Dutchy wrote:

ISIS is a direct result of a failing Iraqi policy. The Arab spring not so much, unless I am missing something. So show us how the Arab spring, started in Tunisia is the direct result of the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Sure.Arab Spring is a set of incidents started seemingly randomly, but then supported by the West via a network of "democratic NGOs" and "opposition". Then - marketed as "a minority just wanted a touch more rights" - a statement you believed.

From there on once best West's friend Bashar Assad (who got his education, spent significant chunk of his life and was accepted in all Western capitals, married to a British citizen, and is with his country all the way since 2013) had to seek help from "dictator regimes" of Iran and Russia. Unlike Yanukovich, who dumped his country into the hands of "democratic" opposition - Assad and his family remained with their people. They were seeking help and got it from Putin. Their kids were going to school listening to artillery explosions, just as most other Syrian kids did, thanks to West-supported "democratic opposition". Hence - West now needs to ask itself how one of the West's apprentice now seeks help from Russia.

Dutchy wrote:

ISIS is a direct result of a failing Iraqi policy. The Arab spring not so much, unless I am missing something. So show us how the Arab spring, started in Tunisia is the direct result of the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Yes, ISIS is the failure of West's policy in Middle East. Yet today, they've made even more airstrikes as the part of the same failing policies. And West isn't eager to learn from its mistakes. Instead - they're keeping testing waters as to how close can they come to a nuclear war. Not realizing how easy it is to lose control over the situation and dive all they way into the nuclear war, burying San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles for good nder water.

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

And it will always be a case of whataboutism the West is having a go at these guys when they won’t touch the liars who lead us into this in the first place. You can directly link the invasion of Iraq to all of the mess which followed, including the Arab spring movement and Syria.

They can't see this.

Dutchy, jetero et al are hypocrites

haha, that qualification from your mouth is a compliment for me and Jetero, thanks man!

Weird. But ok, well done in being a hypocrite, I guess.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

ISIS is a direct result of a failing Iraqi policy. The Arab spring not so much, unless I am missing something. So show us how the Arab spring, started in Tunisia is the direct result of the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Sure.Arab Spring is a set of incidents started seemingly randomly, but then supported by the West via a network of "democratic NGOs" and "opposition". Then - marketed as "a minority just wanted a touch more rights" - a statement you believed.

From there on once best West's friend Bashar Assad (who got his education, spent significant chunk of his life and was accepted in all Western capitals, married to a British citizen, and is with his country all the way since 2013) had to seek help from "dictator regimes" of Iran and Russia. Unlike Yanukovich, who dumped his country into the hands of "democratic" opposition - Assad and his family remained with their people. They were seeking help and got it from Putin. Their kids were going to school listening to artillery explosions, just as most other Syrian kids did, thanks to West-supported "democratic opposition". Hence - West now needs to ask itself how one of the West's apprentice now seeks help from Russia.

NGO's --> non governmental organisations.

Assad the best friend of the west? You do know that Russia and Assad regime are BFF's, right? And you do know about the Soviet and now Russia's naval base in Syria? And that Syria is an enemy of Israel? Yes, it was hoped that Assad 2.0 was a more moderate and was more inclined towards more freedom and more democracy, but alas he chose to crush any opposition.

So all framing again, Syria was never trying to head for more democracy and universal human value's - if you want to call this joining the west, I am fine with it, I call it more free society -. That one brutal dictator asked an autocrat to help him stay in power, so be it. It is a very bloody friendship and Syria stays firmly in the hands of Soviet, uhhh Russian control.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

ISIS is a direct result of a failing Iraqi policy. The Arab spring not so much, unless I am missing something. So show us how the Arab spring, started in Tunisia is the direct result of the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Yes, ISIS is the failure of West's policy in Middle East. Yet today, they've made even more airstrikes as the part of the same failing policies. And West isn't eager to learn from its mistakes. Instead - they're keeping testing waters as to how close can they come to a nuclear war. Not realizing how easy it is to lose control over the situation and dive all they way into the nuclear war, burying San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles for good nder water.

Failure of America's Iraqi policy you mean. ISIS did arise from failing to incorporate all groups of Iraqi society into the new reality, not perse from removing Saddam Hussein from power. So yet again you are wrong, making an analysis which benefits your Russian point of view.

