10Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI see your point, but I have to disagree. If regime change really favored the U.S., we probably would already have invaded, but we havn't yet.Originally Posted by Ramil
I see your point, but I have to disagree. If regime change really favored the U.S., we probably would already have invaded, but we havn't yet.
Again - US doesn't need Syrian oil. It would be perfectly fine if nobody gets this oil and the best way to do that - to paralyze the country with a civil war. It's perfect! You don't even need to invade, the Syrians will do everything themselves.
Send me a PM if you need me.
.
A third simultaneous war, under the current economic conditions?
I think the USA thinks it's both cheaper, less controversial and simpler to sit on the sidelines and manipulate things instead. I.e. provide money, weapons and the right type of publicity to the rebels.
Plus - Syria has a not insubstantial army AND at the moment neither Russia nor China would approve of an invasion and might possibly start supporting the other side. Good, I think. The USA has been totally out of control for the last 20 years with a marked escalation after 9-11. I am relieved that someone is finally taking a stand.
I am not in the least convinced that the current regime there is particularly evil or corrupt, compared with other states in the Middle East. I do not necessarily think that it would benefit regular people in Syria that Assad stepped down, the country descended into chaos for a couple of years and another authocratic but pro-West figure appeared as president.
Since they have a lot of socialism going on there, the first thing that would happen is that state owned property this would be privatised and bought by foreign powers, unemployment rise.. Everyone in Europe and Russia can probably agree that rapid privatisation is daylight robbery that does not lead to an improvement of anything. Some people would be worse off than today, and a small group significantly richer. The oil industry and infrastructure would be controlled from abroad, at the moment it is controlled by the state in Syria.
As it is today, I understand they have been doing a sort of "perestroika" for about 10 years or so at the initiative of al Assad. Seems much more sensible to let that run its course and gradually make changes in the direction that the majority want. I re-iterate that I have seen several interviews etc with al-Assad and he is a well educated person who spent many years in London and has started opening up the country and relaxing things from the moment he took over after his father. He is far from a hard liner or extremist of any kind.
А российская база в Тартусе (в ней постоянно нет российских кораблей) как-то влияет на ситуацию?
Neither of us can honestly say what would be better for the Syrian people. All we have to go by is what reporters tell us. From what I've read/seen in videos, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the current regime HAS done some pretty awful things to people. That's not to say that the rebels are angles, of course they're not.
I don't think that Syrian oil has much to do with this at all. On the list of top oil producers, Syria is about number 33, which is not all that high. Any oil coming from them has a negligible effect on the world market. How could it be in western interests to have Al-Qaeda acting in Syria? Sectarian violence is in one's best interest. What about Turkey? I think of all the NATO memebrs, Turkey is the least happy about what's happening on their border. I just can't see how we benefit from this.
Also, I've hardly seen anything about Syria on the news here in the U.S. people are largely oblivious to anything happening outside of our borders. On Russian news sites I also have seen very little intrest in what's been happening.
Russia is acting in a way that's beneficial to them, of course. Russia wants to protect Russian interests in Syria, so of course they want to prevent anything from happening to the current regime. Russia supply weapons, ammo, tanks etc. to the syrians, and also Russia has investments in syrian.
Russian Syrian military contractors were worth $4 billion in 2010, and Russia also has gas refining plants there.
Yeah, clearly the US were behind all the uprisings against autocratic and corrupt leaders right across the Arab world last year. I bet they even persuaded Mohamed Bouazizi to set himself on fire in Tunisia knowing that the resulting protests would set the whole thing off and allow them to topple all those wise, progressive leaders so beloved of their people. The various tribal, religious and ethnic tensions in play in each of those countries are clearly an invention of NATO's propaganda arm - the BBC (not to mention every other media organisation or newspaper in the world that enjoys even a semblance of press freedom). And thank God there are no other countries in the general area with political or ideological motivations to interfere. Of course, if there were they'd simply be working on behalf of the US anyway. QED.
And now, finally, as if we needed any more proof, we have a badly photocopied map of unknown origin and age showing an oil pipeline of unknown capacity or significance uploaded to the internet. If that's not a slam-dunk case I don't know what is.
