• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Putin's Message to Obama

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,803
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Putin's Eerily Persuasive Message to Barack Obama



I apologize in advance for the source. It's views are not necessarily my own. The main point here is Putin's message in the video the link contains. IJR simply happens to be the source where I came across it first.

At first glance, I'll admit that Putin's arguments seem rather convincing. After all, he is a suave and pragmatic man, and he does happen to be possessed of a decidedly shrewd political mind. All of those qualities are on rather clear display above.

However, given those qualities I have just enumerated, I suppose it should come as no surprise then that he also just so happens to be a skilled liar and brilliant spin artist. I frankly don't think I've ever seen a greater trove of blatant hypocrisy and historical revisionism than what he suggests above.

For instance, I'm still having a hard time fathoming how he could possibly have the audacity to lecture the United States on any matter pertaining to civilian casualties.

He certainly didn't care about such things in his invasion of Chechnya during the late 1990s. The conlfict is actually estimated to have killed over a quarter million civilians (most of them ethnic Russians living in Chechnya) over the course of its duration.

I'd also venture so far as to say that the UN probably didn't declare the region's capital, Gronzy, to be the "most destroyed city on Earth" after being stormed by Russian forces back in 2003 for nothing.

article-0-0025597200000258-685_634x375.jpg
grozny.jpg

We could've launched "Shock and Awe" against Saddam Hussein's Iraq one hundred times over and still not reached anywhere near that level of wanton destructiveness, and any damage we could ever conceivably do in Syria doesn't even begin to compare with it either. No offense to Mr. Putin, but methinks he would be wise to avoid throwing bricks in glass houses.

Furthermore, while his talk about going through the UN Security Council is all well and good, it also goes completely against his own track record.

He's absolutely did not "wait" for any kind of UN approval before making the decision to invade Chechnya in 1999, or Georgia in 2008. As a matter of fact, the international community was quite distraught over Russia's behavior during both of those conflicts.

Likewise, his claims that US intervention in the Middle East hasn't helped anything are off the mark as well. Our air campaign in Libya was quite successful, and managed to play a decisive role in toppling Gaddafi's regime without wracking up the outlandish costs demanded by a full scale invasion and occupation.

Granted, the Benghazi attack was unfortunate. However, that appears to have been an isolated incident, and it wasn't even one which the majority of Libya's people supported.

Libyans storm Ansar Al-Shariah compound in backlash after attack on US Consulate

Aside from this incident, Libya has actually been comparatively stable since the civil war's end.

The major meccas of civil unrest, violence, and disorder in the Middle East at the present moment are, as a matter of fact, Egypt and Syria; two nations in which the United States has so far made a point of avoiding direct military or political intervention entirely.

In short, Putin's whole spiel here is basically hypocritical and counter-factual nonsense from beginning to end. It is "do as I say, not as I do" style propaganda specifically meant to appeal to the fear and uncertainty of war-weary Western populations.

He doesn't give a damn about "harming innocents." He just wants to make sure that he doesn't lose one of his nation's most profitable military buyers.

How many people do you think will be suckered in by his arguments anyway regardless? :roll:
 
Last edited:

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Putin needs to shine on the international stage now.

His country is host to the next olympics that are shrouded in controversy due to the gay laws that were passed last month or so.
Numerous allegations of political policing and corruption are facing him at home. His tough guy macho act stopped impressing a large number of russians who want something else... someone else in charge.
He is losing political capital in Europe now that Ukraine is on the brink/has formed a trade agreement with the EU, Moldavia has succeded in securing an independent source of natural gas from Romania through a pipeline that was completed 1-2 months ago and relations between Russia and Belarus have soured due to a few import bans in both countries.
And the GDP of Russia is said to suffer another anemic growth, barely being a growth.

So the only thing Putin has going for him, politically, is to check the right answers in the answer box regarding international affairs, namely Syria and Egypt. Criticize the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and hope that other issues will calmly go away. He is right about libya. Libya went from a secular dictatorship under Ghadaffi to a islamized country where muslim militia call the shots and there are huge humanitarian problems there still. Though not civil war like problems, but still. Sharia law... unruly troops ,etc.