And please com'on, how can anyone take you seriously when you are going extreme with going to nuclear war. (and you forgot to mention Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities if Putin would really going nuclear on the world)

Freakysh wrote:

Wow, really?

You're winning, have absolutely no need to use chemical weapons. Then, by using chemical weapons you fully risk everything you've gained in the last twelve months.

Sorry Tommy, you're delusional and clueless.

The Russians are winning. Assad's army is in shambles, it doesn't have the men to clear out cities. That's why he uses chemical weapons, and that's why Russia is covering for him.

Dutchy wrote:

You have been told many times, it is a cynical point of view, which I could respect somewhat, if - and that is a very big if - you would condemn Putin's regime for meddling in a number of other countries. But you don't, you are a Russian troll defending Putin and are morally very flexible in doing this.

My point of view maybe not ideal in all cases Dutchy - but what is? Bombing some country and some nation just because you believe this is what just needs to happen after your leaders made some stupid statements publicly? It's not a to-do thing without enough reason no matter what. There were and are reasons to establish U.N. Security Council and veto rights in it.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You have been told many times, it is a cynical point of view, which I could respect somewhat, if - and that is a very big if - you would condemn Putin's regime for meddling in a number of other countries. But you don't, you are a Russian troll defending Putin and are morally very flexible in doing this.

My point of view maybe not ideal in all cases Dutchy - but what is? Bombing some country and some nation just because you believe this is what just needs to happen after your leaders made some stupid statements publicly? It's not a to-do thing without enough reason no matter what. There were and are reasons to establish U.N. Security Council and veto rights in it.

Your point of view is complete biased towards Putin's world of view. I have never seen some reflection on Russia from you, never, unless you call "Putin should have done sooner what he is doing now" criticism on Putin. That means you are either a Russian troll and paid for spreading this garbage or a Putin devotee with a hung towards greater past. In both cases, you are not interested in exchanging idea's and learn from another point of view, just pushing Putin's worldview.

UNSC is useless when one of the veto powers is directly involved, in this case, your Putin regime. Putin didn't even want an investigation into who did it.

Aesma wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Wow, really?

You're winning, have absolutely no need to use chemical weapons. Then, by using chemical weapons you fully risk everything you've gained in the last twelve months.

Sorry Tommy, you're delusional and clueless.

The Russians are winning. Assad's army is in shambles, it doesn't have the men to clear out cities. That's why he uses chemical weapons, and that's why Russia is covering for him.

Ok, let's pretend that's true.

So they are winning, as you've admitted. Why the need for a chemical attack. And one so obviously poor that it only killed innocent women and children?

This makes zero sense.

Freakysh wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Wow, really?

You're winning, have absolutely no need to use chemical weapons. Then, by using chemical weapons you fully risk everything you've gained in the last twelve months.

Sorry Tommy, you're delusional and clueless.

The Russians are winning. Assad's army is in shambles, it doesn't have the men to clear out cities. That's why he uses chemical weapons, and that's why Russia is covering for him.

Ok, let's pretend that's true.

So they are winning, as you've admitted. Why the need for a chemical attack. And one so obviously poor that it only killed innocent women and children?

This makes zero sense.

So what makes sense to you, what happened according to you. Given the WHO says a chemical attack is likely.

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The Russians are winning. Assad's army is in shambles, it doesn't have the men to clear out cities. That's why he uses chemical weapons, and that's why Russia is covering for him.

Ok, let's pretend that's true.

So they are winning, as you've admitted. Why the need for a chemical attack. And one so obviously poor that it only killed innocent women and children?

This makes zero sense.

So what makes sense to you, what happened according to you. Given the WHO says a chemical attack is likely.

Don't know.

Why don't we let the OPCW investigate the scene and provide a report before we start bombing.

Oh, hang on, they can't do that now. We've started bombing.

So much for due process.

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Ok, let's pretend that's true.

So they are winning, as you've admitted. Why the need for a chemical attack. And one so obviously poor that it only killed innocent women and children?

This makes zero sense.

So what makes sense to you, what happened according to you. Given the WHO says a chemical attack is likely.

Don't know.

Why don't we let the OPCW investigate the scene and provide a report before we start bombing.

Oh, hang on, they can't do that now. We've started bombing.

