# Forum About Russia Politics  Syria

## Ramil

After so many indications that this country is gaining a strong potential of being the catalyst of the WW3, I looked at this map:  
Isn't it strange that the riots happen mostly in the city of Homs? Is it a coincidence that nearly all crude petroleum and natural gas transport infrastructure as well as the railroad line happen to be in this very location?

----------


## Hanna

Well I don't understand the conflict, but I am 100% sure it is not as simple as the BBC etc would like to make out. _(I.e. Bashir al-Assad is an evil dictator who likes to kill his people...)_  
I think Russia and China are right to force the UN to hold back. The problem should be solved by the Syrians themselves, without meddling by anyone. But as usual, certain countries can't keep their hands off but keep inflaming the situation.  
As I understand, Syria is quite a mixed country with both Moslems and Christians, as well as different peoples and languages. There are millions of refugees from both Iraq (recently) and Palestine who have resettled there in a sort of permanent exile.  
Up until now all the different groups have been living peacefully, respecting each other, with the rights of minorities protected.  
My interpretation of the situation is that there was unhappiness with the government there, inspired by the Arab Spring. Certain Western powers which have wanted to oust the current Syrian government for decades, ceased the opportunity and did everything it could to stir up the rebels, arm them and launch a media campaign to support them. How legitimate the complaints of the rebels are, I would not know - but al-Assad is definitely no Saddam Hussein, he is/was genuinely liked by many and has in fact tried hard to improve the country although his rule is probably not without faults.   

> Isn't it strange that the riots happen mostly in the city of Homs? Is it  a coincidence that nearly all crude petroleum and natural gas transport  infrastructure as well as the railroad line happen to be in this very  location?

 Don't know, this is too complicated for me. But taking down the regime in Syria has been on the US war "roadmap" for a decade according to many sources, for example General Wesley Clark. General Wesley Clark reveals US war plan - 2007 - YouTube 
I expect they have a "good" reason for wanting to do this, and these reasons normally have to do with oil, don't they....  
I read that Homs is a very religious (moslem) city. The people there are traditionalist.

----------


## Ramil

Look at the map - ALL main pipelines follow through Homs to the two sea terminals (including the one that goes from Northern Iraq). All Syrian oil and gas happen to go through Homs.

----------


## Anixx

I think Syria is the last country (after Libya and Iraq) in Muslim Arab world that describes itself "socialist". 
The USA just continues the Cold War by eliminating all left-leaning regimes and all flavors of "socialism" however far it is from the kind of the USSR's.
Yugoslavia-Iraq-Libya-Sirya. Only Afghanistan was not somehow socialist when the USA invaded. 
Any country that has oil industry, mineral resources under state control is in danger.

----------


## Deborski

Syria and Iran worry me a lot.  I hope our countries (America and Russia) can work together - but it isn't looking good.  Hardliners in America want war (because war = profits) and they are going to push for it until they get their way...

----------


## Crocodile

> Hardliners in America want war (because war = profits) and they are going to push for it until they get their way...

 Well, the war means profits as much as the peace means profits, won't you think? It's just about who gets what kind of profits..  
Overall, I think the recent political unrest plays more in favour of European economic interests than of the US. Compare the major consumers of Libyan and Syrian export oil, recall what countries were the most active players in the military intervention in Libyan civil war and make your own conclusions.   ImageShack File:Syria oil exports by destination country 2010.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
I think all these calls that the US is responsible for just about anything are not that wise, there are other influential players around.

----------


## Throbert McGee

> I think all these calls that the US is responsible for just about  anything are not that wise, there are other influential players around.

 Good point, Crocodile. On the other hand, you can argue that the US *would* happily buy Syrian oil if the regime were totally changed -- thus, petro-politics still come into play even though the US is not currently buying from Syria.

----------


## Deborski

I hope you are right, Crocodile, for all of our sakes!

----------


## Anixx

> Good point, Crocodile. On the other hand, you can argue that the US *would* happily buy Syrian oil if the regime were totally changed -- thus, petro-politics still come into play even though the US is not currently buying from Syria.

 There is quite little oil in Syria and the clashes make it even more difficult to transport it. I am sure that oil is not the main reason. The main aim is possibly, China, but Russia will be before that.

----------


## Crocodile

> Good point, Crocodile. On the other hand, you can argue that the US *would* happily buy Syrian oil if the regime were totally changed -- thus, petro-politics still come into play even though the US is not currently buying from Syria.

 I see your point. I think you can relatively safely assume the Syrian oil have been finding its way to the US consumers through the middlemen. Would you, then, based on that assumption, start arguing the war-proponents in the US are the end consumers (who want the oil for cheaper) and the peace-proponents are the middlemen (who enjoy the present situation and would lose their profits otherwise)?  ::  Hopefully, not.  
I think when you start considering the 'Arab spring' through the prism of the oil business, you have to build some boundaries. Of which the first and the foremost is the direct involvement. The US is getting their oil from another markets which are well-established. There's little economic point to rattle those markets as it might have some unpredictable consequences. Increase the consumption from Syria and reduce the consumption from Canada, lots of businesses would be affected. Increase the total consumption, what would happen to those 'eco-friendly initiatives' investments and businesses? The markets like stability, only those in the disadvantaged situation would risk the change. So, now tell me, which market is more volatile European or the US's? Europe is the absolutely dominant direct consumer in both cases, it makes business sense to invest in a military intervention to force the business counterpart to reduce the price right now, lower the expenses, and get out of the crisis.   ::

----------


## Eric C.

> How legitimate the complaints of the rebels are, I would not know - but al-Assad is definitely no Saddam Hussein, he is/was genuinely liked by many and has in fact tried hard to improve the country although his rule is probably not without faults.

 I bet you said the same about each dictator and criminal in power of the past, till the moment the bastard deservedly got hanged or shot by their own people.

----------


## Astrum

> Well I don't understand the conflict, but I am 100% sure it is not as simple as the BBC etc would like to make out. _(I.e. Bashir al-Assad is an evil dictator who likes to kill his people...)_  
> I think Russia and China are right to force the UN to hold back. The problem should be solved by the Syrians themselves, without meddling by anyone. But as usual, certain countries can't keep their hands off but keep inflaming the situation.  
> As I understand, Syria is quite a mixed country with both Moslems and Christians, as well as different peoples and languages. There are millions of refugees from both Iraq (recently) and Palestine who have resettled there in a sort of permanent exile.  
> Up until now all the different groups have been living peacefully, respecting each other, with the rights of minorities protected.  
> My interpretation of the situation is that there was unhappiness with the government there, inspired by the Arab Spring. Certain Western powers which have wanted to oust the current Syrian government for decades, ceased the opportunity and did everything it could to stir up the rebels, arm them and launch a media campaign to support them. How legitimate the complaints of the rebels are, I would not know - but al-Assad is definitely no Saddam Hussein, he is/was genuinely liked by many and has in fact tried hard to improve the country although his rule is probably not without faults.   
> Don't know, this is too complicated for me. But taking down the regime in Syria has been on the US war "roadmap" for a decade according to many sources, for example General Wesley Clark. General Wesley Clark reveals US war plan - 2007 - YouTube 
> I expect they have a "good" reason for wanting to do this, and these reasons normally have to do with oil, don't they....  
> I read that Homs is a very religious (moslem) city. The people there are traditionalist.

 If you look at the facts, Syria doesn't have a large supply of oil. Although the U.S. DOES have a large pro-war lobbyists, for the average person, war is NOT a good thing. Assad IS bad, he does need to go.  
If Syria had a lot of oil, you could bet that the U.S. would have already intervened.  
I honestly don't think it's in NATOs best intrest to have an armed conflict in Syria. Countries such as Turkey had good relations with Syria, and Turkey has the second largest army in NATO. Why would anybody benefit from having an armed insurrection?

----------


## Hanna

Where did I say that I thought Syria has a lot of oil? I know perfectly well that it doesn't.  
What Ramil was hinting at, is that Syria is a transit country, i.e. oil pipelines are running THROUGH it. Same as Ukraine incidentally - and Western interests have an agenda there too.  
The fact that Syria is an oil transit country makes it strategically interesting, although Ramil does not develop his theory in detail. Syria itself is at a very strategic position in the Middle East, which is the reason it was a major piece on the chessboard in the Cold War.  
And yes - Europe is behind this just as much as the USA / NATO, because obviously that is the end destination of the oil, so I am not arguing with that either.  
The BBC usually tries to pretend being un-nuanced and give both sides of the story. But in this, they are completely black and white. Al-Assad is evil, etc etc. 
Funnily enough they seem to have completely forgotten that only a couple of years ago, they were featuring Syria in travelling programs as the coolest destination in the Arab world, the "Syrian school" reality show which showed Syrian society in a very favourable light - include the respect of everyone for Al-Assad.... Not to mention taking the Top Gear show to Syria. 
But now it is suddenly all evil!  
Watch / read channels like Russia Today which shows that this is NOT the full story - the Christian population for example, largely supports Al-Assad staying in power and several cities are completely behind him.  *
The fact that Syria has CLEARLY been flagged by the USA as "evil" for decades (Was specifically mentioned in Bush' "Axis of Evil" speech) AND was named in the infamous General Wesley Clark video, shows that the USA very much has an agenda in Syria.*  
I am strongly against US war mongering, sinister agendas, propaganda wars and the like. I don't see what the goings on in Syria has ANYTHING to do with the USA and very little to do with Europe or Russia. The only countries that has any business having an opinion are the neighbours, so Turkey's opinions I recognize as relevant.  
But do bear in mind that Turkey is a NATO member and will pretty much toe the US line by default. In addition, Turkey is trying to score points with the EU as part of its (unsuccessful to date) quest to join the EU. Taking a stand against Syria at the moment, is very much the politically correct thing to do in light of the NATO membership and EU ambitions, so you should not take that too seriously - there is nothing to say what the opinion of regular Turks is. The Kurdish population (a large part of Turkey) have been pro-Syria in the past, since Kurds were treated much better in Syria than in Turkey.   *The bit that I am not understanding, is WHY the USA had Syria on its invasion list for almost a decade, and WHY it was listed as being "Evil".*   *Ramil* seems to believe it's got something to do with oil transit and the city of Homs, but I do not quite get his complete point.  *Anixx* is suggesting that it is because Syria is one of the last (nominally) socialist countries in the Middle East / Arab world - a country that used to be aligned towards the USSR in the cold war days.  
Syria is significantly less evil than lots of states in Africa, and a couple in South America. It had an essentially social democratic government that tried to provide the basic services for all, at a decent level. No doubt it had many faults and was probably to harsh on the opposition, but Syria was opening up and trying to modernise.  
Al Bashir is a dentist who has worked in the UK and is married to a British woman who used to be a derivatives trader in London. We are not talking about Saddam Hussein here at all, but a man who inherited a backwards country from his father and has tried to reform while keeping it all together and preventing the minorities off each others throat. 
And guess what..... suddenly every Arab speaking asylum seeker in Western Europe is "Syrian" (some of course, really are...)  and hence automatically granted asylum. Then all they need to do is quickly have a child while they are here, and they're in for good. Just what we need.