Anyway. I don't know if you can blame Putin for Chechnya. It is like if, I don't know, Texas making a separatist movement in the USA and the federal US government would invade Texas to uphold the union. You need to understand that Chechnya is a hub for islamist movements since it's the most radicalized territory in Russia, religiously and otherwise. The Boston bombers were Chechen too. So Chechnya is not a "Russia bad, poor chechens" situation. It's more like a "omg, **** is going down" situation.

But Georgia, that's another issue entirely.
 

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,803
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Anyway. I don't know if you can blame Putin for Chechnya. It is like if, I don't know, Texas making a separatist movement in the USA and the federal US government would invade Texas to uphold the union. You need to understand that Chechnya is a hub for islamist movements since it's the most radicalized territory in Russia, religiously and otherwise. The Boston bombers were Chechen too. So Chechnya is not a "Russia bad, poor chechens" situation. It's more like a "omg, **** is going down" situation.

This is true to a certain degree. However, I would point out that Chechnya's government was largely secular in basis, and that the mere presence of Islamism in a nation doesn't necessarily justify the sheer level of reckless collateral devastation that the Russian military was responsible for in that conflict.

As I pointed out before, the majority of the civilians killed were actually ethnic, secular Russians living in Chechnya, not Islamic Chechens.

The simple fact of the matter is that Putin didn't care. Russia got its collective ego badly bruised in Yeltsin's drunken bungling of the first Chechen War, and he thought revenge would make for a good way to boost both his domestic popularity and international prestige.

In all fairness, it worked brilliantly for him. It's just a shame that a quarter of a million people had to die for it.
 
Last edited:

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is true to a certain degree. However, I wouldn't point out that Chechnya's government was actually secular, and that the mere presence of Islamism in a nation doesn't necessarily justify the sheer level of reckless collateral devastation the Russian military was responsible for in that conflict.

As I pointed out before, the majority of the civilians killed were actually ethnic, secular Russians living in Chechnya, not Islamic Chechens.

The simple fact of the matter is that Putin didn't care. Russia got its collected ego badly bruised by Yeltsin's bungling of the first Chechen War, and he thought revenge would make for a good way to boost both his domestic popularity and international prestige.

In all fairness, it worked brilliantly for him. It's just a shame that a quarter of a million people had to die for it.

Fair enough point. But then again, when did Russia ever care for how many people died in a war, either soldiers or civilians? That's an almost non-Russian concept.

The first Chechen war was because the Chechens messed up badly. The Chechen republic was islamist... heck, if I remember right, the "president" was Emir or Sultan or some medieval arabic notion of rulership. It was also a case of bad timing. They tried to become independent in 1991... 1 year later than Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltic states declared their independence through the right of self-determination. While 1990 was the golden year for such thing, 1991 was 1 year too late.

And yeah, politically, Putin solidified his status as international tough guy through the war.
 

Painter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
583
Reaction score
314
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Very nicely done.
I may not agree with your overall point, but you did a spectacular job at presenting your argument.
I am just simply against intervention, regardless of what Putin has to say.
You'd make a good adviser to the press secretary or something like that lol.
 

Utility Man

Sidewalk Inspector
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
8,192
Reaction score
10,164
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed


....As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)....
Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo
 

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
7,751
Reaction score
4,718
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Notice the imperial attitude of all these world leaders in how they address each other. Putin is no longer addressing the United States, but Obama.

Obama is not the King of the U.S. Our Congress runs the show. It's not about what Obama wants, it's about what our Congress votes as being ok action to take.
 