So much for due process.

And yet you have no problem defending the Assad regime by saying it makes no sense they did it, while they are known to have chemical weapons (supposed to be dismantled, but heck some could have remained, not that hard to picture that).

What are you going to say when OPCW says it is a chemical attack? Are you going to be this harsh on the Assad regime?

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Don't know.

Why don't we let the OPCW investigate the scene and provide a report before we start bombing.

Oh, hang on, they can't do that now. We've started bombing.

So much for due process.

What are you going to say when OPCW says it is a chemical attack? Are you going to be this harsh on the Assad regime?

If it's proven it was done by the Assad regime, then yes

Really? We will see......

But here is your chance, you can be harsh on the Assad regime by condemning the barrel bombs they have thrown on the population.

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So what makes sense to you, what happened according to you. Given the WHO says a chemical attack is likely.

Don't know.

Why don't we let the OPCW investigate the scene and provide a report before we start bombing.

Oh, hang on, they can't do that now. We've started bombing.

So much for due process.

What are you going to say when OPCW says it is a chemical attack? Are you going to be this harsh on the Assad regime?

If it's proven it was done by the Assad regime, then yes

But remember back in April 2017, it was definitely Assad that was behind the chemical attacks, then in January 2018, Mattis admitted they have no evidence it was Assad. Lo and behold, military strikes still went ahead at the time.

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

What are you going to say when OPCW says it is a chemical attack? Are you going to be this harsh on the Assad regime?

If it's proven it was done by the Assad regime, then yes

Really? We will see......

But here is your chance, you can be harsh on the Assad regime by condemning the barrel bombs they have thrown on the population.

Yes, I uncategorically condemn the use of barrel bombs

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

If it's proven it was done by the Assad regime, then yes

Really? We will see......

But here is your chance, you can be harsh on the Assad regime by condemning the barrel bombs they have thrown on the population.

Yes, I uncategorically condemn the use of barrel bombs

Good for you as should everyone. And targeting hospitals like the Assad regime, with the help of the Russians, did. (too many were hit to be collateral damage or a mistake in the fog of war)

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Ok, let's pretend that's true.

So they are winning, as you've admitted. Why the need for a chemical attack. And one so obviously poor that it only killed innocent women and children?

This makes zero sense.

So what makes sense to you, what happened according to you. Given the WHO says a chemical attack is likely.

Don't know.

Why don't we let the OPCW investigate the scene and provide a report before we start bombing.

Oh, hang on, they can't do that now. We've started bombing.

So much for due process.

Russia has been vetoing for years any independent inspection in Syria. Now suddenly they want an inspection ?

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Really? We will see......

But here is your chance, you can be harsh on the Assad regime by condemning the barrel bombs they have thrown on the population.

Yes, I uncategorically condemn the use of barrel bombs

Good for you as should everyone. And targeting hospitals like the Assad regime, with the help of the Russians, did. (too many were hit to be collateral damage or a mistake in the fog of war)

Good, I'm glad we got that sorted.

Now, where to with this latest chemical attack? Do we care if its confirmed as Assad, or bugger it, shoot first ask questions later.

Interesting to note that no real damage was done with the missile strikes. Hard to believe the US and UK have become so incompetent.

Anyone have any idea what's really going on in Syria?

Freakysh wrote:

jetero wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

TLDR

#Winner
The person who started the thread in the name of dialogue can’t be bothered to read responses.

The sheikh was obviously trolling. I read it, but it had so many holes and absurdism that I didn't want to feed the troll.
So, as was appropriate to his post, I posted a counter troll.

That must have been so difficult for you, behaving as if you were a troll. Oh wait......

Or.... could it be my post had way too many valid points worthy of discussion, and you found yourself unable to counter.
Remember it didn't specify sides, merely that ALL leaders should be accountable in some way.
No mention of Putin or Assad (boo, hiss) or Trump & May (hurrah! - or do I really mean that? Probably not.). Just general discussion points without being partisan. Maybe it was that part you couldn't handle?

Freakysh wrote:

TLDR

I'll put that in my "wins-by-a-knockout" trophy cabinet, alongside this one from another thread

Freakysh wrote:

Christ, you win buddy

... except you continued to argue the same points as before, just not with me.

