Thread: The crisis in Syria

Originally Posted by Deborski

But other friends of mine were really happy about Russia's proposal and were celebrating, hoping that this means there will not be a war after all.

Гарантии пока нет. Обама вроде сказал, что всё зависит теперь от решения Конгресса.
Наши дипломаты сейчас вместе с сирийскими дипломатами разрабатывают подробный план постановки химического оружия Сирии под контроль. Работа чисто техническая, но её лучше сделать быстро, чтобы никто не сослался на технические трудности реализации нашего предложения. Вообще мне нравится, как действует Лавров и его команда. Правительственные награды они заслужили, если будет результат (отсутствие войны).

Originally Posted by Deborski

And meanwhile, who will unarm the jihadists?

Асад. Он добьёт эти банды, даже если арабские страны и Запад будут продолжать поддерживать их оружием и людьми.

Originally Posted by Deborski

And if they have chemical weapons, who can make sure they turn those over and do not use them?

Позавчера по российскому телевидению сказали, что по данным разведки сирийская "оппозиция" готовит новую провокацию: применение химического оружия против Израиля. Причём, с территории, находящейся под контролем Сирии. А Израиль в этом случае может ответить незамедлительно, без всякий слушаний в Конгрессе.

Originally Posted by Deborski

I deleted him from my friends' list because I am so tired of that kind of stale cold war thinking.

Дебора, у Вас там нешуточные баталии. Держитесь, я с Вами.

Okay.
President Obama screaming for "limited" strikes = Fail.
President Putin getting with Syria to put the chemical weapons under international control = Win.

Yeah, I think President Putin deserves the Nobel Peace prize, not President Obama. And I'm not the only one that thinks that:
Putin is the one who really deserves that Nobel Peace Prize | Fox News

Как же непросто сдерживать этих нобелевских лауреатов мира... (подумал Путин, вытирая со лба пот).

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Okay.
President Obama screaming for "limited" strikes = Fail.
President Putin getting with Syria to put the chemical weapons under international control = Win.

To be just, getting any kind of international control over Syrian Chemical weapon (unless it is empty words) would hardly be possible without intensive preparation of USA to war. So they can say later that the whole mess was a performance to get control over CW, and take Nobels for O as the best actor in a leading role and P as the best supporting actor.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

To be just, getting any kind of international control over Syrian Chemical weapon (unless it is empty words) would hardly be possible without intensive preparation of USA to war. So they can say later that the whole mess was a performance to get control over CW, and take Nobels for O as the best actor in a leading role and P as the best supporting actor.

Так, глядишь, Обама и вторую медаль получит. Но до Брежнева ему всё равно далеко.

I think both Obama and Putin deserve credit if this plan can forestall a global conflict! But Americans are more likely to see Obama as the "victor" here because many of them have an intense (and unjustified) hatred for Putin. Right-wing Americans are only praising Putin because they hate Obama. The moment Putin does something that isn't in line with Republican core "values" they will go back to their Cold War era "Red Dawn" inspired hatred of Putin and all things Russian.

As for Obama's language during his address to the nation last night: I was nodding my head enthusiastically though the first few moments of his speech, but when he slipped into the rhetoric about how the US must be the World Police and all, I was shaking my head and saying, "oh please just shut up and stop while you're ahead."

My husband told me to calm down and said, "he has to add all that rhetoric to please the mass majority of constituents who fall for that stuff." But listen carefully to his words. He said "action" would be needed. He did not specifically say "military action". So Obama stated that our troops are "standing by" and ready to strike if Assad does not cooperate with the international team, he did not state that the strike will commence regardless.

The significant thing he said was at the beginning of the speech, where he stated that the Congressional vote for military action has been "postponed." He also gave Putin some credit and talked about cooperation with Russia and other nations - and this is a HUGE step which should not be overlooked!

For the US to COOPERATE with Russia and other nations is practically revolutionary during this era of America's "lone cowboy" antics of running roughshod all around the globe without seeking anyone's permission!

