Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 7 years, 3 months ago
    In my eyes, no. Syria has long been a Russian/Soviet ally. They have never been our ally. We will gain no ground or advantage getting involved with what is essentially a domestic dispute. This is not our issue.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 3 months ago
    It's time we pressured our Arab "friends" to step up and take in fellow Muslim refugees and asylum seekers. Jordan is the only country that has tried to support displaced Muslims. There would be less difficulty with cultural conflict, although the more secular Syrians might struggle with the severe Wahabist culture of the Saudis. Let them start to take responsibility for their own brethren.

    The Russians seem to be stumbling into an Afgahistan-like tar baby with the Syrian conflict, and may welcome a more hard-nosed American negotiating presence. The real solution may be getting the regional nations to agree to divide things up along tribal/cultural lines, recognizing Kurdish, Shiite, Sunni, Alawi, etc. sovereign territories. Joe Biden was right about this being a logical solution.

    Our new Secretary of State will be much more intimately knowledgeable in how to deal with Russia and Putin. Trump has been smart about picking figures with an amiable history with Russia and China, which should give us better results than the feckless Obama/Clinton/Kerry foreign policy.

    I hate to say it, but as General Sherman said, "War is hell." It is insanity to think it's possible to conduct humane warfare, particularly when it's necessary to break the will of your opponent. The Russians are attempting to win and put an end to the conflict. If we can find a way to help them end the conflict before too much more human damage is done, we should, but confrontation on behalf of "rebels" who are extremist Muslims could draw us into a potential military conflict that will not end well.

    We bear responsibility for the Russian-Ukraine conflict. When the elected Russian descended Ukraine President chose not to enter the EU, and chose instead to favor stronger ties with Russia, our CIA engineered a coup to overthrow him and place a "pure" Ukrainian in his place that would oppose ties to Russia. This dunderhead move, compounded by a promise to bring Ukraine into NATO and the EU gave the Russians no choice but to try to ensure their investment in the Crimean Black Sea port wasn't lost. If we can help secure peace between Russia and Ukraine we should, but we need to make it clear to both sides we are staying out of their business.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Seer 7 years, 3 months ago
      Yanukovych is probably the only man who could have kept the Ukraine united.

      Your last paragraph is excellent, Dr. Zarkov.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 7 years, 3 months ago
      The Crimean issue was settled before our Civil War, in something called the Crimean War, over the same issue - Russian access to a warm water port. We now know that that's an issue the Russians are willing to fight over (you would have thought that they'd figured it out in the 1850s, but some have short memories, and they haven't figured out what history is for).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 7 years, 3 months ago
    If Syria, itself, were asking for protection from Russia...perhaps.

    This (Obama's) battle is against an existing regime and we've all seen how those have been turning out, lately.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 3 months ago
    NO
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jetmec 7 years, 3 months ago
      Are you for real? ThevUkraineian people want europe what do you do you think the euro maid an was for? This was a mass rising of the people and nothing to do with the CIA.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 3 months ago
        My no means that there is no reason to confront Russia over Syria. Do we get any benefit? If we do, what is it? As far as I can tell the only thing we get is blood and treasure down the sewer. I've read your comment over and for the life of me, I cannot tell what it is.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 3 months ago
        The problem for Ukraine was that due to the incursion of a large Russian population engineered by Stalin, there were more Russians in Ukraine than native Ukrainians. The result of that was that elections favored Russian candidates. The final straw was when Ukrainians wanted to strengthen ties to the EU, the elected government rejected that idea and instead moved to tie Ukraine closer to Putin's Russia. I'm not at liberty to say how I know, but our CIA saw an opportunity to prevent Russia from absorbing Ukraine into a new Tsarist empire, and provided intelligence and funding to assist the Ukrainian uprising. I don't think they would have been successful without our help. Putin had always been irked by Krushchev's "gifting" Crimea to Ukraine, and the uprising gave him an excuse to reclaim it, by engineering his own counter-uprising by the Russian population that dominates the Crimean peninsula.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 3 months ago
    Syria is a messed up country and has been for a long time. They arent a democracy. If we can trade profitably with them, fine. Otherwise, let Russia and Syria do what they want with each other.