That's 2 for 2. You are losing your touch.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

jetero wrote:

#Winner
The person who started the thread in the name of dialogue can’t be bothered to read responses.

The sheikh was obviously trolling. I read it, but it had so many holes and absurdism that I didn't want to feed the troll.
So, as was appropriate to his post, I posted a counter troll.

That must have been so difficult for you, behaving as if you were a troll. Oh wait......

Or.... could it be my post had way too many valid points worthy of discussion, and you found yourself unable to counter.
Remember it didn't specify sides, merely that ALL leaders should be accountable in some way.
No mention of Putin or Assad (boo, hiss) or Trump & May (hurrah! - or do I really mean that? Probably not.). Just general discussion points without being partisan. Maybe it was that part you couldn't handle?

Freakysh wrote:

TLDR

I'll put that in my "wins-by-a-knockout" trophy cabinet, alongside this one from another thread

Freakysh wrote:

Christ, you win buddy

... except you continued to argue the same points as before, just not with me.

That's 2 for 2. You are losing your touch.

Oh man, this is embarrassing, you got me Sheikh, kudos.

Mods, close thread and award shiekh the prize

Freakysh wrote:

Interesting to note that no real damage was done with the missile strikes. Hard to believe the US and UK have become so incompetent.

Anyone have any idea what's really going on in Syria?

First you state that you have intimate knowledge about the damage the US, French and UK missile strikes have done and right after you claim nobody knows what is happening in Syria, what is it, both can't be true.

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Interesting to note that no real damage was done with the missile strikes. Hard to believe the US and UK have become so incompetent.

Anyone have any idea what's really going on in Syria?

First you state that you have intimate knowledge about the damage the US, French and UK missile strikes have done and right after you claim nobody knows what is happening in Syria, what is it, both can't be true.

My question was general, not specifically related to the missile strikes

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Interesting to note that no real damage was done with the missile strikes. Hard to believe the US and UK have become so incompetent.

Anyone have any idea what's really going on in Syria?

First you state that you have intimate knowledge about the damage the US, French and UK missile strikes have done and right after you claim nobody knows what is happening in Syria, what is it, both can't be true.

My question was general, not specifically related to the missile strikes

so you do claim to know the outcome of the strikes?

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

My question was general, not specifically related to the missile strikes

so you do claim to know the outcome of the strikes?

That's my mail.

I stand to be corrected if you have information to suggest otherwise

not my statement, your statement, you to proof.

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

First you state that you have intimate knowledge about the damage the US, French and UK missile strikes have done and right after you claim nobody knows what is happening in Syria, what is it, both can't be true.

My question was general, not specifically related to the missile strikes

so you do claim to know the outcome of the strikes?

That's my mail.

I stand to be corrected if you have information to suggest otherwise

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

so you do claim to know the outcome of the strikes?

That's my mail.

I stand to be corrected if you have information to suggest otherwise

not my statement, your statement, you to proof.

Go demand proof from your heroes may and Macron.

I have no proof hence I stand to be corrected.

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

That's my mail.

I stand to be corrected if you have information to suggest otherwise

not my statement, your statement, you to proof.

Go demand proof from your heroes may and Macron.

I have no proof hence I stand to be corrected.

Ok, so you don't know, good we have established that.

As for the proof that there was a chemical attack and who did it, hopefully, we will find that out. I don't think to send these missiles towards Syria was one of the brightest idea's and they will be held accountable if it is not true.

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You have been told many times, it is a cynical point of view, which I could respect somewhat, if - and that is a very big if - you would condemn Putin's regime for meddling in a number of other countries. But you don't, you are a Russian troll defending Putin and are morally very flexible in doing this.

My point of view maybe not ideal in all cases Dutchy - but what is? Bombing some country and some nation just because you believe this is what just needs to happen after your leaders made some stupid statements publicly? It's not a to-do thing without enough reason no matter what. There were and are reasons to establish U.N. Security Council and veto rights in it.

Your point of view is complete biased towards Putin's world of view. I have never seen some reflection on Russia from you, never, unless you call "Putin should have done sooner what he is doing now" criticism on Putin. That means you are either a Russian troll and paid for spreading this garbage or a Putin devotee with a hung towards greater past. In both cases, you are not interested in exchanging idea's and learn from another point of view, just pushing Putin's worldview.