I am beginning to believe that my husband has been right all along, and that Obama actually is playing a very complex and masterful game of chess here. He got to appear strong by calling for the airstrikes, then he got to show his "respect for the people" by putting the vote to the right-wing-majority Congress, all the while knowing they would disapprove because they disapprove of everything he tries to do. Meanwhile, he met privately with Putin while he was in St. Petersburg, and they worked out this brilliant diplomatic plan to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons.

Of course this could still be completely wrong and he could turn around and announce that we will attack Syria after all. But I rather doubt that. I think if anyone makes a new proposal to attack Syria, it will be the right-wing neocons who will jump on the idea - but only after Obama abandons it completely.

Originally Posted by Юрка

Гарантии пока нет. Обама вроде сказал, что всё зависит теперь от решения Конгресса.
Наши дипломаты сейчас вместе с сирийскими дипломатами разрабатывают подробный план постановки химического оружия Сирии под контроль. Работа чисто техническая, но её лучше сделать быстро, чтобы никто не сослался на технические трудности реализации нашего предложения. Вообще мне нравится, как действует Лавров и его команда. Правительственные награды они заслужили, если будет результат (отсутствие войны).
Асад. Он добьёт эти банды, даже если арабские страны и Запад будут продолжать поддерживать их оружием и людьми.
Позавчера по российскому телевидению сказали, что по данным разведки сирийская "оппозиция" готовит новую провокацию: применение химического оружия против Израиля. Причём, с территории, находящейся под контролем Сирии. А Израиль в этом случае может ответить незамедлительно, без всякий слушаний в Конгрессе.
Дебора, у Вас там нешуточные баталии. Держитесь, я с Вами.

Спасибо - я рада, что я не одна ))))

Но это тоже моя забота, что "оппозиция" готовит новую провокацию...

Here is the entire video of Obama's speech last night, for those who did not see it:

I have lost any ounce of respect for that man.
I actually prefer Bush Jr, because he was so dim, that it was kind of understandable that he acted the way he did. . Obama isn't - he is intelligent and an achiever.

He must know that he is talking tosh, regurgitating propaganda and is being used as a puppet for economic interests more powerful than the presidency.

And the big deal about Obama being "black" is also rather silly. He grew up with his WHITE mother who is an academic.
His father is NOT the descendant of American slaves, but just some random Kenyan guy who happened to date his mother. His skin colour is completely incidental, and he grew up in a white culture. I'll be impressed when somebody whose ancestors was dragged over to the USA in chains, becomes president.

He's a murderer for not putting a stop to the drone strikes, and an arrogant tyrant for imagining that his country has the right to topple any regime it doesn't like, or kill foreign citizens in countries that has done nothing against the USA.
The USA seems to be more aggressive for every dollar its foreign debt grows by.... Seems it won't rest until every single nation in the world is a USA puppet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/wo...ria.html?_r=1&


U.N. Rights Panel Cites Evidence of War Crimes by Both Sides in Syria

GENEVA — As the United States and Russia searched for a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Syria’s chemical weapons, a four-person United Nations rights panel presented detailed evidence on Wednesday of what it said were war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by pro-government forces and, to a lesser extent, rebels in the 30-month-old conflict.

Bolstered by weapons and money from regional and global powers waging a proxy war, Syria’s government and rebel forces have committed murder, torture, rape and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, without fear of future punishment, the panel, a Commission of Inquiry that was expanded last fall, said in its latest report, to be presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council here in Geneva on Monday.

The report was careful to hold both sides responsible, but the unevenness of the conflict — with heavily armed government forces battling rebels with scanty, sometimes homemade arsenals — was evident. Of the nine mass killings the panel investigated for the report, eight were attributed to the government side and one to rebels.

Emphasizing the warring parties’ sense of impunity, the panel pointed out that it had continued to update its list of individuals and institutions identified as responsible for crimes and atrocities. In comments to reporters earlier in the week, one panel member, Carla Del Ponte, a former chief prosecutor of two United Nations criminal law tribunals, said, “It’s a long list.”

Russia went on war alert over missile test

Here is a clear example of Russia showing commendable restraint. A few days ago, US-Israeli forces launched a cruise missile from one of their warships in the Mediterranean.