A double-power dunk shot is obviously the existence of the evil green paper. It was shaped and coloured by the best psychologists and human-mind manipulators so that the specific shade of green instills destruction and havoc over those who dare to contemplate not to enslave their minds for the paper. The specific shape, on it turn, was designed to make the slaves believe they are free, which, obviously, is the slaviest slavery of the slavehood.
Ok since you have some many "clever" answers: How come the USA did everything to CRUSH the popular uprising in Bahrain, which is an Arab dictatorship that happens to be hosting a major US naval base and already has a pro US government. Hundreds died, thousands have been imprisoned etc, etc.
And how do you explain the statements by General Wesley Clark? Is your five star general a liar?
Most of the countries on the 2002 roadmap for taking down governments that he is referring to have already had a "revolution". Syria is left, and so is Sudan, where surprise, surprise - the uprising just started.
If there ever was a case of "the proof is in the pudding", this is it.
The USA is not even particularly secretive about it - they want those concerned to know what's coming.
Yeah, you're right, it is a pro-U.S. goverment, that's true. The U.S. was not vocal about regime change there. I don't understand what that has to do with all the other countries. You also have to consider that Bahrain was not nearly as violent as in Libya and Syria. Why would the U.S. have caused problems in Egypt? The Egyptian goverment was very friendly with the U.S., why change?
Firstly, go on then. What, precisely, did the US government do to "CRUSH" the uprising in Bahrain? As far as I remember it was put down by the Bahraini police with some help from the Saudis, and the very worst charge against the US and other NATO countries was that they didn't condemn the violence strongly enough. Do you have any evidence that they actively helped the royal family maintain control? And in either case you'll then need to explain how US involvement or lack thereof in Bahrain proves or even suggests US involvement in Syria.
It seems to me that it's you who needs to "explain" Bahrain, not me. If the US was behind the Arab Spring uprisings then why they occur in countries like Bahrain and Egypt who were allied to the US and where there was no desire amongst western governments for regime change? And if those uprisings were spontaneous and triggered by internal tensions, why not the others?
There's nothing to explain. If I want something to happen and then it happens it doesn't automatically follow that I caused it to happen. I didn't like Gordon Brown and wanted him to lose the last general election and I voted against him, but it doesn't follow that I am therefore responsible for his subsequent election defeat.And how do you explain the statements by General Wesley Clark? Is your five star general a liar?
Most of the countries on the 2002 roadmap for taking down governments that he is referring to have already had a "revolution". Syria is left, and so is Sudan, where surprise, surprise - the uprising just started.
If there ever was a case of "the proof is in the pudding", this is it.
The USA is not even particularly secretive about it - they want those concerned to know what's coming.
<< If I want something to happen and then it happens it doesn't automatically follow that I caused it to happen.>>
The Stay-Puf Marshmallow Man Logical Fallacy
luck/life/kidkboom
Грязные башмаки располагают к осмотрительности в выборе дороги. /*/ Muddy boots choose their roads with wisdom. ;
No, but there are an awful lot of countries in the world, so isn't it a very interesting co-incidence that precisely those regimes that the US wanted to take down, are taken down or struggling for survival?<< If I want something to happen and then it happens it doesn't automatically follow that I caused it to happen.>>
The Stay-Puf Marshmallow Man Logical Fallacy
As for Brits and others who are enamoured by the Land of the Free etc..
I suppose you also support extradition of Brits who never put their foot in the US, to the USA, for copyright crimes, terrorism charges and hacking as well? Not to mention people like Julian Assange, right? US bases in your country are a good thing, and drone strikes to target "terrorists" (and wipe the out together with their families and neighbours) is fair game...
I can not relate to your world view in that case, so there is no point having a discussion with you, it would be a waste of everyones time.
Who are these Brits who are "enamoured of the Land of the Free etc.."?
Who are you talking to?
Any British person participating in this discussion, that fits that description, obviously!
Here is what RT says about the situation in Syria.
Patrick Henningsen, associate editor at Infowar.com, does not believe the Geneva meeting will have a positive outcome, saying it was set up to fail.