UNSC is useless when one of the veto powers is directly involved, in this case, your Putin regime. Putin didn't even want an investigation into who did it.

4 members of the security council with veto power are directly involved, don’t kid yourself that the US, UK and France aren’t.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

My point of view maybe not ideal in all cases Dutchy - but what is? Bombing some country and some nation just because you believe this is what just needs to happen after your leaders made some stupid statements publicly? It's not a to-do thing without enough reason no matter what. There were and are reasons to establish U.N. Security Council and veto rights in it.

Your point of view is complete biased towards Putin's world of view. I have never seen some reflection on Russia from you, never, unless you call "Putin should have done sooner what he is doing now" criticism on Putin. That means you are either a Russian troll and paid for spreading this garbage or a Putin devotee with a hung towards greater past. In both cases, you are not interested in exchanging idea's and learn from another point of view, just pushing Putin's worldview.

UNSC is useless when one of the veto powers is directly involved, in this case, your Putin regime. Putin didn't even want an investigation into who did it.

4 members of the security council with veto power are directly involved, don’t kid yourself that the US, UK and France aren’t.

Those other three countries you've mentioned, aren't as deeply involved as Russia. The US and EU a remarkably absent in this conflict, besides getting rid of IS in Syria.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Your point of view is complete biased towards Putin's world of view. I have never seen some reflection on Russia from you, never, unless you call "Putin should have done sooner what he is doing now" criticism on Putin. That means you are either a Russian troll and paid for spreading this garbage or a Putin devotee with a hung towards greater past. In both cases, you are not interested in exchanging idea's and learn from another point of view, just pushing Putin's worldview.

UNSC is useless when one of the veto powers is directly involved, in this case, your Putin regime. Putin didn't even want an investigation into who did it.

4 members of the security council with veto power are directly involved, don’t kid yourself that the US, UK and France aren’t.

Those other three countries you've mentioned, aren't as deeply involved as Russia. The US and EU a remarkably absent in this conflict, besides getting rid of IS in Syria.

Bullshit they aren’t deeply involved.

Dutchy wrote:

Given the WHO says a chemical attack is likely.

Funny.
So now "likely" in the eyes of the Western regimes' legal criteria is enough to instigate an act of war against a sovreign nation?

And you, who preaches western liberal values buy this bullshit and try to sell it to others?

Pathetic.

tu204 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Given the WHO says a chemical attack is likely.

Funny.
So now "likely" in the eyes of the Western regimes' legal criteria is enough to instigate an act of war against a sovreign nation?

And you, who preaches western liberal values buy this bullshit and try to sell it to others?

Pathetic.

Also a personal attack, that is a shame. But given how I am on record that I don't see the benefit of these attacks, your reaction seems a bit over the top. So what am I selling here?

But remember that there have been six chemical attacks in that last 8 years of civil war in Syria. Two were the responsibility of IS and six of the Russian backed Assad regime. And given that the preferred route through the Security Council is blocked by Putin regime means that that option does not exist. So given this, what should the world do against a regime that breaks international law by employing chemical weapons?

Two wrongs don't make it right and I do not have an answer to this.
But you clearly have an answer: leave it all alone and let the two autocratic leaders do whatever they want to whomever they like. I don't subscribe to that point of view. If that are western liberal values, then guilty as charged.

Russia is a weak developing country who has big problems at home to fix. They should take care of themselves instead of sticking their noses elsewhere.

Dutchy wrote:

UNSC is useless when one of the veto powers is directly involved, in this case, your Putin regime. Putin didn't even want an investigation into who did it.

Then what’s useful, Dutchy? Just brute bombings not even knowing what? Sticking into somewhere? Speaking of investigations, it was Russia who proposed OPCW’s experts to be dispatched to Syria for investigation. They obtained Syrian visas and were scheduled to begin their work this AM, hours before the strikes. Now - since we have this information - what could be the real goal of these?

Could it be the need to “cover up” some deeds? Highly likely Dutchy, highly likely.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

UNSC is useless when one of the veto powers is directly involved, in this case, your Putin regime. Putin didn't even want an investigation into who did it.

Then what’s useful, Dutchy? Just brute bombings not even knowing what? Sticking into somewhere? Speaking of investigations, it was Russia who proposed OPCW’s experts to be dispatched to Syria for investigation. They obtained Syrian visas and were scheduled to begin their work this AM, hours before the strikes. Now - since we have this information - what could be the real goal of these?