Surtr

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
2,980
Location
The greatest planet in the world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Of course he's protecting his nation's interests. That's what executive heads of state do. However, as much as I hate it, I have to agree that military engagement of Syria is a terrible idea. Two reasons:

1) Launching a naval strike will not make those weapons disappear. They have to be located and properly neutralized according to these agent's chemical compositions. One plan was a newly developed weapon that would simply peirce the containers holding these chemicals with steel rods. That doesn't neutralize chemical weapons. Best case scenario, they remain in liquid form (assuming they are liquid) and only kill a couple dozen kids playing in contaminated zones three or for years later. Worst case, we puncture gaseous chemical agents, creating a cloud of death that kills hundreds of innocent civilians. If any action is to be taken, it's to physically find and dispose of those weapons the right way, by rendering them chemically inert. It just doesn't sound like any well thought out plan has been developed. Dealing with chemical agents is a very sensitive task that requires a lot of planning. Idiotically rushing into an active CBRN environment will get a lot of people killed.

2) Obama and Congress in all their great wisdom downsized the **** out of the military and cut the budget of our already exhausted forces. If **** gets real and we need to put boots on the ground in the middle of a grade A **** storm, we're ****ed because we don't have another invasion in us. We still desperately need to recover from the war we still have going on right now. I see no reason why we can't just let the UN have this one. Hell, send in NATO if Syria absolutely has to be attacked. The NRF has 25,000 personnel on standby for situations just like this.

It's ok to sit this one out. We aren't the only military force in the world that is capable of handling dickheads with illegal weapons.
 

Painter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
583
Reaction score
314
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Notice the imperial attitude of all these world leaders in how they address each other. Putin is no longer addressing the United States, but Obama.

Obama is not the King of the U.S. Our Congress runs the show. It's not about what Obama wants, it's about what our Congress votes as being ok action to take.

Obama had the authority, (and still does), to attack without Congress.
He is merely deferring to Congress to seek political cover.
Might be doubting himself a little too, but mostly just seeking cover.
 

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,803
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Very nicely done.
I may not agree with your overall point, but you did a spectacular job at presenting your argument.
I am just simply against intervention, regardless of what Putin has to say.
You'd make a good adviser to the press secretary or something like that lol.

Thanks for the compliment. :)

That actually is more or less what I already do with the Army. History and international relations are subjects which grab my interest, so I tend to be pretty good at keeping up with all of the various trivia surrounding them.

As far as intervention goes, I'm not entirely convinced that it is the right course of action either. There are a lot of different factors that still need to be weighed (most importantly, whether or not we can keep Al Qaeda affiliated groups from coming to power should Assad's regime fall) before we even consider committing ourselves to the conflict.

I simply found it to be absolutely mind boggling that Putin, of all people, would try and play "high and mighty" on the issue.

He doesn't care one iota for any of the "innocents" in Syria. He's simply looking out for number one.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,880
Reaction score
24,980
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
My response is simply this...if you don't like the messenger simply superimpose the face of someone you'd find more appealing and still listen to the message.

Everything he has stated is rational, reasonable, and responsible. Trying to undermine the message with fallacious comparisons simply because the messenger is a political opponent is disingenuous.

If there is actual evidence then our duty is to reveal it. Claiming how it was obtained is a secret, therefore we can't show it demands we grant our government a level of trust it has yet to prove itself worthy of. Basically, our government lies to us ALL THE TIME!

It is also true that the Syrian government has requested investigation of the incident, so why must we act militarily before such an investigation by NEUTRAL parties is concluded?

Finally, it is also true that we will inevitably cause "collateral damage" among the civilian population. Strange that we'd think ourselves morally justified to cause such harm on the grounds that such harm has already been caused.

It is irrelevent that the message comes from Putin, it is still a valid message nonetheless.
 
Last edited:

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, as I kept saying in other threads, Putin will not standby for a convenient vote from congress. See he is proactive and does not stand idle for western media to gain momentum and build for another airstrike. This is precaution.

Fallacies in his statements are the usual emphasis on when airstrikes failed to back up peace, freedom, and democracy in Muslims states. See he only mentions countries where it did not fail but where it is still a struggle. He as the opposition to airstrikes mentions them as "failed" in this friendly manner appealing to logic and "common sense" to which he has the say on what "common sense" should mean.

For one we are a Muslim country. Airstrikes worked here with the NATO intervention in 1999. We are free, peaceful, and we have democracy, and this fact should work against his list of "failed" attempts to free other such countries as well.