----------


## Marcus

Главная вина Сирии - ее относительная независимость от США и связи с Россией и Китаем.

----------


## Anixx

> Anixx is suggesting that it is because Syria is one of the last (nominally) socialist countries in the Middle East / Arab world

 Not "one of the last" but THE last. Previous year there were two: Libya and Syria.

----------


## Astrum

But still, everything was fine with the old regime, why would the west want a new unstable goverment controlling it? And of course the BBC is slanted (which they were with Libya also). 
I think you're neglecting the fact that atrocities ARE being commited in Syria, by both sides. I can't understand how you could simply ignore it, especially since it has the possiblity to spill over (which it's already done in Lebanon).  
Look at Russia, why doesn't Russia want sanctions on Syria? Because Russia doesn't want people to interfere with it's own internal affairs (and plus Syria is one of Russia's only Arab allies, money, weapons, oil).

----------


## Marcus

Почему американцы медлят и до сих пор не начали войну?

----------


## Astrum

> Почему американцы медлят и до сих пор не начали войну?

 Потому, что мы не хотим войну!

----------


## Ramil

> I think when you start considering the 'Arab spring' through the prism of the oil business, you have to build some boundaries. Of which the first and the foremost is the direct involvement. The US is getting their oil from another markets which are well-established. There's little economic point to rattle those markets as it might have some unpredictable consequences.

 You talk of economics, but look at this from the political point of view. You have your oil, but you want to make sure your potential adversary (China) won't get any oil too. China needs oil as well and US tries very hard to strip China from it. 
We're speaking about another cold war where one side tries to deny the resources from the opponent.

----------


## Ramil

> But still, everything was fine with the old regime, why would the west want a new unstable goverment controlling it? And of course the BBC is slanted (which they were with Libya also).

 Because a turmoil in Syria won't allow any other country to buy Syrian oil. A weak pet government will suit perfectly.

----------


## Astrum

> Because a turmoil in Syria won't allow any other country to buy Syrian oil. A weak pet government will suit perfectly.

 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.

----------


## Ramil

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.

----------


## Hanna

> 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.

 .
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.

----------


## Marcus

А российская база в Тартусе (в ней постоянно нет российских кораблей) как-то влияет на ситуацию?

----------


## Astrum

> .
> 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.

 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.

----------


## zedeeyen

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.

----------


## Crocodile

> 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.

----------


## Hanna

> 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.

 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.

----------


## Astrum

> 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.

 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?

----------


## zedeeyen

> 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.

 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?   

> 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.

 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.

----------


## kidkboom

<< 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  ::

----------


## Hanna

> << 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

 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? 
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.

----------


## zedeeyen

Who are these Brits who are "enamoured of the Land of the Free etc.."? 
Who are you talking to?

----------


## Hanna

> 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_.”

----------


## zedeeyen

> Any British person participating in this discussion, that fits that description, obviously!

 Right. So you're speaking to imaginary people then. Fair enough, I suppose.

----------


## Eric C.

> Right. So you're speaking to imaginary people then. Fair enough, I suppose.

 People often go too far in their blind hate for something.

----------


## Hanna

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.

----------


## zedeeyen

> 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,

 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.   

> although that is not who I had in mind when I made my comment.

 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."_  
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.

----------


## Hanna

> 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.

----------


## Deborski

> 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.

----------


## Astrum

> 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.

 I honestly have no idea how this has any relevance to Syria. I wasn't aware that this thread was about U.S foreign policy (which believe it or not, a lot of people in the U.S. don't agree with either).

----------


## zedeeyen

> 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.

 See this is the point, Hanna. I've argued only with what you have written in this here thread, while you have argued not with anything I've actually said, but with a caricature of me that you've constructed in your little head based on absolutely nothing but my nationality, and all the assumptions that you think automatically flow from that. I have said nothing, on this thread or any other, to give the impression that I object to anyone criticising "my" country, or to in any way otherwise inform you of my political views, and yet you have repeatedly suggested, first implicitly and now explicitly, that my responses are somehow based on nationalist, patriotic, or general pro-western sympathies.  
As it happens I don't have a nationalistic or patriotic bone in my entire body, and I'd be very surprised if my antipathy to the US and British states is in any way less than yours. _For the record_, I think the US is an utterly corrupt, socially abhorrent, militarily belligerent kleptocracy whose foreign policy is as damaging and divisive as it is hypocritical, while the British state is its moribund, rather pathetic little side-kick that rides the coat-tails of the US in order to stave off irrelevance and allow its odious ruling classes to go on deluding themselves that they have even a smidgeon of the influence wielded so brutally across the globe by their great-grand-pappas and great-grand-mammas. The labels "British" and "Scottish" are as meaningless to me as "Northern Hemispherical". When the referendum on Scottish independence comes I will be voting "yes" not out of love for bagpipes, whisky and haggis, but specifically because Scottish independence will diminish the British state, essentially put a full-stop on the Empire, and hopefully fatally undermine the remaining international standing and arrogance of Westminster and the vermin who infest it. 
But see, even having hopefully established my anti-Western _bona fides_, here's the crucial thing: *None of that has the slightest bearing on my opinion on the Syrian government, or Bashar Al-Assad, or on the nature of the conflict there, or the question of whether or not the US is ultimately behind the uprising there, or whether a badly-photocopied and anonymous map proves anything either way, which is the subject of this thread.*  
I am not arguing with you because your posts are anti-British or anti-NATO or anti-American, I am arguing with because your posts are absurd, unreasonable, silly, childish, and hysterical.   

> 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.

 Aside from the fairly obious fact that a Swede has no more insight into what it feels like to experience the things you list than a Brit, what part of any of this do you assume I disagree with? Please show me any post of mine from any thread that suggests I think the UK in any way superior to Sweden, either in the past or the present. You want to play _western atrocities poker_? Fine, I'll see your drone attacks and agent orange and raise you Dresden, the Mau Mau revolt, the invention of concentration camps during the Boer War, Sinchon, No Gun Rai, almost the entire history of the British Empire and almost the whole of post-war US foreign policy. I've spent my entire adult life arguing with British nationalists and British Empire revisionists and their mouth-breathing US counterparts and I know the story chapter and verse, so I'll take the Pepsi challenge with you any time you like, sweetheart.  
So you see, we totally agree on the qualities of the North-Atlantic, Anglo-Saxon alliance. But where does that leave us regarding the topic at hand? Absolutely nowhere! Because whether or not we like or support NATO (tool of imperialism) or Barak Obama (massive hypocrit) or the Iraq War (unjustifiable adventurism perpetrated by messianic lunatics) or David Cameron (effete, gutless, over-privileged rich-boy) or Henry Kissinger (the most malignant, disgusting figure in the whole of US history)  or Winston Bloomin' Churchill (grotesque, incompetent ultra-imperialist clown who would rightly have been remembered as an idiot and a monster had his legacy not been saved at the last minute by the emergence of Hitler), or any other figure, action, or quality of the past or present has, or at least should have, _no logical bearing whatsoever_ on how we feel about Syria, or Assad, or for that matter Gadaffi, or Vladimir Putin, or China, or anything else. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a _tactical_ statement, not a _logical_ one. It's perfectly possible for two scumbags to exist concurrently. It's perfectly possible to oppose the US and at the same time consider the Syrian regime to be a bit rum, just as it's perfectly possible, and without the slightest internal contradiction, to view the BBC as biased and basically unreliable while at the same time considering RT to be just as bad or even worse.   

> 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.

 There you go again with your binary-thought assumptions. You know nothing at all about me except that I'm British, yet you think you've got me all figured out based only on that one fact. OK then, once again, _for the record_, aside from several places in the UK I've lived and worked in Russia, and in Ukraine, and in Croatia, and in The Netherlands, and in Canada. I'm quite comfortable speaking in English and Russian and can follow news broadcasts in Ukrainian and Dutch, and French at a push. The only TV reception I have at home is satellite reception from Hotbird/ Eutelsat because a) my wife wants Russian-language TV, and b) I am a BBC refusenik, having risked a large fine and a criminal record by refusing to pay my TV license _for the past 18 years_.   

> This is getting tiresome and a bit of a waste of time though.

 I agree. So how about you get back to the point by answering the question I asked you several posts ago, and which you dodged with another one of your mindless non-sequiturs, and explain why it's possible for sponteneous protests to have errupted in Egypt and Bahrain - US allies - while it's impossible for sponteneous protests to have errupted in Libya and Syria - US enemies - and can only have been the work of US agencies.   

> 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.

 I don't write you or anyone else off as a nutjob because you _"do not appreciate the foreign policy of my country"_, I've written off specific things you have written on this forum because what you wrote was *specious, sophomoric bilge.*

----------


## Hanna

@Astrum & zedeeyen:  
Whatever  ::   !!!!!!  
Regarding Syria, here is an interesting comment regarding the Turkish jet that was shot down by Syria, inside of Syrian airspace    

> Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has told a Turkish newspaper he  regretted the downing of the Turkish military plane, which escalated  tensions between the two countries. 
>  ­_“We learned that it (the plane) belonged to Turkey after shooting it down. I say 100 per cent ‘I wish we had not shot it down’,”_ the Cumhuriyet newspaper quoted Assad as saying in an exclusive interview published on Tuesday.   _“The  plane was using a corridor which Israeli planes have used three times  before. Soldiers shot it down because we did not see it on our radar and  because information was not given,”_ the Syrian president explained.   _“Of course I might have been happy if this had been an Israeli plane,”_ Assad said.