Could it be the need to “cover up” some deeds? Highly likely Dutchy, highly likely.

Why do you assume the investigation can’t go on? Do we know for a fact the sites hit were the same ones hit by chemical weapons? I highly doubt they are the same sites.

PPVRA wrote:

Russia is a weak developing country who has big problems at home to fix. They should take care of themselves instead of sticking their noses elsewhere.

Well - we can say exactly the same about America, Britain and France. Speaking of Russia - given they don’t really care about the whole West, not so weak apparently. Certainly the strongest on the Eurasia continent.

anrec80 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Russia is a weak developing country who has big problems at home to fix. They should take care of themselves instead of sticking their noses elsewhere.

Well - we can say exactly the same about America, Britain and France.

Not even close. Russia has enormous problems, much more basic problems than anything the US or Europe have. Russia’s problems are on the same level of the problems in my home country, Brazil. Russia belongs in the same club as Brazil and other developing countries that can barely take care of themselves.

Russia is still trying to figure out how to run a decent country. The US, EU are past that—they’re trying to perfect it.

PPVRA wrote:

Why do you assume the investigation can’t go on? Do we know for a fact the sites hit were the same ones hit by chemical weapons? I highly doubt they are the same sites.

I am curious about that too. Let’s see. But obviously air strikes right before the investigation are senseless. Unless the real sense is not stated.

PPVRA wrote:

Not even close. Russia has enormous problems, much more basic problems than anything the US or Europe have. Russia’s problems are on the same level of the problems in my home country, Brazil. Russia belongs in the same club as Brazil and other developing countries that can barely take care of themselves.

Russia is still trying to figure out how to run a decent country. The US, EU are past that—they’re trying to perfect it.

I think close enough. Nonetheless there are no massive migration flows out of Russia to USA and EU; that means that Russians living there find their country run rather well, especially given recent re-reflection results. And Russia is certainly able to take care of itself and solve their issues very fast. They’ve adapted their economy to lower oil prices and sanctions.

West’s problem however are by far more basic. It’s demographics (extremely low birth rates), middle class squeeze, dropping living standards. And - nobody wants to even acknowledge those issues and approach them (unlike Putin in Russia). And USA for the past 1.5 years isn’t being governed at all, just dashing from one side to another based on just moods in the governing elites and President’s head.

There are a lot of Russian immigrants in the USA and EU, despite everything you said.

And I’d take Trump for a few years over a politician that won’t let go of power ever any day. In many ways, Trump has demonstrated just how strong US institutions and the rule of law really are.

PPVRA wrote:

There are a lot of Russian immigrants in the USA and EU, despite everything you said.

And I’d take Trump for a few years over a politician that won’t let go of power ever any day. In many ways, Trump has demonstrated just how strong US institutions and the rule of law really are.

Agree - there are a few millions of them, mostly emigrated in 90s. By 2000, everyone who wanted to leave left. Speaking of institutions - yes, lower level institutions are stronger, though in Washington DC they are nearly absent, and have been replaced with tough talk and “fashion flows”.

Also - let’s not talk about “rule of law”. U.S. military twists the law the way they feel like. Obviously there never was a mandate from Congress to use force in the Middle East. One president uses the mandate given for Iraq operation, in some other cases they interpret Constitution paragraphs the way they feel like. In other cases, just in Libya, the president just “couldn’t do otherwise”, even though later having admitted a big mistake. Even though those are not mistakes, but war crimes he needs to be charged with.

anrec80 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Russia is a weak developing country who has big problems at home to fix. They should take care of themselves instead of sticking their noses elsewhere.

Well - we can say exactly the same about America, Britain and France. Speaking of Russia - given they don’t really care about the whole West, not so weak apparently. Certainly the strongest on the Eurasia continent.

Haha, the strongest on the Eurasia continent? Strongest by what measure? The number of nukes, then yes. By all other counts, not in a long shot. Certainly not on what really counts.
And no we cannot say the same about these three countries. Russia has a real problem at home, you can deny it all you want, but that doesn't mean that it will go way

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

UNSC is useless when one of the veto powers is directly involved, in this case, your Putin regime. Putin didn't even want an investigation into who did it.

