinks that pretty gddmn playground too.
If we cant do as per Operation Desert Fox, then I am on the fence. One thing I am adamantly opposed to, is more American ground troops in the Middle East. We need time for our military to recover, from the past 10 years.
|
|
| | | 119 | Boldwin
ID: 4082347 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 18:06
|
MITH #116
demanded actual coalitions be produced before taking military action...I don't think I have...
There is no question that liberals over and over have demanded extensive coalition building before allowing USA participation in 'nation building' or UN police actions' or whatever you wanna call it.
But they are curiously speaking softly even if they disagree with the adventure. Except for Code Pink the other day. At least they are being consistent.
the goal of drawing the US into a much greater international conflict
Indeed we have already been recruited into the muslim brotherhood 'Grand Caliphate' project only we have been sold it under the name 'Arab Spring'.
it wasn't me who previously supported war on the grounds that use of chemical weapons and Ba'athist thuggery were each separately legitimate reasons...
Assad doesn't have a history of gassing Kurds.
He didn't run an anfal genocide.
He doesn't have prisons where people are held in coffins. He doesn't run people thru tree chippers.
I haven't heard of him forcing his enemies to lay down and have a road paved over them, like Saddam did.
He has used rape in a systematic program to defeat his enemy as have the rebels. [rape having a devastating effect in muslim countries where the rape victim is typically considered the guilty party]
He did respond to the revolt in Hom [or hamma, I forget which] with total destruction of the city.
He may be Baathist, but he's not even muslim afaik. I think he's Alawite. He's not like Saddam, really.
I'll give you one similarity tho. It's true he didn't treat Lebanon much differently than Saddam treated Kuwait when you look at it just the right way.
In Saddam's case defeating Saddam meant Shia and Kurd minorities were released from religious persecution.
In this case if Assad goes, religious persecution of Alawaites, Shia and any non-sunni minority will begin in earnest.
|
|
| | | 120 | Pancho Villa
ID: 40610217 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 18:22
|
#119 That's a lot of good points, B.
|
|
| | | 121 | Mith
ID: 412561115 Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 19:21
|
liberals over and over have demanded extensive coalition building
I spoke for myself and that's what you challenged. What you think liberals demand is a different topic.
they are curiously speaking softly
I suspect that will change as the days move on. The military action supporters on the left are far outnumbered by those opposed. I expect national anti-war protests before any final voting in Congress.
Yes Saddam was worse and to that extent most of your points are fair, so lets lay the hypocrisy accusations to rest.
|
|
| | |
| | | 123 | Pancho Villa
ID: 40610217 Thu, Sep 05, 2013, 17:44
|
he's not even muslim afaik. I think he's Alawite.
Assad is Alawite, and Alawites are Muslims.
The Alawites, also known as Alawis (ʿAlawīyyah Arabic: علوية) are a prominent mystical religious group centred in Syria who follow a branch of the Twelver school of Shia Islam. - Wikipedia
|
|
| | | 124 | Boldwin
ID: 18060 Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 01:03
|
Look deeper into it.
their practices combine Christian with Shi'i elements
It is believed to be a blend of extreme Shi΄a, also called Ghulat, ancient pagan, Gnostic, and Christian elements
|
|
| | | 125 | Pancho Villa
ID: 40610217 Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 10:34
|
So, you insist on a detailed, meticulous definition of Alawite, while using the term "Al Qeada" to describe any Muslim in Syria who has taken up arms against Assad, even when there's no affiliation whatsoever.
You're obviously more than capable of providing intelligent analysis that envelops the complexities of the Syrian chaos. Why the need to resort to propaganda tactics just because it's fashionable among the red meat crowd?
|
|
| | | 126 | Khahan Donor
ID: 39432178 Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 13:19
|
Something I think we can all agree on .
|
|
| | | 127 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 13:22
|
Indeed Khahan. I know of nobody who disagrees there.
|
|
| | | 128 | Boldwin
ID: 18060 Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 15:16
|
while using the term "Al Qeada" to describe any Muslim in Syria who has taken up arms against Assad, even when there's no affiliation whatsoever. - PV
Of course not. There's even a tiny nominal muslim or secular contingent among the rebels as these was in Egypt.