 So basically, for better or worse, what he is saying is that:   The plane was well inside Syria's airspaceThe Syrians believed the plane to be Israeli, since Israel has been flying in the exact same part of Syrian airspace in the past, and since Syria has bad experiences of Israel bombing their nuclear power facilities in the past.They realised afterwards, that the plane was in fact Turkish and immediately realised it had been a huge mistake to shoot down the plane, stating clearly that had they known the plane was Turkish and not Israeli, they would not have shot it, and they wished the whole incident had not happened.  
I am strongly in favour of Israel's right to exist and always defend that. I do not necessarily support everything that Israel does in respect to its neighbours such as Syria. While I sympathise with Israel's worries about Syria and nuclear weapons, the coup where Israel annhilated Syria's nuclear facilities is not something I support. I don't care much for Syria's comment that it would have been happy that the plane was downed, had it been Israeli...  
However, it's well known that Syria and Israel are old enemies, and I personally think that this explanation makes sense, is true and explains what happened with regards to the downed jet. This is not the lies that some of us remember from the Cold War, or the propaganda hype from the War against terror. 
What possessed Turkey, under these tense conditions to do a recognisance trip in Syria's airspace, using the same routes as they are no doubt aware Israel uses, is an interesting question.    Where they looking for something special, if so, what?Where they testing the waters to see what Syria would do.... If so, for what purpose?Was it a deliberate provocation intending to lead to this exact outcome.... in that case, what is the agenda?  
Does anyone know why Turkey so suddenly turned against Syria, when they previously had good relations, and while Syria is deliberately looking for partners in the Middle East, according to themselves, Iran among others.... in light of the lack of progress in their EU negotiations? Turkey seems to have done an absolute u-turn and now stirring things up, rather than mediate with a neighbour they previously had no particular issue with...

----------


## Marcus

> Does anyone know why Turkey so suddenly turned against Syria, when they previously had good relations, and while Syria is deliberately looking for partners in the Middle East, according to themselves, Iran among others.... in light of the lack of progress in their EU negotiations? Turkey seems to have done an absolute u-turn and now stirring things up, rather than mediate with a neighbour they previously had no particular issue with...

 Turkey is a member of NATO and an American ally.

----------


## zedeeyen

Turkey is worried about a potential flood of refugees over the border in the event of a full-on civil war, and is also starting to experience a swing in public opinion against Assad and some protests in support of the rebels stirred up by the Muslim Brotherhood. They've been front-and-centre in condemning the Syrian authorities' crackdown since it started, and warned Assad back in May that Turkey would intervene if there was anything like a repeat of the 1976 Hama massacre. 
Seems to me they've done a U-turn like pretty much every other country in Europe - because the Syrian government wasn't killing people before and it is now.

----------


## Crocodile

> Turkey is a member of NATO and an American ally.

 And those "shuttles" who bring goods from Turkey and distribute them in Russian markets are working to improve the economy of Turkey, supporting NATO and ultimately the US; hence they are the hired agents of the US imperialism.   ::

----------


## Marcus

> And those "shuttles" who bring goods from Turkey and distribute them in Russian markets are working to improve the economy of Turkey, supporting NATO and ultimately the US; hence they are the hired agents of the US imperialism.

 Вы правы. вся мировая экономика работает на США.

----------


## Crocodile

> Вы правы. вся мировая экономика работает на США.

 Yeah, I'm tellin' ya, that'sa whole evil green paper, mate. Makin' ya wanna g'dam work when ya shouldn't, eh? That'sa g'dam slavery, pal. Take another beer, mate, let's stay free and watch some more boobs of those g'dam cheerleaders on that g'dam TV.  ::

----------


## kidkboom

Zedeeyen, when I read your post I found that I agree with a lot of the sentiment you detail. When I came to that realization, I developed some high expectations for your output. And I was let down. Not because I disagree with you, but because you failed to meet the commitments you set for yourself, and by proxy, your reader. 
At the outset you said you would refrain from attacking the character of the other debater. Yet you could not entirely restrain yourself. On that note, as your reader I took issue with: 
"little head"
"sweetheart" 
Those are directed at the debater, markedly at odds with your stated intent. 
And as an American, I took issue with: 
"mouth-breathing counterparts"  
Over and above that: I like Hanna, and despite the fact that we often disagree, she's proven herself in the past to be a skilled, interesting, and largely polite debater. In sharp contrast, in your text I felt that I was receiving far less of your interpretations of the sociopolitical landscape in your post, and far more of a bolus dose of a pied angst; whether it's political angst in general, or a response to how you feel you were treated in the above posts, I can't suss out. But if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say, maybe you were mad. I'd like to see what you can do on this topic sans ire; I'd be interested in reading it.

----------


## Hanna

Thanks KidK! For what it's worth, I usually enjoy your posts and I respect you as a debater. Just as well I did not read that post, probably.   ::  I don't bother reading rants directed at individuals, even if that individual is me. And it doesn't bother me if these lads believe that I am stupid or conceited. There are certain people whose opinion of me I care about, and then there are those who are welcome to believe what they want.  
I only participate here because it's enjoyable for the most part; for me to learn from others, to share my own experiences or give others something to think about. I'd say that 80% of what I know about modern Russia and Ukraine, I've learnt in this forum! Certain long term members have really got me thinking with their ideas and viewpoints on Russian _and_ world politics. I changed some of my stereotypes and preconceived opinions on Russia past & present, and of Russians. When it's not enjoyable I just don't bother participating for a while!   

> Yeah, I'm tellin' ya, that'sa whole evil green paper, mate. Makin' ya  wanna g'dam work when ya shouldn't, eh? That'sa g'dam slavery, pal. Take  another beer, mate, let's stay free and watch some more boobs of those  g'dam cheerleaders on that g'dam TV.

 *
Can you make a serious comment, please, Croc?*  
Would you like the Marines to land in Damascus tomorrow, and subtract another number from the Axis of Evil list?
Should Russia and Putin broker a deal that makes everyone happy? 
Or Kofi Annan and the Arab League? 
Or Ban Ki Moon and the UN (but how to deal with the Chinese and Russians with veto powers....) 
Or do you agree with my viewpoint, that each country is responsible for its own destiny and should be left alone to resolve its own problems.... or live with the consequences? It's not for us to meddle in the internal politics of Syria - it is between the Syrian people and their leadership. If the Syrians are unhappy enough, the situation will change, like it did in many other countries that had revolutions. It's patronising and meddling for one country to interfere in the affairs that take place within the borders of another sovereign state. 
"Axis of Evil members" - official map as of 2002     
"Outposts of Tyranny"  per Condolezza Rice's speech in 2005  _ 
Erm.... Zimbabwe and Belarus on the same map... reality check?_  
General Wesley Clark plan as of 2002: 
Iraq   --- Check
Syria   ------In progress
Lebanon   ----unsure
Libya   --- Check
Somalia   ------Check
Sudan  ------In progress
Iran ------ Next likely target!  
(Afghanistan, at that point was already taken care of. North Korea, which borders both China and Russia, interestingly did not make it onto the regime "take down" list. Wonder why?) *
Based on the above, I for one think it's pretty obvious that Syria had it coming....*. (and I am somehow not surprised that North Korea and Iran want nukes as a deterrent. None of the countries where the regimes were taken out, had it.)

----------


## zedeeyen

> Zedeeyen, when I read your post I found that I agree with a lot of the sentiment you detail. When I came to that realization, I developed some high expectations for your output. And I was let down. Not because I disagree with you, but because you failed to meet the commitments you set for yourself, and by proxy, your reader. 
> At the outset you said you would refrain from attacking the character of the other debater. Yet you could not entirely restrain yourself. On that note, as your reader I took issue with: 
> "little head"
> "sweetheart" 
> Those are directed at the debater, markedly at odds with your stated intent.

 Well, technically, I made no such commitment. What I said was "I've argued only with what you have written in this here thread", which is in the past tense. 
But I take your point all the same. Yes, I was snippy.   

> And as an American, I took issue with: 
> "mouth-breathing counterparts"

 That wasn't directed at Americans in general. It was directed at the specific set of Americans who hold equivalent views to the group of flag-waiving, history-whitewashing fellow Brits I was insulting  ::    

> Over and above that: I like Hanna, and despite the fact that we often disagree, she's proven herself in the past to be a skilled, interesting, and largely polite debater. In sharp contrast, in your text I felt that I was receiving far less of your interpretations of the sociopolitical landscape in your post, and far more of a bolus dose of a pied angst; whether it's political angst in general, or a response to how you feel you were treated in the above posts, I can't suss out. But if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say, maybe you were mad. I'd like to see what you can do on this topic sans ire; I'd be interested in reading it.

 As it happens, I like Hanna too, I just find her insistence on responding to my points not with counterpoints, but with insinuations based on my nationality, to be extremely tedious. I don't think I've really left her anywhere to go with that now though, so we'll see how it goes eh?

----------


## Eric C.

> Would you like the Marines to land in Damascus tomorrow, and subtract another number from the Axis of Evil list?
> Should Russia and Putin broker a deal that makes everyone happy?
> Or Kofi Annan and the Arab League?
> Or Ban Ki Moon and the UN (but how to deal with the Chinese and Russians with veto powers....) 
> Or do you agree with my viewpoint, that each country is responsible for its own destiny and should be left alone to resolve its own problems.... or live with the consequences? It's not for us to meddle in the internal politics of Syria - it is between the Syrian people and their leadership. If the Syrians are unhappy enough, the situation will change, like it did in many other countries that had revolutions. It's patronising and meddling for one country to interfere in the affairs that take place within the borders of another sovereign state.

 The Syrians are unhappy enough to go out and protest against the regime while knowing the regime murderers may take them out and they may not come back home that day. But they don't seem to be able to really change anything without external help. Till the help comes, the number of victims will go up on and on and on... Do you really think it's ok to put up with all those murders just to save {save what, by the way? that murderer Assad's ass or whatever else?} ?

----------


## Throbert McGee

> *Marcus:* Главная вина Сирии - ее относительная независимость от США и связи с Россией и Китаем.

 Maybe. Officially, the главная вина of Syria (as far as I know) is its support of Hezbollah, which does NOT recognize Israel's right to continue existing.

----------


## Doomer

> Maybe. Officially, the главная вина of Syria (as far as I know) is its support of Hezbollah, which does NOT recognize Israel's right to continue existing.

 So, rephrasing this a little bit
Independence of Republic of Abkhazia (thus it's existence) is not recognized by many countries including the US, but it is recognized by Russia. Does that mean that Russia has a "right" to invade the US based on this denial of recognition?
Hezbollah is in Lebanon BTW, does this mean Lebanon will be next  ::  ? Oh, wait, Lebanon doesn't have oil, Syria does, how silly of me  
From what I see the States prefer Israel's friendship over Syria's but I'm certainly not sure that is is the right move in this century. Israel is pretty much the same aggressor as Syria. Economy of Israel is already developed and I don't think it is needed to be supported, Syria however would have been a risky but good investment

----------


## zedeeyen

OK Hanna, I'll bite. I'll try to keep it respectful if you will.   

> Would you like the Marines to land in Damascus tomorrow, and subtract another number from the Axis of Evil list?
> Should Russia and Putin broker a deal that makes everyone happy? 
> Or Kofi Annan and the Arab League? 
> Or Ban Ki Moon and the UN (but how to deal with the Chinese and Russians with veto powers....)