Fortunately the launch was just a test. Unfortunately, US-Israeli forces did not think to WARN anyone ahead of time. So when the launch was picked up on Russian radar, it was perceived as a preemptive strike against Syria and President Putin was immediately notified. Thankfully for everyone in the world, cooler heads prevailed and no retaliatory action was taken.

WASHINGTON – Just as the Syrian crisis was getting under way, a joint U.S.-Israeli test of an anti-missile system prompted the Russian General Staff to go on “high alert” and notify President Vladimir Putin that missiles may be incoming on Syria.

The reason: Neither the United States nor Israel bothered to notify Russia that the Sept. 2 test was going on in the Mediterranean near Syria.

Moscow’s response was immediate.

The Russian General Staff thought Israel had launched a preemptive attack on Syria in the eastern Mediterranean which some Russian officials said could have led to World War III.

When the truth came out about the unannounced anti-missile test, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov criticized Israel for undertaking such a launch during a crisis occurring in the neighboring country of Syria.

Referring to the Mediterranean region as a “powder keg,” Antonov warned that anything such as an unannounced missile test could explode into war.

“A match is enough for fire to break out and possibly spread not only to neighboring states but to other world regions as well,” Anotov said. “I remind you that the Mediterranean is close to the borders of the Russian Federation.”

If the situation had been reversed, and a Russian ship had launched a missile without telling anyone it was a "test" - how do you think the US would have responded? America has a reputation for being trigger happy, so my answer is that we very well might have reacted without waiting to find out what had really happened. I would hope that the US would show the same level of restraint, but who knows?

Interestingly, this story has not been given any play in US media, although I saw several Russian news stories about the test launch being picked up on Russian radar, very shortly after it happened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/op...f=opinion&_r=0

This open letter to the American people by Russian President Vladimir Putin was posted in the New York Times today.

Excerpt:

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

Originally Posted by Deborski

Interestingly, this story has not been given any play in US media, although I saw several Russian news stories about the test launch being picked up on Russian radar, very shortly after it happened.

I believe when I saw it on the news, they were saying that Russia asked the US first and the US has denied any knowledge about the launch but after Israel admitted that it was their rocket the US said that it was mutual operation. What a shame for the country, I guess some US officials never got out of a high school.

While President Putin was making plans to remove the chemical weapons, Obama was arming the rebels (no, I didn't forget to add 'president' to his name but he has been arming the rebels and that means Al-Qaeda too - now that I know about it, I don't respect him).
CIA begins weapons delivery to Syrian rebels - The Washington Post

Obama claims that the weapons can be tracked so Al-Qaeda doesn't get them. Yeah, right! Like someone could go to Al-Qaeda and get them back! I don't even think so.
If Al-Qaeda gets any of those weapons, then Obama is a traitor.

Originally Posted by Deborski

He also gave Putin some credit and talked about cooperation with Russia and other nations

Я обратил внимание на формулировки.
1. Амерканцы сделали вид, то это их заслуга. Мол, Америка надавила на Сирию, заставила сотрудничать Россию, и результат пришёл. Да здравствует сила.
2. Путин в своём выступлении был дипломатичен. Не говорил, что это победа России, или что Америка была поймана на слове. Тем самым даёт Обаме шанс сохранить лицо.

Но это риторика, главное результат.

P.S. А как зовут журналиста, задавшего в Лондоне вопрос Керри? Его тоже надо наградить.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

While President Putin was making plans to remove the chemical weapons, Obama was arming the rebels (no, I didn't forget to add 'president' to his name but he has been arming the rebels and that means Al-Qaeda too - now that I know about it, I don't respect him).
CIA begins weapons delivery to Syrian rebels - The Washington Post

Obama claims that the weapons can be tracked so Al-Qaeda doesn't get them. Yeah, right! Like someone could go to Al-Qaeda and get them back! I don't even think so.
If Al-Qaeda gets any of those weapons, then Obama is a traitor.

I saw that and it made me furious. How can arming the US arming the rebels in any way help the diplomatic efforts by Russia to disarm Assad? This is why the Russians accuse Washington DC of sending mixed messages. It does.