The only thing that matters is that if the rebels win, the MB/al qeada wins in the long run.
|
|
| | | 129 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Sun, Sep 08, 2013, 02:42
|
Whether or not Congress votes to go along with Pres Obama, is in the long run, irrelevant. Either way Congress votes, the Office of the Presidency wins. If Congress says "No", never again will a President seek Congressional approval FIRST. They will implement the WPA (War Powers Act), and for upto 90 days operate under the guise of it's easier to seek forgiveness than permission. Congress, will have effectively neutered itself. If Congress votes "Yes", President Obama gets what he wants in the first place and if it goes well then he can take credit, and if it goes poorly he can say "Hey, Congress agreed to it".
Like him or not, in the chess game that is American politics, this was a masters move.
|
|
| | | 130 | Boldwin
ID: 55827817 Sun, Sep 08, 2013, 18:27
|
Find me a list of political commentators who believe Obama has pulled off a masterstroke.
If Dave Hall can spare the bandwidth for such a voluminous list.
|
|
| | | 131 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Sun, Sep 08, 2013, 19:19
|
Since when do you give two shits what the MSM talking heads have to say?
|
|
| | | 132 | Tree
ID: 317371816 Sun, Sep 08, 2013, 21:19
|
If Congress votes "Yes", President Obama gets what he wants in the first place and if it goes well then he can take credit, and if it goes poorly he can say "Hey, Congress agreed to it".
Like him or not, in the chess game that is American politics, this was a masters move.
yea. i gotta disagree with you here. thanks for putting myself and Baldwin in agreement.
it doesn't matter if Syria goes well, or if it goes poorly. if we go in there, people aren't going to look at congress - they're going to look at Obama.
*I* am going to look at Obama, and damnit, i didn't elect him so he can go attack another country.
|
|
| | | 133 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Sun, Sep 08, 2013, 21:24
|
Look at the office, not the man. Long term, it is a masterful stroke with huge implications.
|
|
| | | 134 | Tree
ID: 317371816 Sun, Sep 08, 2013, 22:01
|
you're delusional on this one.
and never mind it's about so much more than politics, regardless of "the office" or "the man".
|
|
| | | 135 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Sun, Sep 08, 2013, 23:14
|
big picture Tree, big picture, long term.
|
|
| | | 136 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 00:57
|
Yeah, if Congress gives the OK it is entirely on Obama. As it should be. And I genuinely think Obama wants to hit Assad hard.
The only way Congress owns this is if they deny approval, and then Assad does something stupid (you know, like kill 400 kids with a chemical gas attack or something crazy like that).
Then Obama won't even have to point out that he was unable to do anything--at that point Congress will own it. No way that'll happen though. Who would do that, with the inspectors there? And Assad being so level-headed? And not at all emboldened by Congress, desperate to give Obama a "loss," refusing authorization?
|
|
| | | 137 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 01:32
|
one mans views...does Obama REALLY want war? This writer thinks not.
Business Insider thinks so, but still thinks this is brilliance on Obamas part
This writer thinks Obama wants to act, and thinks his forcing the GOP to side with him, was brilliant
MSNBC
Washington Post WONKBLOG, thinks Obama wants to stay far away from Syria and credits him with a genius move to force the GOPs hand
I'm far from alone in my thoughts here. I think Obama is looking not just at the rest of his term, but his long term legacy as it impacts the OPFFICE of the Presidency.
Additionally, Congress is slated for all of 9 days of session in September and the new fiscal year begins Oct 1. Every minute the spend on the Syria question, is a minute the GOP loses to hold the nation hostage over the budget/continuing resolution. Its a minute they lose, to fight immigration reform. The budget/continuing resolution MUST be addressed. To fail to even address immigration reform, further erodes the GOPs hopes of drawing some of the Hispanic vote in the 2014 mid-terms, and further damages their prospects for holding a heavy handed majority in the House.