“As this meeting is going on in Geneva, the West are backing proxy guerilla armies of foreign fighters who are getting refuge in countries like Turkey over the border where Syria cannot hit them.”
Assad had earlier stated that he will not accept any transition plan that is “not Syrian,” “not national.” Henningsen believes that Assad has hinted in the media as to what Western plans for Syria really are.
“Ideally they would like to break the county up into separate regions and to balkanize this country for many reasons – energy pipeline project coming from Qatar, border disputes with Turkey, and also to minimize Russia’s influence not just in Tartus, but overall in the coastal region.”
Right. So you're speaking to imaginary people then. Fair enough, I suppose.
People often go too far in their blind hate for something.
You two have an impressive debating technique I must say.
Ignore the message and look for tidbits to critisize, or make personal attacks or false accusations towards the person with conflicting opinions. Class.
Since very few people in participating in this thread have bothered to fill in their location you have no way of knowing anyone's nationality. For all we know, our "top secret nationality" friend Eric might be a grammatically challenged Brit, although that is not who I had in mind when I made my comment.
I don't see why that matters. You were talking to a Brit who is "enamoured of the Land of the Free etc.." Since no one in this thread, including Eric, has said anything that even suggests they are "enamoured of the Land of the Free etc.." your point falls flat regardless of anyone's nationality.Since very few people in participating in this thread have bothered to fill in their location you have no way of knowing anyone's nationality. For all we know, our "top secret nationality" friend Eric might be a grammatically challenged Brit,
No, we got that, which is why I laughed when I saw you complaining about "... personal attacks or false accusations towards the person with conflicting opinions. Class."although that is not who I had in mind when I made my comment.
Class, indeed.
Your problem, Hanna, is that you've taken a perfectly healthy scepticism and distrust of US foreign policy and reduced it down to some sort of simplistic binary world view where the US is bad by definition and therefore anyone opposed to (or by) the US must by definition be good; where any statement that doesn't contradict the US' official line must be a lie and any that does must be true; where everything bad that happens anywhere to anyone must ultimately be the fault of the US; where there are no other factors or self-interested actors influencing or attempting to influence events to any degree; and where anyone who suggests that you may perhaps be ignoring some potential nuance or shades of grey (to say the least), must logically be some sort of US stooge.
A world view that is, frankly, as fantastically infantile as it is spirit-crushingly banal.
You have completely misjudged my view of the USA. Your prejudice of somebody who dares to critisize your country, other than expressing a very polite "scepticism" is what's naive.
If your family members had been killed by drone planes in the name of "anti-terrorism", if you had a military base of a foreign country in your backyard, lost your legs in napalm bombing, inhaled Agent Orange while being carpet bombed by a country from the other side of the planet.... or your country had been set up and manipulated for years by a foreign power... etc ad infinitum --- then you'd probably feel a bit more than "healthy scepticism". You know perfectly well that your country are doing these kinds of things. Mine doesn't.
I currently have and have had, throughout my life, American expat friends and acquantances. I admire many things about the USA as I repeatedly mention. I normally see no reason to discuss this with them, any more than I'd discuss the excesses of Stalinism with a Russian aquantance. But obviously, if I am asked my opinion about it, I would not hesitate to express it.
However this is a forum where we talk about international politics so obviously this is the kind of topic that comes up, not what American artists, what American technology I admire or my respect for American history.
As an English speaking person with access to only, or mainly English speaking media, you are probably not aware that a good half of the world's population, including, no doubt, many people in Russia share my views - which are by no means extreme.
This is getting tiresome and a bit of a waste of time though. If you want to write me, and the billions who share my view off as nut jobs because they do not appreciate the foreign policies of your country, by all means do. But when it all comes tumbling down, or some *real* nutjob gives the USA gets a taste of its own medicine, don't say nobody warned you.
Hanna, well said. I'm American, and nothing about what you just said offends me. In fact, I agree with you.
Вот потому, что вы говорите то, что не думаете, и думаете то, что не думаете, вот в клетках и сидите. И вообще, весь этот горький катаклизм, который я здесь наблюдаю, и Владимир Николаевич тоже…
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
Reply With Quote