 What I _hope_ will happen is that there will be enough of a lull in the fighting to give the Assad government a bit of breathing space so that they can implement at least some of the reforms they've been promising for years and diffuse the situation enough that the violence will just fizzle out and fade away. 
I really don't think that's likely though. 
I think the most likely outcome is more violence and a messy civil war. I don't think we'll see any NATO bombing campaign unless Assad does something really stupid and alienates the Russians, but I wouldn't bet against Turkey getting involved unilaterally in a limited way.     

> Or do you agree with my viewpoint, that each country is responsible for its own destiny and should be left alone to resolve its own problems.... or live with the consequences? It's not for us to meddle in the internal politics of Syria - it is between the Syrian people and their leadership. If the Syrians are unhappy enough, the situation will change, like it did in many other countries that had revolutions. It's patronising and meddling for one country to interfere in the affairs that take place within the borders of another sovereign state.

 No, I profoundly disagree with this.  
Firstly, countries do not and cannot exist in complete isolation. They have neighbours, ideological friends and enemies, trading partners and competitors, customers and clients. They interact in a million different ways with the outside world and _vice versa_. Every action a government takes has direct or indirect consequences well beyond its own borders. They cannot help "meddling" in each others affairs at some level - even just selling or providing food or medical supplies to one side in a conflict could be construed as support for that side and therefore "meddling" -  so the question is not _whether_ countries should be left alone, but _to what extent_ they should be left alone. And once you've broken past that absolute, the world is all shades of grey from then on. 
Secondly, countries are not gestalts - simple entities that act with a defined purpose and can be assigned "rights" - countries are chaotic collections individuals all pulling in different directions, most of whom are just trying to get on with their lives and mind their own business, and any "right" a country has is an expression of the aggregated rights of the individuals therein. To believe otherwise is to consider the citizen to be property of the state. And to treat the suffering of these people as none of our business simply because the conflict is confined within a single country is morally akin to knowingly allowing a woman to be repeatedly beaten by an abusive husband or a child to be repeatedly raped by an abusive father simply because the violence is "domestic", and therefore none of our business.  
In fact, I find it incredible that someone who (rightly) expresses moral outrage at the suffering of the victims of US' crimes in such graphic and emotive terms can be so sanguine and dismissive and lacking in empathy concerning the suffering of victims of their own governments. It suggest to me that either your outrage at the crimes of the US is insincere, or else you've somehow lost track of the moral framework that caused you to develop that outrage in the first place. 
Of course, just to avoid any possible confusion,* I am not arguing that countries have a right to military interfere in each other at will*, just that there are occasions where it can be justified and that absolute opposition to any such action is wrong-headed.    

> "Axis of Evil members" - official map as of 2002     
> "Outposts of Tyranny"  per Condolezza Rice's speech in 2005  _ 
> Erm.... Zimbabwe and Belarus on the same map... reality check?_  
> General Wesley Clark plan as of 2002: 
> Iraq   --- Check
> Syria   ------In progress
> Lebanon   ----unsure
> Libya   --- Check
> Somalia   ------Check
> ...

 This is absurd, deficient reasoning on so many levels. 
You've taken an aggregate list of tinpot dictatorships towards which the last US government expressed antipathy and are now pointing at the few who have been overthrown as proof that the US is behind this particular case, completely ignoring a) any internal factors b) the actions, interventions, policies and "meddling" of every other country and super-national organisation on the planet, and c) all the other uprisings against various other tinpot dictatorships - some of which were allies of the US - that have happened during the same time frame. Over the last couple of years there have been mass protest movements right across the Arab world - in Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Oman, and Yemen, and in the decade since the first axis of evil speech there have been domestic conflicts, revolutions or mass protest movements in lots of other places - in Azerbaijan, in Georgia (twice, actually), in Ukraine, in Madagascar, in Kyrgystan (also twice), in Niger, and in any number of other countries depending on your specific criteria.  
There is no useful correlation at all here, except the rather obvious fact that revolutions tend to occur in tinpot dictatorships. 
Besides which, the fact that there are countries on the lists you quoted that are of no strategic value to the US and which were sited solely on human rights grounds undermines your entire US-imperialist narrative right from the word "go" anyway. Of course, were the US to get directly involved in say Burma or Zimbabwe I'm sure it wouldn't take long for those of the _America is responsible for everything_  persuasion to discover some strategic importance there too. I often think the oil companies are wasting their time employing geologists to find oil. They should employ conspiracy theorists instead, they can find oil anywhere. 
And, once again just to be clear, *I am not arguing that your general conclusions are incorrect, only that the evidence you are presenting here does not support them.* I'm disagreeing with your reasoning, not your moral instincts.

----------


## Crocodile

> *Can you make a serious comment, please, Croc?*

 Here's my very serious comment. If someone thinks the US is ultimately behind just about any turmoil that happens on our planet, that is called paranoia.

----------


## Marcus

> Here's my very serious comment. If someone thinks the US is ultimately behind just about any turmoil that happens on our planet, that is called paranoia.

 у меня паранойя?

----------


## Crocodile

> у меня паранойя?

 Я не указываю на личности, я лишь выражаю своё мнение. С моей точки зрения, радикальное свед*е*ние всех совокупностей взаимосвязанных процессов к упрощённой системе сверхценных идей (таких, например, как гегемония США) является по своей сути параноидальным.

----------


## Hanna

> Here's my very serious comment. If someone thinks the US is ultimately behind just about any turmoil that happens on our planet, that is called paranoia.

 If that's your comment it is not very relevant, since nobody here has made any such claim.  
The whole discussion stems from the fact that I and a few others stated that we believe that evidence seem to be indicating that the US together with certain EU countries might have a finger in supporting the rebels in Syria through things like favourable media cover, weapons (possibly), and local logistics/communication support. Nobody is denying that there are plenty of locals who are unhappy.  
However as reported by channels like RT, there are also plenty of locals who think that the rebels are troublemakers/terrorists/opportunists and are happy with the system as it is, or prefer gradual change. 
There is so much propaganda going on in both camps that I doubt even the Syrians themselves understand the situation and have an idea of who wants what.  
I saw a story which claimed that the majority of Syria's Christians were behind Assad, for example, stating some credible sounding reasons for this, and interviewed regular people who expressed their views with passion.  
I also made a comparison with Bahrain which has also experienced a very passionate Arab spring which ended in brutal suppression in this mini country that happens to be the host of a large US navy base. 1500 Saudi troops entered Bahrain fully armed and stopped the protests. Hundreds have died (which is a very large number per capita, in a country as small as Bahrain). The story is totally ignored in Western media whereas the coverage of Syria is non stop. Yet the countries are fighting for exactly the same things - democracy or more political influence for regular people and improved social justice. There has been torture, disappearences and killings.    

> Armored tanks patrolled villages on the  outskirts of Manama and forces shot tear gas canisters at demonstrators  around the city as the government sought to suppress further  demonstrations and the retaking of Pearl Square, the site of the  uprising one year ago today. The Bahraini government has received  continued support from the US and UK throughout the year-long crackdown,  including arms sales. Al-jazeera (Photo: Reuters)  ***  _Reuters_ *reports*:
>   Armored vehicles patrolled Bahrain's capital on Tuesday in a security  clampdown to deter protesters after overnight clashes outside Manama on  the first anniversary of a forcibly suppressed pro-democracy uprising.

----------


## Crocodile

> evidence seem to be indicating that the US together with certain EU countries might have a finger in supporting the rebels in Syria

 Evidence you say? I think we don't have any reliable evidence whatsoever. We are pretty much left out to interpret the situation as we see fit. I personally see more involvement of the EU countries in the Arab spring and less involvement of the US. The most prominent example - Egypt, which government had been loyal to the US for so many years. There was absolutely no reason for the US to change the situation to what it is now. Or was it? But, still there is strong opinion that the US is behind all those events. And how it is explained? Because, the US is dictating each and every European government what to do, so apparently every action the EU countries take would ultimately be devised by the US. All the economic tensions (which ultimately drive the big politics and military interventions) between the EU and US are just being written off. That means the logic stops and the paranoia rules. Does it make sense? 
Now, to the point the Syrian uprising is inspired from outside of the country. You see, the foreign politics is all about that. It's not really about "let's leave each other to do what they want" as you go on insisting. There's simply no such thing. The countries merge and divide, conquer each other and gain independence over time. It is a very complex process and what a modern patriot would perceive as his motherland, was in fact an enemy of his ancestors who died in an attempt to keep independence, but failed. There seems to be no indication that won't happen in the future. For the very least, the countries inspire revolts in the other countries for their benefits. Some people say Kaiser Germany financed the driving forces of both Russian revolutions of 1917 during the WWI to topple Russian government and weaken Russian Army. And they succeeded as Russia withdrew from the WWI as soon as bolsheviks came to power. That was their first decree - the Decree on Peace. This way Germany eliminated their second front and were able to continue the war. The evidence, eh?  ::  But, subsequently all that was perceived as a very positive step in Russia. And, later on bolsheviks not only inspired revolts, but provided very real military intervention in the countries which comprised the Russian Empire. Of course, for the benefits of the workers and the peasants. But, then you think there was a lot of positive things in the USSR. So far so good for the "let's just leave each other's countries alone"? Such things, as much as other meaningless terms such as "national interests", do not exist in the real world.

----------


## Hanna

> Evidence you say? I think we don't have any reliable evidence whatsoever.

 There are already plenty of reports from locals that the SAS and SBS are operating in the area. 
It is virtually guaranteed that they do - this is exactly the type of situation that those operations exist for. They'd lose their funding if they did not get in there, and get some action going that serves the UKs interests.  
That aside - there is a GIGANTIC Wikileaks email archive relating solely to Syria being released onto Wikileaks today.
It is said to be hugely embarassing not only for Syria but for a number of Western powers.  
So let's see how much evidence there is, or isn't! I'd say this is a considerably more violent take on the "colour revolutions" and how much foreign influence was behind this is a question that is under debate, as far as I understand it.  
I think the Syrians will find that they were considerably better off BEFORE any Western invasion, or before letting the country descend into total chaos and lawlessness. No Syrians qualified for refugee status in the EU prior to this - which essentially means that the treatment of people in Syria (including dissidents) was considered to be so lenient that there was no reason why any would-be refugee could not be sent straight home - i.e. there was no point for them to claim asylum. This, to me, means there was no huge problem with a draconian state that persecuted people. As a comparison, a politically active Kurd from Turkey who seeks political asylum, ususually gets it eventually. Same with anyone who had problems with the state in the USSR, in the 80s, or people from Uzbekistan today, who claim to be religious moslems. The situation in Syria was that people could be members of opposition groups and nothing much happened.    

