Originally posted by normbenign Ain't that the truth.
No it really isn't as shown by the inability of the right wing talking heads to propose any replacement policy that doesn't include inevitably involving the US in another full scale war in the Middle East.
Originally posted by no1marauder No it really isn't as shown by the inability of the right wing talking heads to propose any replacement policy that doesn't include inevitably involving the US in another full scale war in the Middle East.
I don't regard the incompetence of "right wing talking heads" and the numbnuts President as mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by normbenign I don't regard the incompetence of "right wing talking heads" and the numbnuts President as mutually exclusive.
If the President's policy is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo incompetent it should be really easy for wise men like uther and whodey (nevermind all the right wing "national security experts" endlessly spouting on Fox News and the web) to propose a competent one. Yet they cannot.
Originally posted by no1marauder If the President's policy is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo incompetent it should be really easy for wise men like uther and whodey (nevermind all the right wing "national security experts" endlessly spouting on Fox News and the web) to propose a competent one. Yet they cannot.
I don't believe that is true, and that doesn't mean I support them either. The President is a "nimrod" with no idea of practical diplomacy, and I think Putin is laughing his ass off.
Originally posted by normbenign I don't believe that is true, and that doesn't mean I support them either. The President is a "nimrod" with no idea of practical diplomacy, and I think Putin is laughing his ass off.
I doubt Putin is laughing at all.
You believe whatever you feel like and never let facts get in the way. Obama's biggest foreign policy problem is the exact opposite of what he is being criticized for by right wing nuts i.e. his inability to just cut the US' losses in the Middle East and abandon the foolish interventionist policies which the neocons keep wanting to double and triple down on.
Originally posted by no1marauder I doubt it. The Russians are more interested in propping up Assad then fighting ISIS. There's a decent possibility of a de facto truce between those two allowing Assad and the Russians to go after other rebel groups to the discomfort of the US, the other Western powers, the Saudis, etc. etc. etc.
Based on the logic of the enemy of your enemy is your friend, I would still insist that the conflict in Syria presents an opportunity for cooperation between Russia and the US, and given that neither can ever land a fatal blow on the other, its the most logical proposition of how economic interests on both sides would have things turn out.
Originally posted by kmax87 Based on the logic of the enemy of your enemy is your friend, I would still insist that the conflict in Syria presents an opportunity for cooperation between Russia and the US, and given that neither can ever land a fatal blow on the other, its the most logical proposition of how economic interests on both sides would have things turn out.
The US and the West's arrogance in the Ukraine situation i.e. in supporting essentially a coup of an elected President merely because he preferred stronger economic ties with Russia rather than the EU - was another poisoning of the well such as been going on since the collapse of the USSR. NATO (which really has no reason to exist anymore assuming it ever did) keeps pushing East, the Western powers were deceitful in Libya (it was ALWAYS about regime change) and on and on. Russia is taking an aggressive counter stand in several regions and as US foreign policy seems determined to reduce Russian power and influence I do not see these goals as compatible.
Originally posted by no1marauder The US and the West's arrogance in the Ukraine situation i.e. in supporting essentially a coup of an elected President merely because he preferred stronger economic ties with Russia rather than the EU - was another poisoning of the well such as been going on since the collapse of the USSR. NATO (which really has no reason to exist anymore assuming it eve ...[text shortened]... y seems determined to reduce Russian power and influence I do not see these goals as compatible.
The well of goodwill has been poisoned but nations are not bound to continue acting in a particular way. While the media loves a story of intractable monolithic behaviour, on the part of powerful nations, I would argue that new opportunities present themselves on a continuous basis, and its not impossible for a new more peaceful cooperative paradigm to suddenly establish itself.
The neo con vision of an American Century that had some honestly reflect that it might take 100 years of military presence/conflict before a beachhead of Democracy could be established in the region has failed, largely because it was a politically unsustainable direction, both at home and in the region. Russia began to flex and has entered the fray. The question is whether the leadership of both nations allow things to settle in the wake of poorly laid plans and move slowly and deliberately take advantage of every opportunity for cooperation or whether they constantly bicker about the sins of the past and lurch inexorably into more frequent reactive responses, in order not to be perceived as being weak.
Originally posted by no1marauder There seems to be quite a lot of unemployment in the EU. http://www.statista.com/statistics/268830/unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/
Why would refugees have a better chance of securing employment in Europe then unemployed Europeans?
Originally posted by no1marauder In case you missed it, the US and other Western countries have been bombing in Syria for over a year now. The refugee problem exploded prior to the Russians militarily intervening but after those countries did.
What exactly do you think the US can compel Russia to do? What measures are you prepared to endorse if the Russians won't do what you command them to?
The only reason Assad is in power is because of Russia.
But you do raise a good point. Obama and company have only made the situation worse which gives them less good standing to take a moral stand like the one I propose. Their piecemeal, schizophrenic, unresolved approach to the Middle East has taken a toll.
Originally posted by whodey The only reason Assad is in power is because of Russia.
But you do raise a good point. Obama and company have only made the situation worse which gives them less good standing to take a moral stand like the one I propose. Their piecemeal, schizophrenic, unresolved approach to the Middle East has taken a toll.
What "moral stand " did you propose? I see your usual bitching but no realistic policy proposals.
Is there any reason you are so gungho to intervene in the Syrian civil war when you were so opposed to intervening in the Libyan one? Or is simply because Obama was willing to there but not so much in Syria? Is that the basis of your "moral stand "?
Originally posted by no1marauder What "moral stand " did you propose? I see your usual bitching but no realistic policy proposals.
Is there any reason you are so gungho to intervene in the Syrian civil war when you were so opposed to intervening in the Libyan one? Or is simply because Obama was willing to there but not so much in Syria? Is that the basis of your "moral stand "?
Maybe I should talk slower so you understand.
1. Obama should not have gotten involved in Libya.
2. Obama should not have gotten involved in Syria.
3. Putin should not have gotten involved in Syria.
4. If Obama had not gotten involved in Syria, he would have the moral high ground to criticize Putin for getting involved in Syria and contributing to the refugee crisis, but as you point out, he has contributed to the problems there and essentially has no moral high ground to keep.
01 Oct '15 23:33
What to do with Russia and Assad
Back to Top