Then what’s useful, Dutchy? Just brute bombings not even knowing what? Sticking into somewhere? Speaking of investigations, it was Russia who proposed OPCW’s experts to be dispatched to Syria for investigation. They obtained Syrian visas and were scheduled to begin their work this AM, hours before the strikes. Now - since we have this information - what could be the real goal of these?

Could it be the need to “cover up” some deeds? Highly likely Dutchy, highly likely.

Just shaking my head.
As pointed out, a number of sites were targeted where chemical weapons are produced or stored, not the site which is bombed by the Assad regime. So your highly likely, I am sure you have some proof of that? Or perhaps some reasoning why America, France and the UK would bomb this site? You can't right, so ignore this post, like you have done with a number of other because you can't answer it.

Now Russia has vetoed an independent inquiry in the UNSC, could you please explain why? Russia proposed, however, an investigation which conclusion would be subject to political play in the UNSC, why? Could it be that Russia doesn't like the outcome of a truly independent investigation? Highly likely, Anrec, highly likely.

Now a serious question, what do you propose what the world should do, regardless of whom is doing it, when a country or group uses chemical weapons?

anrec80 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

There are a lot of Russian immigrants in the USA and EU, despite everything you said.

And I’d take Trump for a few years over a politician that won’t let go of power ever any day. In many ways, Trump has demonstrated just how strong US institutions and the rule of law really are.

Agree - there are a few millions of them, mostly emigrated in 90s. By 2000, everyone who wanted to leave left. Speaking of institutions - yes, lower level institutions are stronger, though in Washington DC they are nearly absent, and have been replaced with tough talk and “fashion flows”.

Also - let’s not talk about “rule of law”. U.S. military twists the law the way they feel like. Obviously there never was a mandate from Congress to use force in the Middle East. One president uses the mandate given for Iraq operation, in some other cases they interpret Constitution paragraphs the way they feel like. In other cases, just in Libya, the president just “couldn’t do otherwise”, even though later having admitted a big mistake. Even though those are not mistakes, but war crimes he needs to be charged with.

Even if all you say is true - which it isn't of course, but everyone knows that - then it is still better to live under some rule of law, then under an autocratic regime like you have in Russia. Shell I look-up where the US ranks in corruption, rule of law, democracy and where Russia ranks, nehh, you already know it because you have been told many many times.

anrec80 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Not even close. Russia has enormous problems, much more basic problems than anything the US or Europe have. Russia’s problems are on the same level of the problems in my home country, Brazil. Russia belongs in the same club as Brazil and other developing countries that can barely take care of themselves.

Russia is still trying to figure out how to run a decent country. The US, EU are past that—they’re trying to perfect it.

I think close enough. Nonetheless there are no massive migration flows out of Russia to USA and EU; that means that Russians living there find their country run rather well, especially given recent re-reflection results. And Russia is certainly able to take care of itself and solve their issues very fast. They’ve adapted their economy to lower oil prices and sanctions.

West’s problem however are by far more basic. It’s demographics (extremely low birth rates), middle class squeeze, dropping living standards. And - nobody wants to even acknowledge those issues and approach them (unlike Putin in Russia). And USA for the past 1.5 years isn’t being governed at all, just dashing from one side to another based on just moods in the governing elites and President’s head.

Ah yes, typical Russian troll response. Tying to get westerners feel less good about themselves. Doesn't really work, he Anec because it is far too obvious.
- Birth rates, not a problem. In general, the world doesn't need more people.
- The middle class is doing fine in the Netherlands
- living standards aren't dropping in the Netherlands and are by far better then in Russia. Russia has a lot of catching up to do if they want to be at par with the Netherlands.

Putin had 19 years of governing and only now he addresses these issue's, what a leader, what a leader...........

US has still it's constitutions, so less dependent on the government. Much better than an autocrat like Putin.

Dutchy wrote:

Just shaking my head.
As pointed out, a number of sites were targeted where chemical weapons are produced or stored, not the site which is bombed by the Assad regime. So your highly likely, I am sure you have some proof of that? Or perhaps some reasoning why America, France and the UK would bomb this site? You can't right, so ignore this post, like you have done with a number of other because you can't answer it.