> Despite decades of political repression in Syria, Harvard graduate  and Arabic teacher Richard Cozzens notes the complete absence of  palpable tension during his stays in Syria from 2005-2009. Quite the  opposite, he pointed to visible Syrian unity. “People were waving flags  and putting up pro-government signs and propaganda on a constant basis.”  The people loved Assad. He was perceived as a charismatic leader who  ushered in a wave of growing consumerism that was altogether foreign  during his father’s control. After the invasion of Iraq, Syrians were  united by their hatred of President Bush. They rallied behind intense  patriotism; Assad’s anti-Bush declarations fueled his popularity as  national pride soared.

 
The question is, what happened next. They all changed their mind - why?

----------


## Crocodile

> The question is, what happened next. They *all* changed their mind - why?

 Have they *all* loved Assad and now they *all* hate him?

----------


## Hanna

> Have they *all* loved Assad and now they *all* hate him?

 It is a manner of speech as you very well know.

----------


## Crocodile

> It is a manner of speech as you very well know.

 Some people were happy with Assad and some were not. The popularity of a politician changes as the events occur and the politician's reaction is scrutinized by the public. Putin was much more popular in 2005-2009 than he is in 2012. Is that the evidence for the SAS and SBS working actively in Moscow? Yeltzin was very popular in 1991 and was very much unpopular several years later. _The question is, what happened next. They all changed their mind - why?_  
Based on what your quote said, "_Assad’s anti-Bush declarations fueled his popularity as  national pride soared._" So, Bush is not in the office for long time. A gazillion of other things happened in Syria and other countries in the region. Some people disliked the way Assad treated "the bandits and hooligans" as the official propaganda mentioned, some military officers left the army and joined the insurgents, and many more things which might have affected the popularity of Assad. And if you absolutely write off all domestic reasons, why the US again? Why not Israel, for a change? Israel and Syria are not the best friends, won't you think? Assad threatened to attack Israel, if foreign countries intervene, remember? So, wouldn't that be in the best interest of Israel to support the seemingly domestic revolt in Syria so that Assad steps down? All I'm saying is that 'all roads lead to Rome' is an overly-simplistic approach. And paranoid, yes.  ::

----------


## Anixx

> Why not Israel, for a change? Israel and Syria are not the best friends, won't you think?

 Lol because Quatar and Turkey(especially under Erdogan) are not the best friends of Israel either. Israel seems to try to be uninvolved unlike the USA and Turkey.   

> Assad threatened to attack Israel, if foreign countries intervene, remember? So, wouldn't that be in the best interest of Israel to support the seemingly domestic revolt in Syria so that Assad steps down? All I'm saying is that 'all roads lead to Rome' is an overly-simplistic approach. And paranoid, yes.

 Israel has a 30-years old signed armistice with Syria. Why would it need Assad removed and islamists at power?  
The Syrian regime has strong opposition and under pressure - it cannot make a successful invasion in Israel at any rate. Assad is also well influenced by Russia. 
Bombing of Syria on the other hand may lead to unpredictable consequences for Israel - for example, involvement of Iran, involvement of Israel in the war etc.  
But there is one serious reason why Israel may consider supporting the USA the best way. We all know that the USA will win this conflict. They will bomb Syria, then bomb Iran, then they will breakup Russia and China. I have no doubt that this will happen soon. And being on the side of the winners is always beneficial. If Israel sided with the USSR during the Cold War, there would be no Israel by now.

----------


## Crocodile

> Israel has a 30-years old signed armistice with Syria. Why would it need Assad removed and islamists at power?

 Excellent question. And why the US would want Assad removed and the islamists at power? Why the US would want Mubarak removed and islamists at power?  
I'm not 100% thrilled with what the US was and is doing, but to say the US is responsible for just about anything (which I think is implied from some posts of some people on this forum) is paranoia.     

> The Syrian regime has strong opposition and under pressure - it cannot make a successful invasion in Israel at any rate.

 I would agree with you here, Syria could probably not make a successful invasion right now, and it probably couldn't make it around 2005-2009 either despite the alleged popularity of Assad back then. But "attacking" does not necessarily mean "invasion". Attacking would be provoking Israel for retaliation and thus igniting the entire Middle East and possibly other regions.    

> Bombing of Syria on the other hand may lead to unpredictable consequences for Israel - for example, involvement of Iran, involvement of Israel in the war etc.

 I agree, so there would probably be no bombing, only the civil war.   

> But there is one serious reason why Israel may consider supporting the USA the best way. We all know that the USA will win this conflict. They will bomb Syria, then bomb Iran, then they will breakup Russia and China. I have no doubt that this will happen soon. And being on the side of the winners is always beneficial.

 That is a scenario which I'm afraid of. Back in December last year (Protests in Syria) I tried to discuss it, but the conversation kind of switched to.. as usual. You see, I think if the US is involved in just another big conflict, it will not win it. There has been lots of political work done to popularize the opinion that the US is trying to own every corner of the world, enough for most people on the plant to dislike it. On the other hand, the economy of the US probably incapable of taking on such huge undertaking. At the same time, Americans are tired of the situation when the country is constantly at war, the public money is spent lavishly on nothing productive and people are constantly dying somewhere on the other side of the globe for many years. The real motivation of 'fighting terrorism' is something of the past. Also, take into consideration other purely technical economic factors like the real dollar value, huge deficit, etc. Meaning, a big war might likely cause the shift of the entire global economic focus, from the countries involved and devastated by the war and the countries uninvolved or involved to the lesser extent. Something similar to the outcome of the previous world wars - European Empires lost the focus as it had shifted to the less involved/devastated US. Now, let's look at the countries which are going to be actively involved in the WWIII: Middle East (oil suppliers), the US, Israel, China, Russia. All these countries would eventually lose their economic power (and might even be divided). However, I agree the NATO would most likely be the winner (with the US ultimately losing dominance). Who stays in the global economic game? Germany, France, Italy. Most notably - *Germany* (as it is presently economically dominant even under the very tough conditions). Germany is keeping relatively quiet, but that is who I think is behind the Arab Spring. (And 9/11 for that matter.) Germany does not talk much - it acts. And I think it will be the ultimate winner.   

> If Israel sided with the USSR during the Cold War, there would be no Israel by now.

 An interesting thought, maybe a bit off topic. I think you mean that the capitalist US is crushing the socialistic regimes? You see, as far as I know, Israel had been sided with the USSR at the earlier stages - the secular Jews were, at their majority, socialists. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong between the USSR and Israel, maybe Israel was a way too nationalist, or the formation of Israel inspired nationalistic Jewish movement inside the USSR, which was crushed by Stalin, and Israel did not like that.. not sure. Anyway, I think the nationalistic considerations prevail any other in Israel, so Israel would probably be less sensitive to the socialism-capitalism shift. Meaning, there would still be Israel by now.

----------


## Anixx

> Excellent question. And why the US would want Assad removed and the islamists at power? Why the US would want Mubarak removed and islamists at power?

 It can be definitely seen that the US vocally supported the overthrow of Mubarak and Israel was against that (they even issued an official call to the European powers to keep Mubarak at power).
This is a fact. Now why it is so? This is another, more difficult question. But the Islamists are generally considered more right-wing regimes than the socialists and the secular nationalists. And the USA usually supports the right.
This is not the first time the USA supported islamists. They did so in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in Kosovo, in Libya etc etc. Their most close allies are the fundamentalist monarchies of the Persian gulf.   

> I'm not 100% thrilled with what the US was and is doing, but to say the US is responsible for just about anything (which I think is implied from some posts of some people on this forum) is paranoia.

 Have you seen the film "Revolution.com - USA: The Conquest of the East"? The USA are the professional revolution and rebellion exporters worldwide, in Asia, in Africa, in Europe and in Latin America.
Even if somebody does the dirty work, the USA supports them in international organizations and with money.    

> I would agree with you here, Syria could probably not make a successful invasion right now, and it probably couldn't make it around 2005-2009 either despite the alleged popularity of Assad back then. But "attacking" does not necessarily mean "invasion". Attacking would be provoking Israel for retaliation and thus igniting the entire Middle East and possibly other regions.

 There is no need (and ability) for Syria to engage in war with Israel in peacetime. As I already said, the Syrian regime is weak, has strong domestic enemies and values good relations with Russia. Syrian nuclear objects had been attacked by Israel about 2007 but Syria did not make any retaliation. They missed a good opportunity to "ignite the entire middle East" if this was their aim. But it is not.    

> I agree, so there would probably be no bombing, only the civil war.

 I am not sure in that. Israel definitely does not want to be involved but for the West attack on Israel would be an excellent PR excuse for full-scale invasion in both Syria and Iran.   

> That is a scenario which I'm afraid of. Back in December last year (Protests in Syria) I tried to discuss it, but the conversation kind of switched to.. as usual. You see, I think if the US is involved in just another big conflict, it will not win it. There has been lots of political work done to popularize the opinion that the US is trying to own every corner of the world, enough for most people on the plant to dislike it.

 LOL. It does not matter what the people wants in the USA. No US political force as of now promotes non-involvement. The only thing that can make the US retreat are the heavy losses among ordinary people. But since Vietnam war the army in the US is not conscripted and the losses are negligibly small (less than of a comparable group of civilians). With the Obama's technology of non-contact war (for which he is widely praised) the costs become negligible as well.   

> On the other hand, the economy of the US probably incapable of taking on such huge undertaking. At the same time, Americans are tired of the situation when the country is constantly at war, the public money is spent lavishly on nothing productive and people are constantly dying somewhere on the other side of the globe for many years. The real motivation of 'fighting terrorism' is something of the past. Also, take into consideration other purely technical economic factors like the real dollar value, huge deficit, etc.

 You possibly do not understand what keeps the value of dollar. It is instability in every country except the USA. With any war and crisis in any part of the world the value of dollar sharply rises. The investors have to take their money from Middle East, Asia, Europe and invest them in the "safe heaven" of American treasuries and other dollar-valued assets. This way any war without exception is highly profitable for US economy. Even more profitable would be instability in Russia, China or other big country.   

> Meaning, a big war might likely cause the shift of the entire global economic focus, from the countries involved and devastated by the war and the countries uninvolved or involved to the lesser extent. Something similar to the outcome of the previous world wars - European Empires lost the focus as it had shifted to the less involved/devastated US.

 The US has so much military superiority over every country in the world except maybe China and Russia that there is no possibility of a "big war" at all. Any US military involvement is just one-way beating.   