House GOP members by and large, absolutely will NOT vote in favor of ANYTHING Obama has endorsed. Hell they have repeatedly voted against their own proposals, once Obama endorsed their ideas. I think, Obama wants nothing to do with Syria, without the UK at his side, and w/o a UN sanction to the action. He has neither. I think, this is a ploy, to get what he wants, while appearing to give Congress what they demanded.
|
|
| | | 138 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 01:47
|
None of those sources agree with you that, if given the approval and the war goes poorly, that Congress will get blamed.
I do agree that there is political upside for Obama should Congress deny him authorization (which looks likely). But if Congress does authorize military action, Obama owns it, for good or bad.
|
|
| | | 139 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 02:17
|
I didn't say Congress will get blamed. I said Obama could somewhat insulate himself, by stating that Congress agreed. The big beneficiary of that, being FUTURE Presidents, as the Office itself gets sheltered by the Congressional approval.
|
|
| | | 140 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 08:54
|
I must have misunderstood, then, when you said "...if it goes poorly he can say "Hey, Congress agreed to it"."
Fair enough, then.
|
|
| | | 141 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 12:16
|
Bachmann, Gohmert and Steve King...3 idiots at work
"We have seen the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood has posed here for the people in Egypt. We have seen the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood has posed around the world," Bachmann said. "We stand against this great evil. We are not for them. We remember who caused 9/11 in America. We remember who it was that killed 3,000 brave Americans. We have not forgotten.”
First time I have ever heard anyone claim, the MB was behind the 9/11/01 attacks.
|
|
| | | 142 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 14:05
|
Alan Grayson Backs John Kerry Proposal To Avoid Syria Strike
oh golly...Kerry proposes a way to AVOID a Syria strike? Now, why would the SoS propose something contrary to what the President wants, unless.....well, unless it ISNT contrary to what the president wants.
|
|
| | | 143 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 14:45
|
Frankly, I think Kerry has largely failed on this issue. Nevertheless, the appearance of an unhinged SoS has caused Russia (Syria's protector) to consider making this happen: TPM story.
So Obama's initial hardline position, coupled with a delay to get Congressional approval, seems to have somehow caused a possible solution to reveal itself.
|
|
| | | 144 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Tue, Sep 10, 2013, 10:58
|
Looks like Syria is taking up the offer to have an international agency take over their chemical weapons. France (!) has introduced a UN resolution to give the pending agreement some teeth.
So in response to the "US aggression" toward Syria, Russia has not only stopped denying that Assad had chemical weapons, but agreed to pressure Syria into giving them up.
Good move, Obama.
|
|
| | | 145 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Tue, Sep 10, 2013, 11:05
|
Obama and Putin have been discussing this Syria solution, for a year
In an interview with PBS, President Obama said if there is a diplomatic path to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria it would be "overwhelmingly my preference."
Obama also added that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin had talked about the plan now on the table both during the recent G-20 meeting in Russia and during another meeting last year in Mexico.
In other words, the proposal is a true diplomatic breakthrough long in the making.
|
|
| | | 146 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Tue, Sep 10, 2013, 11:20
|
I'm sure that they have been talking about Syria for that long--after all, Russian has been behind Assad for a long time at we needed to get then to stop propping up the bully. But Russia for nearly all that time denied that Assad even had chemical weapons at all. That portion of the puzzle (the keystone to what looks to be the solution to standing down) is very recent.
|
|
| | | 147 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Tue, Sep 10, 2013, 11:29
|
No PD. It was made to LOOK recent.
Obama also added that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin had talked about the plan now on the table both during the recent G-20 meeting in Russia and during another meeting last year in Mexico.
Not sure which part of that, is confusing you.
|
|
| | | 148 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Tue, Sep 10, 2013, 11:46
|
I'm confused by what is an obvious mistake in the article you have swallowed whole. It makes no sense that the chemical weapons that Russian denied Syria had were, instead, the subject of negotiations Russia was secretly having with the US a year ago.