No idea how this is going to turn out.

Originally Posted by Юрка

Я обратил внимание на формулировки.
1. Амерканцы сделали вид, то это их заслуга. Мол, Америка надавила на Сирию, заставила сотрудничать Россию, и результат пришёл. Да здравствует сила.
2. Путин в своём выступлении был дипломатичен. Не говорил, что это победа России, или что Америка была поймана на слове. Тем самым даёт Обаме шанс сохранить лицо.

Но это риторика, главное результат.

P.S. А как зовут журналиста, задавшего в Лондоне вопрос Керри? Его тоже надо наградить.

Я согласна, что это риторика. Я не люблю реторику, но что делать? Вот наши руководители так говорят постояно. Я предпочитаю, чтобы они говорили прямо и честно, но это лишь мечта.

Originally Posted by Deborski

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/op...f=opinion&_r=0
This open letter to the American people by Russian President Vladimir Putin was posted in the New York Times today.
Excerpt:

Читаю комментарии американцев к статье Путина. Весьма познавательно.
Часто встречается: "Кто ты такой?! Сам дурак!"
С таким общественным мнением трудно быть лучше, чем Обама.
Я вот думаю, можно ли изменить общественное мнение США или это невозможно? Мнение страны обладает огромной инерцией. Причём, они долго живут сказками. Новаую информацию воспринимают только тогда, когда её можно как-то пристроить в давно сформированную сказочную картину мира.
Большинство чувствует правоту слов Путина, но они входят в противоречие с тем, что они знали до этого (мифы о России) и поэтому новая информация отторгается психикой. Вот если будет доказано, что химию применили боевики, а не армия Асада, то это может немного помочь словам Путина пробить дорогу на Запад.

Originally Posted by Юрка

Читаю комментарии американцев к статье Путина. Весьма познавательно.
Часто встречается: "Кто ты такой?! Сам дурак!"
С таким общественным мнением трудно быть лучше, чем Обама.
Я вот думаю, можно ли изменить общественное мнение США или это невозможно? Мнение страны обладает огромной инерцией. Причём, они долго живут сказками. Новаую информацию воспринимают только тогда, когда её можно как-то пристроить в давно сформированную сказочную картину мира.
Большинство чувствует правоту слов Путина, но они входят в противоречие с тем, что они знали до этого (мифы о России) и поэтому новая информация отторгается психикой. Вот если будет доказано, что химию применили боевики, а не армия Асада, то это может немного помочь словам Путина пробить дорогу на Запад.

Ну, по моему, большинство людей его не любят, и по-этому они не читают его слова. Наверное, они слишком много смотрели фильм "Red Dawn" когда они были молодыми и помогать им нельзя. Но, есть люди, кто умеют думать и читать, и я даже видела где они сказали, "Путин прав" и "Путин умный" и так далее. Лично, я не люблю законы против геев (как Вы уже знаете), но всё равно я согласна с Путином как касается Сирии. Только мне кажется, что вообще люди не знают, как разделить вопросы, так что они думают "Путин против геев, по-этому он не может делать ничего хорошего" или что-то так. Не знаю точно, как они думают, потому-что я не такая как они. По-моему, Путин иногда прав, а иногда не прав, и всё. Надеюсь, что это понятно.

Russia is really doing well in terms of foreign policy lately, isn't it?!

The way the Snowden issue was handled was really smart, diplomatically. They managed to do the right thing, while simultaneously downplaying its role, and impressing everybody who admired Snowden (quite a few people in America, Europe and elsewhere).

Now, Russia made a constructive and helpful suggestion that is actually accepted by Syria and obviously would solve any international concerns, if it could be implemented properly.

Well done Lavrov - he's a very sharp politician and diplomat, isn't he?

Russia is definitely "winning friends and influencing people" on the international scene... People need to remember that at the end of the day, the USA is only ONE country. The loyalties of other countries are not set in stone. 10 more years of American aggressiveness and Russian top class diplomacy, and opinions may really have changed among regular people across the world.

Keep up the good work, Russia!