> Now, let's look at the countries which are going to be actively involved in the WWIII: Middle East (oil suppliers), the US, Israel, China, Russia. All these countries would eventually lose their economic power (and might even be divided). However, I agree the NATO would most likely be the winner (with the US ultimately losing dominance). Who stays in the global economic game? Germany, France, Italy. Most notably - *Germany* (as it is presently economically dominant even under the very tough conditions). Germany is keeping relatively quiet, but that is who I think is behind the Arab Spring. (And 9/11 for that matter.) Germany does not talk much - it acts. And I think it will be the ultimate winner.

 This is completely senseless idea. Germany is under strict US control. USA actually still has Germany occupied. And any instability in Europe as I said before only means that the money will leave it for the USA.   

> An interesting thought, maybe a bit off topic. I think you mean that the capitalist US is crushing the socialistic regimes? You see, as far as I know, Israel had been sided with the USSR at the earlier stages - the secular Jews were, at their majority, socialists. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong between the USSR and Israel, maybe Israel was a way too nationalist, or the formation of Israel inspired nationalistic Jewish movement inside the USSR, which was crushed by Stalin, and Israel did not like that.. not sure. Anyway, I think the nationalistic considerations prevail any other in Israel, so Israel would probably be less sensitive to the socialism-capitalism shift. Meaning, there would still be Israel by now.

 No. The Jews consciously choose the USA because they expected it to win the Cold War.

----------


## Anixx

> Maybe. Officially, the главная вина of Syria (as far as I know) is its support of Hezbollah, which does NOT recognize Israel's right to continue existing.

 Look. This is a first sane comment here from the pro-US side. And this is a valid argument.
But I am quite sure that  
- nobody ever put any real pressure on Syria to discontinue the support for Hezbollah. The most current pressure is for that Assad to resign. 
- Hezbollah is accused by the UN in killing the Lebanon prime minister. As far as I know, this this the most heavy charge against Hezbollah by the UN. Hezbollah promised to cooperate in investigation 
- Hezbollah positions itself as a patriotic pro-Lebanon party. They do not declare an aim to invade Israel. There was a kidnapping incident that provoked the last Israel-Hezbollah war but Hezbollah came under heavy criticism in Lebanon after that
and Nasralla had to apologize before the Lebanon public saying that they would not do so if they knew it will lead to a war with Israel. 
- When asked Nasralla said he is not against peace with Israel if Israel reaches a peace agreement with the Palestinians. 
Notice also that the most close US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Bahrain do not recognize Israel as well. Should not the US be bombed for support of them?

----------


## Hanna

> An interesting thought, maybe a bit off topic. I think you mean that the capitalist US is crushing the socialistic regimes? You see, as far as I know, Israel had been sided with the USSR at the earlier stages - the secular Jews were, at their majority, socialists. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong between the USSR and Israel, maybe Israel was a way too nationalist, or the formation of Israel inspired nationalistic Jewish movement inside the USSR, which was crushed by Stalin, and Israel did not like that.. not sure. Anyway, I think the nationalistic considerations prevail any other in Israel, so Israel would probably be less sensitive to the socialism-capitalism shift. Meaning, there would still be Israel by now.

 My impression is that the US essentially "bought" Israel's support, with the backing of American Jews and evangelical Christians. And that is probably _very_ lucky for Israel... 
They got aid, gifts, weapons etc, etc... Not that the USSR could not have supplied that, but perhaps not immediately at the time when Israel needed it the most, in the very early days of the new state, when the USSR too, was in a bad condition after the War. Israel got into wars early on in its history and could not be too fussy about who to liaise with, when its very survival as a nation was at stake. That's my personal guess based on what little I know of Israels history. 
I also think the USSR would have judged Israel to be behaving in an imperialistic way after it annexed the West Bank... The PLO was socialist, and so was Syria. I guess the USSR from an ideological standpoint did not have much choice other than to support the obvious socialists and/or "imperialistically opressed" party in the conflict, i.e. the Palestinians. Plus, they were already supporting several socialist Arab states and could not very well support the arch enemy of these countries at the same time!   

> I'm not 100% thrilled with what the US was and is doing, but to say the  US is responsible for just about anything (which I think is implied from  some posts of some people on this forum) is *paranoia*.

 Nobody has been claiming that, other than you yourself, when making that accusation towards me! 
There are no doubt plenty of popular movements or conflicts going on around the globe that the US have no finger in supporting. I do not see the US trying to influence the EU greatly in how to solve the Euro crisis (good!) and the US does not show any interest in several long running conflicts in Africa. The US has not had any opportunity to get involved in most of the internal problems in China. Neither is it supporting either side or manipulating at all in the long running Falklands saga.  
However, in the case of Syria, I believe that the US and UK are involved, based on reports, and based on the very one-sided media coverage. The same was (obviously) true in the case of Libya.  
There have been plenty of suggestions about US involvement in revolutions etc, etc recently, as I said earlier. Organising coups and uprisings, is and has been standard fare for US intelligence agencies for many decades. It is well known and documented that this has happened in South and Central America and I would be very surprised if you are not aware of this fact.  
Several eyewitnesses report having seen SAS operatives in Syria, and that the rebels are covertly armed by Western forces. 
There is nothing paranoid in saying that there usually is no smoke without fire, which is all I am doing.  I'll await the proof that might well come with the latest Wikileaks!  
The final point on this is that the press and state officials in both Russia and China seem to be holding the same opinions, along with the majority of the poulation there. Plus no doubt many, many more countries that I do not keep track of. 
So if I am paranoid I am in good company with the world's future super power, China, and a country that has excellent political analysts and probably has much better insight in Syria than any other major power (Russia).   

> At the same time, Americans are tired of the situation when the country  is constantly at war, the public money is spent lavishly on nothing  productive and people are constantly dying somewhere on the other side  of the globe for many years. The real motivation of 'fighting terrorism'  is something of the past.

 In this, I agree with you. I think "regular" Americans to a large degree are taken for a ride by a government that does not necessarily represent their best interests and that allows media to manipulate them.  
These wars and constant manipulations around the world is not in the economic interests of the nation, or its people. They are however in the interest of large corporations that have managed to manipulate the government and even public opinion. I believe that the US is largely run by its multinational corporations, contrary to the interests of its people.  
Compare with the USSR and its various undertakings, such as the Afghanistan war and economically supporting regimes around the world, like North Korea and Cuba. How did this help regular citizens? Not at all, probably, but I suppose some elite group(s) somewhere benefited from what was going on (while some of it might have been motivated by a feeling of being under constant threat and having to maximise the number of allies and buffer states.)

----------


## diogen_

> ...They... will *breakup* Russia and China. I have no doubt that this will happen *soon*.

 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? ::

----------


## Hanna

It's quite interesting that the USA and UK are putting increasingly more  pressure on Russia about Syria. Kudos to Putin for standing up against  pressure. I for one am not scared of a Russia that dares to show a bit  of spine. We need some influence from the East to balance the  out-of-control influence from the West. Can't say about the internal  politics of Russia, but the foreign policies, at least, are good at the  moment, I think.  
It is interesting that media in "Western" countries are singling out  Russia as the obstruction to intervention or whaterver it is that NATO  would like to do in Syria. At the same time they are not critisizing  China as much. Is it a case of "don't dare to bite the hand that feeds  you...?" _(I am thinking about the enormous debt of the USA to China..)_  Or is it something else? Or is Russia a bigger obstacle for some  reason... nukes? better relationship with Syria than what China has? I  hope Putin will not let his vote be bought, or do some underhanded  compromise in this matter! The problems that the Syrian people are  having will only get worse if Nato & co get involved.   Revealed: CIA secretly operates on Syrian border, supplies arms to rebels &mdash; RT

----------


## Marcus

Probably Russia sells more weapon to Syria, has a sea base there (there are no ships permanently), arranges war exercises near the Syrian shore.

----------


## Юрка

Думаю, что они задавят Сирию и без санкции Совета Безопасности ООН. Там же боевиков около 10 000 и финансирование практически без ограничений. А у Сирии ограничены и людские и финансовые ресурсы (и снабжение).
России остаётся только сохранять лицо, не меняя позицию в ООН. Как говорится, делай, что должно, и будь, что будет.

----------


## Marcus

> Думаю, что они задавят Сирию и без санкции Совета Безопасности ООН. Там же боевиков около 10 000 и финансирование практически без ограничений. А у Сирии ограничены и людские и финансовые ресурсы (и снабжение).
> России остаётся только сохранять лицо, не меняя позицию в ООН. Как говорится, делай, что должно, и будь, что будет.

 Опыт показывает, что без прямого военного вмешательства обычно не обойтись.

----------


## Hanna

Never seen such an extreme propaganda war as in the case of Syria!
The killings of the rebels are reported as killings of the government.... 
The creepy thing is that LOTS of people obviously support the current government, or the other side would have won over a year ago. Whole cities and ethnic groups, no doubt about it.  
Kudos to Russia for staying impartial and not jumping on the propaganda bandwagon.  
The UK is not a bit better than the US in this particular situation. Compare the old Beeb, with RT. One of them is lying, and I'd say that in this particular case it is actually the beeb. I swear not to pay my licence fee when I am back in the UK! I refuse to support their angled reporting and propaganda war. The BBC is impartial up to a point, but when the government has a clear agenda, they step in line which is what's happened here....  
And the agenda of the US, UK and their European fan club couldn't be more clear.  
They've found a new formula it seems, for how to take down a regime they don't like, without even going to war. This is Libya take 2, only this regime is not particularly bad and there were only a very small group of rebels when this started out. Now, through the media war and covert actions and stirring up of the situation by the SAS, CIA and lord knows who else... it's a civil war.  
 Arm some rebels and start a God-awful propaganda war that is out of all proportions, including blatant lies and horrendous exaggerations.  
I wonder which regime is next?

----------


## Basil77

> I wonder which regime is next?

 Iran, obviously. They are trynig to perform this thrick with Russia constantly, but it doesn't work for for now. I wonder for how long?

----------


## Marcus

> Never seen such an extreme propaganda war as in the case of Syria!
> The killings of the rebels are reported as killings of the government.... 
> The creepy thing is that LOTS of people obviously support the current government, or the other side would have won over a year ago. Whole cities and ethnic groups, no doubt about it.

 The same was against Iraq in 1990-91 and in 2002-2003, against Serbs during the whole decade from 1991 to 1999 and in many other cases. Unfortunately, it's a norm, not an exception. The goal of media is not to inform the people, but to change their mind in a necessary way.  

> Kudos to Russia for staying impartial and not jumping on the propaganda bandwagon.

 Russia is not completely impartial. It sells weapon to the Syrian government and it blocks all the resolutions against Syria in the UN. The media cover of the events is rather pregovernmental too.

----------


## Marcus

> Iran, obviously. They are trynig to perform this thrick with Russia constantly, but it doesn't work for for now. I wonder for how long?