I think the article conflates ongoing Syrian discussions with the specific chemical weapons portion.
|
|
| | | 149 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Tue, Sep 10, 2013, 12:05
|
Really? You cant imagine a government saying one thing in public, and knowing/doing something else?
I guess you'll just have to wait for Obama and Putin to stand before a camera, and explain how it all works.
|
|
| | | 150 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Tue, Sep 10, 2013, 12:13
|
Now you're just being argumentative--this is hardly advancing the issue. Let's say that your last point makes you kinda look like an ass and leave it at that.
|
|
| | | 151 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Tue, Sep 10, 2013, 14:19
|
Now, I'm just showing my frustration.
This was so obviously orchestrated, as to be almost painful, yet you persist in denying it.
|
|
| | | 152 | Boldwin
ID: 528261217 Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 18:27
|
Because curiously a good percentage of Russian opinion often sounds more American than a good chunk of America these days.
Putin brings the wisdom on Syria.
|
|
| | | 153 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 21:04
|
Did you read your own link?
The U.N. Security Council veto system, which means that Russia can block any action just because it says so, was not a product of "profound wisdom" as much as profound pragmatism. Countries don't like to give up their power to other countries. After World War II, getting the world's five remaining great powers (the United States, United Kingdom, France, China and the Soviet Union) to consent to this newfangled United Nations system required granting them veto power so they'd be comfortable with it. This is what it took, but it wasn't profoundly wise, and both Russia and the United States abuse their veto power plenty.
It's true that the League of Nations collapsed because no one took it seriously, including the United States. But the United Nations survived the Cold War, which included lots of non-U.N.-approved military actions from -- you guessed it -- the United States and the Soviet Union. If the United Nations can survive the unilateral Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. intervention in Vietnam, among many other wars large and small, it will survive cruise missile strikes on Syria.
Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's regime has killed so freely and so wantonly in part because it knows Putin will protect it from international action. Putin has also been supplying Assad with heavy weapons. It's a bit rich for him to decry violence or outside involvement at this point.
Russia has certainly espoused dialogue and a compromise plan, but it has acted instead to stop that from happening, refusing to wield its considerable power to bring this about. There is no one in the world better positioned than Vladimir Putin to force Assad to the negotiating table. Instead, Putin has shown every indication that he wishes for Assad to defeat the rebels totally and outright, as his father Hafez al-Assad did in 1982 when he crushed an uprising in Hama.
etc etc etc. The fact checking, time after time after time, brings into question, Putin's points and motivations.
|
|
| | | 154 | nerveclinic Leader
ID: 05047110 Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 17:22
|
PD It makes no sense that the chemical weapons that Russian denied Syria had were
Russia never said Syria didn't have Chem weapons. Syria never said they didn't have them either. Russia and Assad just denied he had used them. There is no question the weapons exist and Russia and Syria have not denied it. Or do I misunderstand your post?
|
|
| | | 155 | nerveclinic Leader
ID: 05047110 Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 17:25
|
The fact checking, time after time after time, brings into question, Putin's points and motivations.
What is the USA's motivation?
It's a proxy war. Syria and Russia and Iran are all allies. The USA saw an opening to weaken that coalition in a strategically important part of the world. It's not rocket science.
|
|
| | | 156 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 17:59
|
Perhaps it was a wink-wink kind of thing, nerve, but Syria only recently admitted it even had chemical weapons. I never really thought about the difference, since I never heard from any party (at least openly) that Syria had them.
And Russia has taken great pains to point all fingers at the rebels whenever chemical weapon evidence appears.
|
|
| | | 157 | Boldwin
ID: 438441417 Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 18:48
|
Sarge
Yes, of course I understood I was linking to a conservative seeking to fisk Putin. A conservative I would normally tend to agree with.
However...