You were said “highly likely” - what kind of proof do you need? This is the latest trend in Western politics, supported by you. And since you supported it - you just need to get used to such responses. I do not support such arguments or disputes, and if you aren’t fond of them either - you should stop supporting them as well.

I don’t get one thing with these “sites” with “chemical weapons” - even if there were some there, why Assad’s “regime” wouldn’t do that deeply underground, where they can’t be reached by cruise missiles? Like Iran did it with their nuclear program - West had do sign a deal since they just couldn’t bomb the facilities obviously. Therefore it’s hard for me to believe and I think Trump just had to bomb something.

Dutchy wrote:

Now Russia has vetoed an independent inquiry in the UNSC, could you please explain why? Russia proposed, however, an investigation which conclusion would be subject to political play in the UNSC, why? Could it be that Russia doesn't like the outcome of a truly independent investigation? Highly likely, Anrec, highly likely.

As it’s been said - OPCW’s experts are on site. Supposed to be today at least. The independent investigation is in progress as we speak here. Hence not so likely at all.

Dutchy wrote:

Now a serious question, what do you propose what the world should do, regardless of whom is doing it, when a country or group uses chemical weapons?

There is OPCW, and a set of international agreements and protocols that contain the answer to exactly this question. You perform investigation and publicly demonstrate your case. Then and only then you can take action. And not like Trump last - first he launched strikes, and later Mattis admitted “there was no real proof”. Twitter politics can be disastrous, let alone dangerous.

Dutchy wrote:

Ah yes, typical Russian troll response. Tying to get westerners feel less good about themselves. Doesn't really work, he Anec because it is far too obvious.
- Birth rates, not a problem. In general, the world doesn't need more people.
- The middle class is doing fine in the Netherlands
- living standards aren't dropping in the Netherlands and are by far better then in Russia. Russia has a lot of catching up to do if they want to be at par with the Netherlands.

Putin had 19 years of governing and only now he addresses these issue's, what a leader, what a leader...........

US has still it's constitutions, so less dependent on the government. Much better than an autocrat like Putin.

I am truly and genuinely glad to hear that the middle class in the Netherlands is doing fine, and you guys are happy with your living standards. But so are most Russians apparently, given the level of support Pres. Putin enjoys. I wish however I could just as truly and genuinely say the same about other Western countries, including USA, Canada.

Speaking of Putin - you need to understand the state Russia was in in 2000. They had terrorism problems, non-functional federal level institutions, foundations of economy were far from perfect, so to say. There were a lot of other things that needed to get done before you can pay attention to living standards. But Putin's government at least understands the importance and takes steps to improve those. Here, they pay to that "Russia meddling" scandal and sanctions by far more attention, than to the middle class (share of which has dropped below 50% not so long ago). You hear the words "Russia", "sanctions" on daily basis, while issues like healthcare accessibility, living wages are being brought up very rarely, if at all.

Accountability should be directly linked to their relationship with the US.

As long as the leaders stay on the right side of the cold-war divide, everything is kosher. However if they step outside the box they should know they will be held accountable.

Syria helps reinforce that message that we made with Iraq & Libya. World leaders should know that cosying up to Putin or talking of denominating international trade in Gold or Euro's (or RMB) is NOT ok.

PPVRA wrote:

There are a lot of Russian immigrants in the USA and EU, despite everything you said.

And I’d take Trump for a few years over a politician that won’t let go of power ever any day. In many ways, Trump has demonstrated just how strong US institutions and the rule of law really are.

The US can allow people like Trump to get elected to President, because US Presidents don't actually run the country. It's a very good system allowing for the illusion of democracy.

Regardless of who is President, be it Republican, Democrat or Klingon, the US will sail in the same direction as dictated behind the scenes.

Freakysh wrote:

The US can allow people like Trump to get elected to President, because US Presidents don't actually run the country. It's a very good system allowing for the illusion of democracy.

Regardless of who is President, be it Republican, Democrat or Klingon, the US will sail in the same direction as dictated behind the scenes.

Not really - President is still quite an influential figure, and he is holding the "nuclear briefcase", and does command the military. In this case, he ordered these airstrikes and even wanted to "bother" Russians a bit. I was pleasantly surprised to read Gen. Mattis actually opposed these strikes. It's very hard to predict consequences.