 No one really knows. They have threatened Iran for almost seven years. And no one expected the attack on Lybia.

----------


## Hanna

> The same was against Iraq in 1990-91 and in 2002-2003, against Serbs during the whole decade from 1991 to 1999 and in many other cases. Unfortunately, it's a norm, not an exception. The goal of media is not to inform the people, but to change their mind in a necessary way. 
> Russia is not completely impartial. It sells weapon to the Syrian government and it blocks all the resolutions against Syria in the UN. The media cover of the events is rather pregovernmental too.

 Yes, you are probably right, but in the case of the Serbs, I simply did not see it. It was just at the time when new human rights abuses by socialist governments were "discovered" practically every week. I was totally fed up and disillusioned with all of it and just ignored any news to do with Eastern Europe... The other problem was that I had not been aware that Yugoslavia consisted of so many different countries. It was pretty confusing unless you had the time and interest to get up to speed on the background, which I did not at the time. But previously nobody every talked about separate nations there, just of Yugoslavians, the Adriatic coast etc. When media started to talk about "ethnic cleansing" and concentration camps, they did not leave much room for sympathising with the Serbs even though they they were Christians, Slavs etc, etc. 
Back in the 1990s there was no access to alternative news sources like we can find online today. 
Iraq - Yes, I remember that I did not believe that Iraqi soldiers had yanked Kuwait babies out of incubators out of sheer spite, or that surrendering Iraqis in the second Gulf War had asked the Americans for a Big Mac when surrendering... The propaganda onslaught was pretty all encompassing and there was no access to anything else.  
I agree that RT is NOT a neutral source of news. I like it anyway, but it is obvious that they have a few agendas going on, like a small paypack on the UK for all the diplomatic troubles recently..... Gleeful reporting on the problems with the Euro and immigration in Western Europe.... An obsession with "Neo Nazis" in the Baltic... But there is a lot of substance behind the majority of their claims on these matters, even though it irritates me! 
So you really think that Russia is secretly supporting the current regime despite their claims to the contrary? If I hear that some Russian special commandos are there and stirring up trouble I'll be just as annoyed as I feel with the UK/US about their involvement. If Russia is meddling they should stay out of it! Holding up existing contracts and obligation is not meddling though. They could not have anticipated this when they agreed to service helicopters or set up the Russian naval port there. But it seems to me that Russia is making an effort to try to stay out of it even though it had friendly relations with Syria in the past.   

> Iran, obviously. They are trynig to perform this thrick with Russia  constantly, but it doesn't work for for now. I wonder for how long?

 Yes, I guess Russia is a bit vulnerable to that..... First the Soviet states fell away for better or worse, and then there was troubles in the "outskirts" of Russia proper and the Chechen war.... 
Even the UK is not immune, with the Scots and sometimes Northern Ireland sometimes talking seriously of going their own way.  
Since Russia has basically never shown the slightest bit of aggression towards my country, and since I largely like the people and the culture, I really want to see Russia as a confident country with internal stability.... I guess to some extent Russia can "buy" the loyalty of the outer regions with oil money...
And why not try some nationalistic campaigns.... 
It seems like lunacy for parts of Russia to break away... Isn't most of the country supported out of Moscow and the central regions anyway? Thy couldn't even extract their oil and transport their gas with out central help, could they? Do people see this as a risk, I mean the Russian Federation breaking up in a similar way to the USSR?  *
And in case anyone was in any doubt about what I have been saying... *  

> *Britain’s former  Special Air Service (SAS) commandos are reportedly training armed  opposition groups fighting against the government of Syrian President  Bashar al-Assad, reports say. *   *The Daily Mail and Sunday Express have revealed that the mercenaries have set up training camps in Iraq and on the Syrian border for the armed rebels. * British army sources, speaking on condition of  anonymity, have said the militants are receiving instructions in  military tactics, weapons handling and communications systems.Groups of 50 militants at a time are being trained by two  Mideast-based private security firms which employ former SAS personnel.   
> More than 300 rebel forces have completed the commando training  program, and are said to account for a number of the opposition’s  combatant units fighting Syrian security forces in Damascus.  Britain has also placed more than 600 troops on standby over the unrest in Syria.*
> UK Foreign Secretary William Hague says London should be acting  outside the UN Security Council and step up its support for militant  groups in Syria.*

----------


## Marcus

> So you really think that Russia is secretly supporting the current regime despite their claims to the contrary? If I hear that some Russian special commandos are there and stirring up trouble I'll be just as annoyed as I feel with the UK/US about their involvement. If Russia is meddling they should stay out of it! Holding up existing contracts and obligation is not meddling though. They could not have anticipated this when they agreed to service helicopters or set up the Russian naval port there. But it seems to me that Russia is making an effort to try to stay out of it even though it had friendly relations with Syria in the past.

 If you mean this, then Russia is not involved, at least there is no any evidence. But even acomplishing previous contracts is a support in this situation. I'm proud of my country in Syria as much as I was ashamed in the case of Lybia.  

> It seems like lunacy for parts of Russia to break away... Isn't most of the country supported out of Moscow and the central regions anyway? Thy couldn't even extract their oil and transport their gas with out central help, could they?

 The same could be said about the former Soviet republics.  

> Do people see this as a risk, I mean the Russian Federation breaking up in a similar way to the USSR?

 Sure.

----------


## 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: http://www.vesti.ru/only_video.html?vid=434260

----------


## diogen_

> 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

----------


## Eric C.

> 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?

----------


## Hanna

> 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. )

----------


## 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:

----------


## Hanna

@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?

----------


## Eric C.

> @*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.

----------


## diogen_

*@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.

----------


## Hanna

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

 
Really? Can you give examples please?

----------


## Anixx

> 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.

----------


## Anixx

> *@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.

----------


## Eric C.

> 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?

----------


## Anixx

> 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.

----------


## Anixx

> 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?

----------


## Eric C.

> 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.

----------


## Eric C.

> Any state kills rebels. What's so special?

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

----------


## Anixx

> 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.

----------


## Anixx

> 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.

----------


## Lampada

Charlie Rose - Vitaly Churkin

----------


## Eric C.

> 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.

----------


## BappaBa

> 

 Какая замечательная клюква. Ну и как положено, общечеловеки опять приписали Сталину "гибель одного человека - трагедия, гибель миллионов - статистика".

----------


## Hanna

> Какая замечательная клюква. Ну и как положено, общечеловеки опять приписали Сталину "гибель одного человека - трагедия, гибель миллионов - статистика".

 клюква ?!  ::  
Anyway - the more they create videos like this, the better they feel about the fact that they themselves are responsible for millions of death around the world - in conflicts that the US has no business being involved in at all. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Aghanistan, Pakistan (drone attacks), Libya (should have been left completely alone) and now Syria. +many more. Whatever Stalin was doing (which I understand is not a clearcut matter) he did in his own country - there are varying opinions and hard to no what is truth, propaganda or exaggeration. 
I just think it's rather pathetic that so many people have to drag up Stalin, in discussions about modern politics. Stalin represents nobody but himself! He does not represent the USSR, Russia, modern Russian people or anything else. Sure, he lived in Moscow and called himself a Communist - but most educated people can recognise that that was just the beginning of his complex and rather self-serving ideological outlook.  
Additionally: Hello!.......... it was 60 years ago! What does it matter? 60 years ago there was also segregation in the USA, colonialism oppression perpetrated by various European countries, imprisonment of gay people and sterilisation of gypsies in many present day European countries. Plus, according to many Russians here, Stalin actually accomplished some rather positive things in certain areas, and is appreciated by quite a few people. Either way - there is absolutely 0 connection between Stalin and the events in Syria.

----------


## diogen_

> 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.

 OK.It means you don’t have any* real  evidence* concerning  US plans to break up China and Russia beside figments of your imagination that  potentially  they can do it, do you?

----------


## diogen_

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

 No, the real issue is  that local communists  realized all the futility of  their former efforts to organize efficient  command economy and had to agree to reform it using market methods in order  to stay in power as long as possible.   

> Реформы были начаты в 1978 по инициативе крыла прагматиков в Коммунистической партии Китая (КПК), которое возглавлял Дэн Сяопин, и продолжаются по сей день. Реформаторы поставили перед собой цель создания прибавочной стоимости, достаточной для финансирования модернизации китайской экономики, *которая находилась на грани катастрофы после провала политики «большого скачка» и командных методов, проводимых Мао Цзэдуном*. Первоначальной задачей реформ было решение проблемы мотивации рабочих и крестьян и ликвидация экономических диспропорций, характерных для командных экономик.

 Политика реформ и открытости — Википедия

----------


## Hanna

> OK.It means you don’t have any* real  evidence* concerning  US plans to break up China and Russia beside figments of your imagination that  potentially  they can do it, do you?

 
Well I never made this claim, it seems to be an idea that some Russians subscribe to, rightly or wrongly. So I will not try to justify it because I have not idea or proof about whether it might be true. I can speculate though!  
But it doesn't seem very unrealistic to me though.  The US must have been jubilant when the USSR fell apart, and it has been very keen to encourage ex Soviet states distance themselves from Russia as much as possible since then... 
Obviously there is some genuine local resentment in certain ex Soviet countries against Russia, but many agencies of the USA have been quite happy about this and made its best to reinforce and increase such feelings. I understand that there has been plenty of funding of all sorts of activities in ex Soviet republics, that essentially mount up to anti-Russia sentiments among those involved. Not to mention sponsoring of media with a fairly obvious angle.  
As for China, this is probably a MAJOR reason why China chooses to stick with its media and internet censorship programs - as unpalatable as it is. 
They've seen what happened in other countries when media is opened up - i.e. first an relentless stream of complaints from locals that demoralise everyone... then foreign capital moves in. Sweden made this type of change - scrapped state control over TV. Now, there is a dominance of foreign owned TV stations that angle  
This is probably also the reason behind the Russian requirement for foreign sponsored organisations to register etc.