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
|
|
| | | 158 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 18:53
|
Point is B, your own "Putin brings the wisdom...", is simply false. You may believe it to be true, but that makes you all alone, cept for that communist KGB guy standing next to you, Putin.
|
|
| | | 159 | Boldwin
ID: 438441417 Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 18:57
|
Humorous, Sarge. If Demint was the original source of this ludicrous charge against Assad and he was trying to get Bush into an Asian Land War you'd be singing out of the other side of your face like it was your personal anthem and religious mission.
|
|
| | | 160 | Canadian Hack
ID: 348501421 Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 22:50
|
Amazing isn't it? Baldwin's politics are so lacking in any underlying principles that he is now trying to rewrite history to pretend he always liked Vladimir Putin. We have years of posts telling us how he mistrusts Russia - and virtually every other country. But Putin did the one and only thing that matters - he disagreed with Obama.
|
|
| | | 161 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 22:57
|
Obama isn't trying to get us into a land war. Your delusions aside, haven't you been paying attention?
|
|
| | | 162 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Sun, Sep 15, 2013, 09:51
|
They hate Obama so much they are willing to take the word of a KGB Communinist over his.
|
|
| | | 163 | Boldwin
ID: 508421617 Mon, Sep 16, 2013, 22:42
|
I can't help it if Russia Today is more pro-capitalism and American ideals than the MSM now days.
|
|
| | | 164 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 11:14
|
You still haven't figured it out either I see. Just refuse to admit reality. Now, you find yourself having to side with a former KGB Communist. How does feel, to sell yourself so cheaply, just to oppose a Democrat?
|
|
| | | 165 | Mith
ID: 412561115 Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 14:00
|
...like Tuesday.
|
|
| | | 166 | nerveclinic
ID: 508301914 Fri, Sep 20, 2013, 09:26
|
I can't help it if Russia Today is more pro-capitalism and American ideals than the MSM now days.
I don't want to hijack the thread but that is so patently absurd at face value.
I don't claim to be an expert, but what I hear, over and over, from people who seem to know what they are talking about Russia and who watch Russia says you can sum up the country like this:
There is a small elite and upper middle class, almost everyone is lower middle class to extremely poor.
Many of the rich first obtained the wealth by basically taking State assets under their control during privatisation. Many got/get their wealth due to political connections in some part of Putins political network.
It is extremely difficult to move from one class to another. (Unlike the USA where at least it is certainly still possible)
Most movement when it occurs is through cronyism, often described as being basically a form of "State Mafia" with all the classic trapping of Mafia in the Sopranos. Killings, protection money etc. Believe me we see lots of these boys here in Dubai and we hear all about it and you just look at these guys and think, damn, he looks like he straight out of a Mafia movie.
If you think any poor, unattached, unconnected Russian citizen can just go out and start a business and succeed as easily as you still can in the USA (Granted it's much harder then at times in the past) then I would say maybe you need to go deeper into your research channels.
Please don't go off on a "it's much harder under Obama" tangent. Fair enough it is, but it is still possible and happens every day. And at least some of the current problems in the USA are economic based.
OK back to the thread...
|
|
| | | 167 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Sep 20, 2013, 13:15
|
The tea party is essentially the dupes, cluelessly doing the dirty work for a rich, connected elite who are dreaming of the unfettered economic oligarchy of Russia, where they don't have worry about actual competition and any upstarts eating their lunch.
No wonder boldwin idolizes Russia.
|
|
| | | 168 | Boldwin
ID: 22840223 Sun, Sep 22, 2013, 04:54
|
I don't claim to be an expert, but what I hear, over and over, from people who seem to know what they are talking about Russia and who watch Russia says you can sum up the country like this: - Nerve
Nevertheless Russian media and [RT] Russia Today in particular regularly makes defenses of free market capitalism that haven't been heard in the American MSM in decades.
It is not lost on me that it is insane that:
RT which is just a mouse on the KGB's chain whenever they choose to yank on it...
and Fox News which is owned in surprisingly large share by Saudi owners...
...are currently the among the most 'reliable' sources of pro-American values in high profile media.
People who sling the term 'sustainability' around all the time should be talking about that.
|
|
| | | 169 | Boldwin
ID: 22840223 Sun, Sep 22, 2013, 05:01
|
bili
Crony capitalism and actual capitalism are two entirely separate animals.
That crony capitalists in 'formerly communist countries' are wolves hiding in sheep's clothing is not lost on me.