    Personally, I dont want syrian refugees living next door to me. They are way to different in their thoughts about human and property rights for me to feel comfortable with them in the USA.

    In this day and age, I think people who want to live here should do so because they believe in our values. Otherwise, go live somewhere else. Refugees are desperate people who will do and say anything, and we dont need that here at this point in our history. REfugees today feel entitled and want to be taken care of here- at my expense. No thanks. I say they should fix their own country
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 7 years, 3 months ago
    Not our problem per se. Getting involved in civil wars is generally a bad idea. On the other hand, we have a security interest in killing as many ISIS as possible. Complex situation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 7 years, 3 months ago
    The USA, Russia and China can compete and argue all they want but they need to be wary of those, too weak to defeat any of them directly, but sly enough to trick them into knocking off each other. They need to remember that there 1.6 or so billion people that are not aggregated into one political entity but are united through their ideology to convert or destroy all others.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by cjmcd 7 years, 3 months ago
    All nations have been spying on each other, friend or foe, for decades. In the '60 s the French had the reputation for being the biggest group spying on America. America is no slouch in the spy business either, but we are the biggest hypocrites about it. Maybe if we started at the beginning and limited internet service of gov't workers to an absolute need only. That would at least cut down on the porn watching during work hours as verified by the gov't own records.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 3 months ago
    An ad for Prime Deceit by straightlinelogic should come up whenever a discussion about Syria comes up. If you want to understand why, buy his book.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 7 years, 3 months ago
    Do you suppose American Christians can rejoice with the Syrian Christians celebrating in Aleppo for the first time in four years?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 3 months ago
    It is an interesting question for me with ever more interesting responses. Most of us reject confronting Russia out of rational self interest. Is there a reason to commit to altruism... to the death, as is required of that philosophical system? Not if rational self interest has even a small role in our personal value system.

    Did you think the Middle East has an abundance of oil? Nothing in comparison to its altruism. When the life of a loved one is lost, that is awful. When the life of a loved one is sacrificed to a false god, that is beyond blasphemous. And yet, we see ISIS doing this quite consistently.

    The fact that Russia in its irrational egoism has entered a horror comparable to Vietnam is not surprising, but lamentable to say the very least.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 7 years, 3 months ago
    Stay the hell out of it spend the effort to vet the flood of Muslims O the terrible poured in to the US.
    The real reason we get into any of the wars is to make money for the gun runners and to satisfy the lust for blood the unconscious evil kakistocrats have.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by michaelslivka 7 years, 3 months ago
    Trump could actually broker a deal with all the players to carve out a safe zone for the rebels, the Kurds, the Copts, ad nauseum. Tough negotiation, but who better than he?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 3 months ago
    Ukraine? Yes. Syria, No.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 7 years, 3 months ago
      NO to either one.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 3 months ago
        Ukraine is an ally with a partial agreement with NATO. Under that agreement, we have an obligation to protect Ukraine from Russia - and we failed. Ukraine also has a democratic system of government and they formally requested help from the rest of the world - which to this point has largely consisted of ever-weakening trade sanctions.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Seer 7 years, 3 months ago
          The Russian Federation also has a democratic form of government. Your comment is very one-sided, and is the "View from the West" and Poroshenko, who is a man who will cheat you blind.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 3 months ago
            It is a democratic form in name only. Chile, Mexico, and many other South American nations are "democratic" forms which are in fact run by cartels and oligopolies just like Russia. Putin was head of the KGB and currently holds the reins of power by executing or exiling his business and political opponents. He does the same to the media. It's not hard to remain in power in a "democratic" government when yours is the only name on the ballot! To try to argue that Russia's form of government somehow gives it legitimacy is a farce.

            I would also point out that I am not necessarily defending Ukraine's government. Do not misconstrue my comments. What I pointed out is that we (as NATO) agreed to give them some limited support. The goals were to try to encourage the Ukraine toward membership in NATO (after some political changes) and to discourage Russian aggression. One can disagree with the agreement or its terms, but the fact of the matter is that it was signed and binding. The obligation was assumed voluntarily and until it is voluntarily discharged or amended, we should play the honorable part.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Seer 7 years, 3 months ago
              I got to: "It is a democratic form in name only". And quit. Care to elucidate?