----------


## Anixx

Well. What we know for sure. 
- The US, Britain, Qatar sponsored the Chechen rebels. Britain even hosted the rebel "government in exile". The head of the secessionist regime Yandarbiyev has been killed by Russian special services in Qatar.
The rebel forces and terrorists had plenty of foreign-made equipment and instructors (including those from Saudi Arabia, a close US ally). The terrorists even those who bombed schools and took hostages in hospitals
were never called "terrorists" in Western media 
- The western institutions, especially those from Baltic states help to promote separatist agenda in Tatarstan, i.e. in Kazan university. The emissaries from Saudi Arabia and Qatar are trying to impose radical Wahabi Islam in Tatarstan mosques and on the North Caucasus. 
- We have already seen how the West broke up Yugoslavia which was a smaller model of the USSR. It is clear that the West also helped to break up the USSR as well. 
- Certain Russian opposition figures get help from the United States, including some that openly advocate even making a nuclear strike on Russia. For example, Garri Kasparov, a leader of the "Solidarity" movement who lives in the US even called the West to employ Libyan scenario in Russia Гарри Каспаров призвал запад бомбить . Yelena Bonner, the Sakharov's widow who emigrated in the US also called to "bomb Russia as Iraq". Others petitioned the American embassy to make a series of "point strikes" on Russia Ъ-Газета - Демократическая общественность обратилась к Америке A recent trend was supporting Russian ethnic nationalism, racism and anti-immigration movements. Such US-sponsored "nationalists" go as far as to demand a separate "Russian republic" for ethnic Russians inside Russia. They also equivocally support the secession of the North Caucasus using racist arguments. A radical wing which calls themselves "National Democrats" represented for instance, by Shiropayev, advocate complete desintegration of Russia and openly admire Adolf Hitler. 
- Regarding China, a recent Chinese Nobel prize laureate Liu Xiaobo is a dissident who supports the disintegration of China into a set of some tens of independent states. He also openly supports the US war in Iraq. Nobel prize award has been political in the past as well, for example when it was awarded to Solzhenitsyn and Pasternak for anti-Soviet literature, as well as Gorbachev for disintegration of the USSR. It is evident that the US openly supports the Tibetan and Uyghur separatism.

----------


## Hanna

Interesting posting, Anixx....
I don't want to believe it, actually, I WANT to believe that the EU and Britain (in particular) are basically nice 
countries that just make the occassional bad judgement... I want to believe the same thing about the USA too, actually - Who doesn't want to like the country that gave us bluejeans, country music and Bambi...... with spectacular nature and friendly, outgoing people. But the facts speak for themselves, sadly...! Anyone who sees behind the initial hype cannot fail to reflect on the utter unfairness, inconsistency and hypocrisy in the way that all three countries behave. 
Nobody who is thinking clearly can honestly believe that it is right for countries to invade far away nations to force their worldview, economical ideology and "investments" on others. To split up nations, fly with driverless drones and bomb innocent civilians for a "higher cause", sponsor terrorists one day and torture or execute them the next day when the agenda no longer co-incides with your own.  Etc, etc ! Doing any of this makes you worse than the enemy you claim to be fighting in the interest of the greater good. And then have the stomach to say you stand for global democracy and freedom! It's the ultimate hoax. 
Finally, for me, I am disgusted to see what's happened to my own country while I was away. Media, which now has to be profitable, has turned into a pathetic translation machine for English language foreign policy articles already written by British or American press. Obviously this type of journalism is cheap and cost effective and the opinions expressed tie in with the opinions of the owners. This has the result that most people fall for the latest "this-dictator-is-evil-and-must-be-taken-down" propaganda from abroad. The only original journalism taking place are the endless "educational" articles about family politics and immigration, telling people what they need to think about pro-homosexuality, feminism or immigration. There is only one acceptable opinion on these topics and anyone who dares to express anything else is eaten alive by media until his life is essentially destroyed. Real journalism is all but dead, apart from in personal blogs. It's ironic that now that we have so many TV channels there are actually less real news than back in the days of two commerical free stations and only 3 daily news programs.

----------


## Anixx

Note that there are 50 streets and squares in Turkey named after Chechen rebel leader (the so-called president) Dzhokhar Dudayev, and Turkey is a US ally. Similar places also exist in Poland, the Baltic states and in Western Ukraine.  https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Duday...art=0&t=m&z=11

----------


## Hanna

> US Defense Sec. Leon Panetta has advice for Syria’s President Assad: _“If  you want to be able to protect yourself and your family, you’d better  get the hell out now.”_ Panetta also warned that the US would not repeat  the mistakes it made in Iraq.

 The nerve of the US is just unbelievable. He should "get the hell out" of Syria's business. It's none of his concern what happens in a tiny state on the other side of the Eart.

----------


## zxc

> The nerve of the US is just unbelievable. He should "get the hell out" of Syria's business. It's none of his concern what happens in a tiny state on the other side of the Eart.

 "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing." 
Regardless of an agenda of the US, or your feelings concerning the US, there is no doubt in my mind that the government of Syria has and is currently perpetrating atrocities against its own people in the form of rape, pillaging, torture, murder, etc.  It is a sad day indeed when the direction that lines run on a map are used to justify that it's okay to allow a government to systematically kill innocent men, women, and children.   
The brutalization of innocent people should be *everyone's* business.

----------


## Anixx

> Regardless of an agenda of the US, or your feelings concerning the US, there is no doubt in my mind that the government of Syria has and is currently perpetrating atrocities against its own people in the form of rape, pillaging, torture, murder, etc.  It is a sad day indeed when the direction that lines run on a map are used to justify that it's okay to allow a government to systematically kill innocent men, women, and children.   
> The brutalization of innocent people should be *everyone's* business.

 What's the evidence for such claims? Accusations or rape is just ridiculous delirium that the West throws at any army they did not like, starting from the Goebbels accusations against the Red Army. There is no basis to believe that any army ever commited any large-scale rape against even foreign people not to say own people. Rape is a very often accusation because it is impossible to disprove: you do not need a heap of bodies to throw rape accusations. 
It is quite evident that Syria is putting down an armed rebellion supplied from abroad.
Syrian army cleanses the Damascus neighbourhood. http://video.yandex.ru/iframe/news-a...nj2igh59.4706/ 
Weapons taken from the rebels: http://www.youtube.com/embed/wYbxyEO...yer_detailpage

----------


## zxc

> What's the evidence for such claims? Accusations or rape is just ridiculous delirium that the West throws at any army they did not like

 The claims are being made by refugees and people in Syria willing to speak up about it.  1 2 3   

> starting from the Goebbels accusations against the Red Army. There is no basis to believe that any army ever commited any large-scale rape against even foreign people not to say own people.

 I suppose it's just a coincidence that German hospital records show that abortion rates began to surge in parts of Germany within months of being occupied by the Red Army.  The thousands of personal accounts from women claiming to have been raped are lies, just as are the accounts of men who served in the Red Army claiming to have witnessed it.  I am not sure why so many are so skeptical against this idea--nobody is judging Russia today for these actions, nor does it doesn't diminish the accomplishments of the Soviet Union in its victory in the Great Patriotic War.  Many rapes of German women likely occurred by American soldiers as well as Soviet.   I take objection to your statement that there is no basis to believe that *any* army *ever* committed large-scale rape, since, historically, that was actually a norm for many cultures post victory, and _they freely admitted it_ and wrote about it.   

> It is quite evident that Syria is putting down an armed rebellion supplied from abroad.

 This does not justify the massacre of innocent men, women, and children.

----------


## Anixx

> The claims are being made by refugees and people in Syria willing to speak up about it.

 So there are no proofs, only accusations by the rebels.   

> The thousands of personal accounts from women claiming to have been raped are lies, just as are the accounts of men who served in the Red Army claiming to have witnessed it.

 LOL. Where are those "thousands of accounts"?
In two major Berlin hospitals in 1945 there were registered only 9 cases of rape (claimed by the women), by unspecified men. 
The statistics of incidents shows that in American and British occupation zones after the war the rate of rapes by military was higher than in Soviet zone (still far from thousands though).

----------


## Hanna

> The claims are being made by refugees and people in Syria willing to speak up about it.  
> (.....) 
> This does not justify the massacre of innocent men, women, and children.

 Nobody here is "justifying the massacre of innocent men, women and children". Do you think that either Annixx or I support that?  
Your problem is that you have only seen ONE side of the story, namely the story that is being constantly touted by the so called "free press" in whatever country you live.    Do you realise that it is possible to take a news event and ONLY report those facts that suit your agenda? This can help purvey a vision that is completely different to what *actually* happens. Some journalists do this consciously, others unconsciously by just looking for, and thus finding, evidence that fits their view of events.    Alternatively, you can choose to receive news reports only from those sources that report news that suit your agenda, and not report news from their opponents.   (e.g. in the Syria conflict, accept as fact everything that the rebels say - there are practically no Western journalists in Syria at the moment, they receive 2nd 3rd hand information passed on by the rebels to Reuters etc).    Or you can be a bit sketchy on the background details, saying "50 died in Damascus.. blah, blah" and omitting the fact that it was actually the rebels that killed them, rather than the government forces (this has been happening a lot in the Syria conflict).  
These types of media tricks have been happening for a century; it was standard fare for both sides during the Cold War, it is used by both sides in the Palestine conflict, etc, etc.  
It is up to you if you want to be a media SHEEP, simply following the herd, swallowing everything that media rams down your throat... As long as it stays at that... ! *
But if you think that what you have seen in mainstream media about Syria is the full truth, and particularly, if you believe that this is justification for any form of military intervention in Syria, then you have been manipulated*, similarly to Germans in the 3rd Reich, to mention a rather extreme example of how educated people with some moral integrity can be manipulated by a media and state agenda into believing that war is right and all the other lies that we know they were told there.  
It is very sad that this conflict is taking place and that people are dying.  *
But if there was a violent conflict in your country, would you want a larger country on the other side of the eart, like China,  to start arming the anti-government forces......* then step in and set up shop and start pursuing their own interests while ostensibly saving your people from themselves....   And what if you discovered, by the time China set up military bases and were patrolling the streets in your town, that they had an agenda going back as far as 15 years, for taking down the government in your country...?   
This analogy corresponds very closely to what we see happening in Syria right now, only it haven't played out to the end yet... But it is pretty clear what the end game is. _
One more thing you can take for whatever it is, or what it means to you: The whole (relatively large) local Christian minority in Syria support Assad:_ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_1...tand-by-assad/

----------


## Marcus

ИноФорум - Кошмар бойни в Хуле и его очевидцы
Вот еще.

----------


## Marcus

> Note that there are 50 streets and squares in Turkey named after Chechen rebel leader (the so-called president) Dzhokhar Dudayev, and Turkey is a US ally. Similar places also exist in Poland, the Baltic states and in Western Ukraine.  https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Duday...art=0&t=m&z=11

 While under Dudayev Ukrainians were robbed, killed, exiled together with Russians.

----------


## Eric C.

> While under Dudayev Ukrainians were robbed, killed, exiled together with Russians.

 What part of Ukraine has been under his rule?  ::

----------


## Anixx

> What part of Ukraine has been under his rule?

 He means Ukrainians who lived in Chechnya. Under Dudayev there was a large-scale ethnic cleansing in Chechnya where all non-Chechens were evicted or murdered. The cleansing has been supported by the West.

----------


## Lampada

> ... The cleansing has been supported by the West.

 You don't know what you're saying, obviously.

----------