It is the same selfish nomenclatura all over the world at war with every other class.
|
|
| | | 170 | Mith
ID: 2105275 Thu, Nov 07, 2013, 06:52
|
See post 45.
|
|
| | | 171 | Tree
ID: 438482411 Thu, Nov 07, 2013, 16:42
|
wonder what will happen if it turns out the Palestinians murdered their own leader, because of how much money he stole from them.
|
|
| | | 172 | Mith
ID: 14102186 Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 07:21
|
That seems like a much more preferable outcome than the one that everyone should be much more concerned with.
I'll gladly add that if he was poisoned, I hope it wasn't the Israelis. The fear is warranted and notable because we all know they are fully capable of it.
Sure Hamas and maybe even the PA are too, but (for exactly the same reason I wan't concerned with it 11 months ago, either) that realization wouldn't result in anything like the explosive impact of learning that Israel assassinated Arafat.
|
|
| | | 173 | bibA
ID: 19101289 Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 10:12
|
One must wonder about the poison used - radioactive polonium. Who would more likely have access to it?
|
|
| | | 174 | Tree
ID: 438482411 Sat, Nov 09, 2013, 09:43
|
that realization wouldn't result in anything like the explosive impact of learning that Israel assassinated Arafat.
which shows, to me, an inherent bias against Israel. of course it would be explosive if Israel did this - but it should be less explosive - and potentially more explosive - if the Palestinians themselves did it.
|
|
| | | 175 | Mith
ID: 3692387 Sat, Nov 09, 2013, 11:39
|
That's really stupid.
|
|
| | | 176 | Mith
ID: 3692387 Sat, Nov 09, 2013, 11:45
|
Just think about it. A radical, orthodox Jewish Israeli assassinated Yatzik Rabin in a situation that would be similar to the realization that Arafat was murdered by radical Palestinians.
You really think Rabin's murder would have been an event of lesser scale than it was had he been murdered by agents of Hamas instead?
|
|
| | | 177 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123 Sun, Nov 10, 2013, 15:03
|
You really think Rabin's murder would have been an event of lesser scale than it was had he been murdered by agents of Hamas instead?
Going to have to agree with MITH here.
|
|
| | |
| | | 179 | Pancho Villa
ID: 40610217 Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 18:39
|
In a glaringly tardy move, US suspends Nonlethal aid to Syrian Rebels in the North.
The chaos in Syria has multiple players, making it impossible to discern who are allies, enemies or neutral. Similar to Iraq, one of the main constants has been the success of Syrian Kurd militias, who fight for territorial and cultural freedom, as opposed to radical Islamic dreams of caliphate establishment, or basic Sunni Arab objections to Shia power and control.
The US, rather than fully embracing Syrian Kurd objectives, and providing arms and money(this may be happening surreptitiously), defers to Turkish fears, who continue to practice apartheid against their Kurdish population.
With all the attention focused on Mandela's recent passing, one wonders why the oppression of Kurds has never been met with the kind of global response South Africa faced in the early 90s. Possibly it's because the difference between a black South African and a white Afrikaaner is so much more distinct than a Turk, Arab and Kurd.
|
|
| | | 180 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 19:05
|
Thanks for this. Truth is, Syria became so muddy I lost track. I have to look again at what is going on there.
|
|
| | | 181 | Boldwin
ID: 21152514 Wed, Dec 25, 2013, 15:06
|
Egypt's military-backed interim government has declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group.
Well duh.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 184 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Fri, May 02, 2014, 22:55
|
“It was notable that the panel offered not one example of something they thought Obama should do now to respond to the crises in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Egypt or lots of other places. They were full of examples of what he should have done in the past, and absolutely certain he would not do the right things in the future, including decisive military action against the Iranian nuclear program..."
Sound familiar? ODS, of course. This one just happens to be coming from the neocons but there's no difference at all in what they are saying than what the GOP is saying top to bottom ("establishment" down to Tea Party fanatic). No difference at all.
|
|
| | | 185 | Mith
ID: 21130811 Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 14:10
|
Sigh.
|
|
| | |
|
|