              By the way, NATO, and possibly the EU, is DITW.

              Where, and when, has the Russian Federation been the aggressor?

              You have yet to respond to my PM to you.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 3 months ago
                If you read my entire comment, you will find the elucidation you asked for.

                "By the way, NATO, and possibly the EU, is DITW."

                NATO is a strategic alliance centered in common defense. The EU is a geo-political alliance centered in governmental similarity and economic solidarity. They aren't comparable institutions.

                Is the EU dead in the water? I would tend to agree. Why? Because it is an attempt to subvert not only culture and identity, but currency and market behavior under a single socialist banner. Socialism is a defunct ideology - it will always fail and collapse in on itself if given time. I will be surprised if it lasts another 15 years to be honest and the flood of Muslim immigrants is going to hasten that fall.

                Is NATO dead in the water? What really matters is whether or not the US takes the lead and that is entirely dependent on the Commander in Chief. Bush was a strong CinC and led NATO to invade Iraq. Obama never wanted to lead in a conflict and bailed out in Egypt, Syria, Iran, and the Ukraine. We'll see if Trump is different. The other problem with NATO is not that their #1 historical target isn't still a danger, but that only the US really has the economic and political will necessary to do anything. Most of the rest of the NATO members aren't carrying their own weight because their socialist policies are destroying their economies and their will to defend freedom. The US effectively is NATO at this point, and that, I agree, does not bode well for the continuance of that institution - especially when for the last eight years our own government has been pushing the same failed ideology which is crippling our NATO partners.

                "Where, and when, has the Russian Federation been the aggressor?"

                Good grief - when they invaded Crimea, perhaps? Or their cyber attacks on our infrastructure? Or their aggressive air patrols over Syria that killed Allied troops? We could also look at their military buildup along other portions of the border, such as Poland. Remember that Russia was very much against the ballistic missile shield we offered to Poland (and which Obama reneged on). Or we can look at the oil pipeline to the Baltic. Or their arms sales to Iran right after Obama funneled them $400 billion. If you choose to ignore the evidence, that's up to you. There are plenty of signs - you just have to choose not to ignore them. Russia has just been more circumspect than the Chinese in openly challenging the US, but they are far from out of the picture.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Seer 7 years, 3 months ago
                  Oh, I forgot to tell you, blarman, that I was in Abkhasia at the time Saakashvili invaded that region. I also forgot to tell you Putin is a friend of mine---truly. And the Crimean people in a free referendum voted to back a Russian union, because they wanted to be part of a great country again, and not a rinky-dink little country like the Ukraine.
                  Where do you get your facts?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Seer 7 years, 3 months ago
                  From "History Commons":
                  (After 11:15 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Russian President Putin Speaks with President Bush

                  Edit event

                  Russian President Vladimir Putin phones President Bush while he is aboard Air Force One. Putin is the first foreign leader to call Bush following the attacks. He earlier called the White House to speak with the president, but had to speak with Condoleezza Rice instead (see Between 10:32 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. September 11, 2001). Putin tells Bush he recognizes that the US has put troops on alert, and makes it clear that he will stand down Russian troops. US forces were ordered to high alert some time between 10:10 and 10:46 a.m. (see (Between 10:10 a.m. and 10:35 a.m.) September 11, 2001) Bush later describes, “In the past… had the President put the—raised the DEF CON levels of our troops, Russia would have responded accordingly. There would have been inevitable tension.” Bush therefore describes this phone call as “a moment where it clearly said to me, [President Putin] understands the Cold War is over.” [US President, 10/1/2001; US President, 11/19/2001; CNN, 9/10/2002] Putin also sends a telegram to Bush today, stating: “The series of barbaric terrorist acts, directed against innocent people, has evoked our anger and indignation.… The whole international community must rally in the fight against terrorism.” Russian Embassy, 9/17/2001
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Seer 7 years, 3 months ago
                  I have the feeling, blarman, and I'm going to be as nice as I can about this, that you want to have all the answers; that you do not want anyone else to know things that you do not know.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo