Thread: Syria

That's what the Russian state information channel says about Syria
Вести.Ru: новости, видео и фото дня
Rebels are trained and armed in Turkey and other countries and sent to Syria. I consider that an offense against Syria.
The Russian ambassador to the UN Vitaliy Churkin:
http://www.vesti.ru/only_video.html?vid=434260

Originally Posted by Hanna

I wonder which regime is next?

No denying, one of the remaining rogue states.* The “social disposition” is absolutely straightforward, there’s the open society and its enemies (Sir Karl Raimund Popper). The enemies, aka rogues, want to destroy the open society by hook or by crook and forcefully impose their evil will on “openers” and other human animals. It’s social darwinism after all.

*Rogue state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Marcus

That's what the Russian state information channel says about Syria
Вести.Ru: новости, видео и фото дня
Rebels are trained and armed in Turkey and other countries and sent to Syria. I consider that an offense against Syria.
The Russian ambassador to the UN Vitaliy Churkin:
Виталий Чуркин:

Wait, are you saying Syrian regime troops are all trained solely in Syria, only use Syrian weapons, etc?

Originally Posted by diogen_

No denying, one of the remaining rogue states.* The “social disposition” is absolutely straightforward, there’s the open society and its enemies (Sir Karl Raimund Popper). The enemies, aka rogues, want to destroy the open society by hook or by crook and forcefully impose their evil will on “openers” and other human animals. It’s social darwinism after all.

*Rogue state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia article you are referring to, starts with the sentence

"Rogue state is a controversial term"

@Diogen
Did you notice the word "controversial" and the subsequent explanation of reservations of various groups about the phrase?

The term is a perfect example of propaganda. Everyone who doesn't see the world like yourself, is "mad", "rogue" or something similar...
You repeat it over and over for a few years until it becomes the truth.
After that, you've got the perfect excuse for going after your enemy with the blessing of the population who is "aware" (like yourself) of how "bad" the enemy is.

Goebbels wrote a book about how to execute this type of propaganda, and successfully used this technique to convince the Germans that the Jews were freaks, and to turn their back as they were sent off to forced labour or death.

You can't be serious coming to a forum full of Russians and making statements like this.
During the Cold War, all of the Eastern bloc countries, in particular the USSR were "Rogue" according the the US worldview. Cuba, North Korea among others are still viewed in this way by the USA, according to Wiki. So I take it you would have been quite happy to see an attack against their country leading to thousands or millions dead Russian, just because your own nation was governed according to a different ideology than theirs?

I'd recommend this book for you Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower

(Haven't read it myself, but it's linked to from the Wikipedia article you yourself quoted. )

@Hanna

Analyze the consequences. There are two possible outcomes.

1. Imperialism wins rogues. Life will be essentially like now i.e. more or less normal without global wars and social experiments. Proof: nothing has changed to the worse after some rogue states stopped being rogue and become “normal”.

2. Rouges win imperialists. In the case life will be a) similar to life under Communism or b)similar to life under Taliban. The latter was in Chechnya when it was de facto independent. Shariat law, human rights abuse, total censorship, drag traffic, killings of “ infidels”, religious oppression, absence of political freedom, corruption, clan system etc. Do you want to live under these conditions? I hardly believe so. As to the former scenario see the video:

@diogen
In case you haven't noticed, the USA is deep into debt, the living standard is falling for all but the richest, and the popularity of the USA is rapidly decreasing around the world. The Chinese on the other hand, who literally spit on democracy and still call themselves Communist are owning you... The tables will turn in that relationship within your lifetime. I wouldn't want to be American when the Chinese decide that they had enough of arrogance, debt and war mongering from their debtor.

Of the Russians here, it is pretty clear that most are prepared to stand up for what the USSR did, apart from a few serious mistakes, cockups that most people condemn. Are you yourself willing to stand up for everything your country does and has done in the past... Slavery, Vietnam etc, etc.. ??
Let him who is free of sin cast the first stone, eh? I could paste a youtube about Americans burning children in Vietnam, spy drones or the shady dealings in South America. But I can't be fussed, sometimes it's just not worth it...

To each his own - feel free to hang on to your (IMHO outdated) worldview as long as you like, but are you sure you are in the right forum to express it?
If I came to a forum for learning English, and started spitting out venom about the US, UK and their respective history, wouldn't you think I was a bit rude?

