News Us politics - read first post before comment

[Justmehere]

@Rumors, I appreciate your perspective. However, describing it as Russia just wants cheap oil and thus is supporting Assad gassing children, and therefore we must bomb Assad or else there were will bombs in NYC tomorrow... this massively underestimates the complexity of the situation.

First off, it doesn't match the facts; Russia currently is the largest exporter of natural gas. They are also one of the top oil producers, and they provide China more oil than any other nation. They are the suppliers of cheap oil.

As for the Congo, they have been declared L3 by the international relief community, which is the most severe type of emergency. There are only 3 other nations that have this level of crisis: Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. So the situation in the Congo is actually designated to be in the same category of severity as Syria. International law is being broken in the Congo too. But we are not doing airstrikes in the Congo. Why? It doesn't fuel US interests in the region to do so.

But why is the US fueling Saudi Arabia to bomb in Yemen? For US interests.

Russia's support of Syria goes back decades, back to the cold war. It involves their desire to keep any lack of stability in the middle east from wandering into their country, which is much closer to them than it is the US. (BBC article)

Most analysts also believe:

Putin is sending a message to the world: Russia is still a force to be reckoned with.
The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which deposed long-time dictator Saddam Hussein, and the 2011 toppling of Moammar Gadhafi's Libyan regime -- helped by an international coalition bombing campaign -- left Moscow deprived of key allies. From: Syria: 5 things Russia wants in war - CNN

Also, Russia has other military interests in Syria, in part because they have strategic bases in Syria.

There are other many reasons as well....

This is a complex situation, and that's part of why this isn't going to be solved simply by bombing Assad into non-existence.

 

[Rumors]

@Rumors, I appreciate your perspective. However, describing it as Russia just wan...

But sometimes it is that simple. Russian oil runs across Syrian land in a pipeline built and delivered by Russia but not without permission of Assad. It is well documented that Assad bends rules bc he has the blanket of Russian support.
Fact is, producing chemical warfare is in direct conflict with international law. The air strikes delivered by France, GB, and the US will unequivocally set back chemical production. It won't stop it, but it may slow it down for a while. Maybe enough time for a permanent solution to be discovered like Assad has a heart attack and dies. NATO even delivered a thumbs up.
No doubt the fighting in Syria runs long and has deep roots. However, the line was crossed when chemical weapons were used against the people. Those weapons should have never been produced and that responsibility lies solely with Syrian government. But yes, it is complex and no it won't be solved by bombing the chemical plants but it damn sure doesn't hurt. At least their ability to produce more has been stunted if even for a short while.

 

[Justmehere]

First time I've ever read someone describe the realities of war in the Middle East as being "that simple."

 

[SaharaSon]

@Rumors, I appreciate your perspective. However, describing it as Russia just wan...

@Justmehere. Wow! You nailed the facts really, really well again. You are 100% right, the Russians are one of the Worlds leading producers of both oil and gas. They certainly don't need to go to war for oil. The naval base and air base are really important for them. It gives them a significant presence in the Mediterranean without having to go through the Bosphorus Straights all the time. It is of strategic importance to them. That, they will fight for. Russia has had several wars with the Turks and they don't want to depend on them for their presence in the Med. They don't trust the Turks that is for sure. It's also a way to out flank the Turks in case they (the Turks) ever start feeling their oats again, which at the moment seems to be the case as they have crossed the borders into both Syria and Iraq with tanks. I'm sure this makes the Russians very nervous. It also makes the Israelis and the Arabs nervous as well, as it should. The Turks need oil and they may be tempted to capture arab oil wells and recent Israeli oil finds in the Golan Heights. The Turks are the folks that scare me, they have a crazy leader in Erdigan.:D

 

[SaharaSon]

But sometimes it is that simple. Russian oil runs across Syrian land in a pipeline built and delivered b...

@Rumors. I have some bad news for you. The British have chemical weapons, the French have chemical weapons, the Germans have chemical weapons, the Russians have chemical weapons, the Chinese have chemical weapons, the Israelis have chemical weapons, the Americans have chemical weapons, the Iranians have chemical weapons, etc., etc., etc. And most of these countries have used them at one time or another. Wake up and smell the coffee! :D

 

[Rumors]

I was referring to the relationship between Russia and Syria being that simple, not the entire Middle East. It was clear in my head that I was discussing the blanket of protection offered to Syria by the Russian government which in essence has allowed Assad a false sense of being untouchable by other foreign intervention. I certainly was NOT discussing the complexities of ALL middle eastern relations. Fact is, Russia will protect their pipeline interest bc it serves a greater purpose than protecting the Syrian people.

 

[Deleted member 43454]

It's like a mini-Baghdad 2.0. Now here goes in the inspectors after we bomb the shit outa them.

 

[blackemerald1]

The inspectors will go and for sure ...they will inspect. Russia & Syria say hey wait for their reports.
Only problem is the inspector's take months to arrive at any opinion and sometimes they cannot tell exactly what chemical was used. Autopsies take a lot of time. Not that it makes a lot of difference...for the dead and suffering.

I suppose Russia may pause..hopefully as it was not just the US dropping a bomb this time?

Damascus will fall & Assad will prevail. He does not control those oil fields yet. But he is getting there.

Idk what to think. I do agree that America cannot be the only cop on the beat.

Btw the reason most things do not get passed by the UN is Russia is a permanent member & vetoes anything it feels like. So I was then surprised to hear Russia calling for an emergency meeting by the UN after the military strikes by combined French/British/US forces. What do they think they are going to achieve? In 2013 Russia promised they would control Assad & his chemical arsenal. That doesn't seem to have worked too well.

Meanwhile China has been buying up 'assets' in the South Pacific for maybe 'military bases'. Lending squillions of $ to tiny little sovereign island Nations that have no hope in hell of paying them back. (Called soft power) Why? Idk possibly because they are a very small leap away from Australia's east coast and most ports etc., Strategically this is important if they wish to use influence in this region. I hear you ask so what? Answer = the US relies upon Australia for some of it's military capabilities. If they are threatened the US would be curtailed in what they can 'see'.

And they have just sailed their biggest fleet of ships through the South China sea's very recently. That's a provocative move.

 

[scout86]

I just finished watching a PBS program on John McCain. I keep thinking about what someone said earlier, about wanting a "strong leader". I'll grant a "weak leader" isn't very useful, but what makes a worthy leader? It's GOT to be more than being the loudest person in the room, doesn't it?

 

[Friday]

I keep thinking about what someone said earlier, about wanting a "strong leader". I'll grant a "weak leader" isn't very useful, but what makes a worthy leader?

While the rule still stands that the first person to bring Hitler into an argument automatically loses it?

:whistling:

Weak leaders are always a bad thing (unless you’re looking to conquer them or turn them into a puppet regime), but strong leaders need more going for them than strength. It’s like the flow charts.

Strong - No
Strong - Yes - continue onto the next 50 questions.

I think what the next 50Qs are, however, is largely based on personal preference? IE what people value / find worth varies a whole helluva lot.

 

[blackemerald1]

So right @scout86 & @Friday! - For me a strong leader is someone who behaves well but doesn't have to be a Saint.
Has a strong work ethic in terms of working with international and national representatives.
Will listen to his/her people and formulate policies that are grounded in the collective wisdom of other experts. Then articulate this wisdom & expertise either through these experts; his/her representatives and him/herself to the nation and the world.
Doesn't get distracted by trifling taunts or dummy spits by anyone...and doesn't retaliate the same way.

Is beyond reproach ethically.
Has the Wisdom to hold a Nation together when things are tough.
Words are still a very powerful medium - I'd like to think they are more powerful than any bomb.

So all of this means I will never be a leader and somebody else will have to step up! :arghh;:watching::sorry::roflmao:

 

[scout86]

is largely based on personal preference?

Largely. Although, if people are honest and thoughtful about it, I'll bet there are traits that transcend personal and/or political opinions.

Yesterday, someone described her SO to me as "A guy who always knows the answer, even when he doesn't." Superficially, someone like that might seem like a "strong leader". But it's not the kind of person I'd want to follow. Everyone makes mistakes. I think awareness of that is a pretty valuable trait.