Originally Posted by diogen_

@Hanna

Analyze the consequences. There are two possible outcomes.

1. Imperialism wins rogues. Life will be essentially like now i.e. more or less normal without global wars and social experiments. Proof: nothing has changed to the worse after some rogue states stopped being rogue and become “normal”.

2. Rouges win imperialists. In the case life will be a) similar to life under Communism or b)similar to life under Taliban. The latter was in Chechnya when it was de facto independent. Shariat law, human rights abuse, total censorship, drag traffic, killings of “ infidels”, religious oppression, absence of political freedom, corruption, clan system etc. Do you want to live under these conditions? I hardly believe so. As to the former scenario see the video:

What I would add to this is, there are people who don't want to live in rogue states themselves, but for some reason think those who already do should continue, and shouldn't be helped to turn their lives to the better. Neither of the Syrian regime supporters here would willingly move there and live under such a system.

@Hanna
Your previous message is a little bit emotional and with ad hominem arguments.

Communism proved to be economically inapt in every country where it was established in the past, including the USSR. It’s a fact. As to China I believe its current economic groth is due to market economy and not because of the former planning system, isn’t it? As for its political system, my guess it’s only a remnant of the past.

Originally Posted by diogen_

@Hanna
Your previous message is a little bit emotional and with ad hominem arguments.

Really? Can you give examples please?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

What I would add to this is, there are people who don't want to live in rogue states themselves, but for some reason think those who already do should continue, and shouldn't be helped to turn their lives to the better. Neither of the Syrian regime supporters here would willingly move there and live under such a system.

Please tell me what's the problem with Syria so that you call it "rogue". I currently see only one argument why Syria is bad, that is because it supported Hesballah. Otherwise it is a quite typical state.
In 2008 Assad wanted to sign a peace treaty with Israel and open embassies, but the USA did not allow for that.

Originally Posted by diogen_

@Hanna
Communism proved to be economically inapt in every country where it was established in the past, including the USSR. It’s a fact. As to China I believe its current economic groth is due to market economy and not because of the former planning system, isn’t it? As for its political system, my guess it’s only a remnant of the past.

Still China does much better than Russia economically. This is possibly because there was no large-scale privatization of key assets.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Please tell me what's the problem with Syria so that you call it "rogue". I currently see only one argument why Syria is bad, that is because it supported Hesballah. Otherwise it is a quite typical state.
In 2008 Assad wanted to sign a peace treaty with Israel and open embassies, but the USA did not allow for that.

Well, my guess is, killings of thousands of people by one man to keep the power he inherited from his dad make it a bit less "typical". What's yours?

Originally Posted by diogen_

Sounds like execrable abomination masterminded and perpetrated by nefarious miscreants. Any chance you could shed light on details of these mendacious machinations. I mean when and how it is doomed to occur. What is the source of your apocalyptical certainty, btw. Channeling?

The US has reliable technologies for breaking up other countries and overthrowing governments. They can organize riots, they can buy elites, they can bomb. The technology is active and at the production line.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Well, my guess is, killings of thousands of people by one man to keep the power he inherited from his dad make it a bit less "typical". What's yours?

Any state kills rebels. What's so special?

Originally Posted by Anixx

The US has reliable technologies for breaking up other countries and overthrowing governments. They can organize riots, they can buy elites, they can bomb. The technology is active and at the production line.

Still not so fast as it takes.

I think every big government could do that.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Any state kills rebels. What's so special?

How many "Wall Street occupiers" were killed during the riots last year?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Still not so fast as it takes.

I think every big government could do that.

I do not think so. Only the US has the necessary technologies and experience. I know no other country that removed a government of another country other than the US which did it tens times.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

How many "Wall Street occupiers" were killed during the riots last year?

Wall Street Occupiers were not rebels if you want to know. That was a peaceful demonstration. If they organized armed riots there would be hundreds of killed.

Charlie Rose - Vitaly Churkin

Originally Posted by Anixx

Wall Street Occupiers were not rebels if you want to know. That was a peaceful demonstration. If they organized armed riots there would be hundreds of killed.

Before the whole thing started in Syria, there were peaceful demonstrations there as well. They had dozens of people dead after each one. I think that was one of the reasons they finally created armed resistance to the bloody authorities in the first place.