But I was expecting more than this pre-emptive media strike from Putin. Thought he would start connecting the gas attack on civilians somehow with USA. That would have been more aggressive and more typical Russian IMO. But it appears he wants to win the opinions of allies as well as USA with this more subtle and casual stance on the matter, attempting to redo the Russian image in a global scale at the same time also.

Media wars and the power of RT. I think CNN, BBC, and RTK (and others) should wise up and get out there and bring better quality data so as to counter the influence of RT. So far it is kicking butt!
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed


I apologize in advance for the source. It's views are not necessarily my own. The main point here is Putin's message in the video the link contains. IJR simply happens to be the source where I came across it first.

At first glance, I'll admit that Putin's arguments seem rather convincing. After all, he is a suave and pragmatic man, and he does happen to be possessed of a decidedly shrewd political mind. All of those qualities are on rather clear display above.

However, given those qualities I have just enumerated, I suppose it should come as no surprise then that he also just so happens to be a skilled liar and brilliant spin artist. I frankly don't think I've ever seen a greater trove of blatant hypocrisy and historical revisionism than what he suggests above.

For instance, I'm still having a hard time fathoming how he could possibly have the audacity to lecture the United States on any matter pertaining to civilian casualties.

He certainly didn't care about such things in his invasion of Chechnya during the late 1990s. The conlfict is actually estimated to have killed over a quarter million civilians (most of them ethnic Russians living in Chechnya) over the course of its duration.

I'd also venture so far as to say that the UN probably didn't declare the region's capital, Gronzy, to be the "most destroyed city on Earth" after being stormed by Russian forces back in 2003 for nothing.

View attachment 67153079
View attachment 67153080

We could've launched "Shock and Awe" against Saddam Hussein's Iraq one hundred times over and still not reached anywhere near that level of wanton destructiveness, and any damage we could ever conceivably do in Syria doesn't even begin to compare with it either. No offense to Mr. Putin, but methinks he would be wise to avoid throwing bricks in glass houses.

Furthermore, while his talk about going through the UN Security Council is all well and good, it also goes completely against his own track record.

He's absolutely did not "wait" for any kind of UN approval before making the decision to invade Chechnya in 1999, or Georgia in 2008. As a matter of fact, the international community was quite distraught over Russia's behavior during both of those conflicts.

Likewise, his claims that US intervention in the Middle East hasn't helped anything are off the mark as well. Our air campaign in Libya was quite successful, and managed to play a decisive role in toppling Gaddafi's regime without wracking up the outlandish costs demanded by a full scale invasion and occupation.

Granted, the Benghazi attack was unfortunate. However, that appears to have been an isolated incident, and it wasn't even one which the majority of Libya's people supported.

Libyans storm Ansar Al-Shariah compound in backlash after attack on US Consulate

Aside from this incident, Libya has actually been comparatively stable since the civil war's end.

The major meccas of civil unrest, violence, and disorder in the Middle East at the present moment are, as a matter of fact, Egypt and Syria; two nations in which the United States has so far made a point of avoiding direct military or political intervention entirely.

In short, Putin's whole spiel here is basically hypocritical and counter-factual nonsense from beginning to end. It is "do as I say, not as I do" style propaganda specifically meant to appeal to the fear and uncertainty of war-weary Western populations.

He doesn't give a damn about "harming innocents." He just wants to make sure that he doesn't lose one of his nation's most profitable military buyers.

How many people do you think will be suckered in by his arguments anyway regardless? :roll:


These are the dammnest lies possible. Use a subtle, calm, appealing tone, to convince and attract civility, while on the other hand butcher the civilians of the countries Russians want to influence upon.

I hope we get a look at this critically for it is media wars. Each party tries to win the other sides opinions with media influence. I must agree that the appeal to civility is strong. To tell you the truth, it is so strong that between looking at this type of media back in 1999 and the fires committed from Serbs that were taking place outside for real, the media was so strong, that it even tented to persuade me that all was peaceful even then!

Let us stop at this for a while. Fire burning houses near you, caused by Serbs whom you see burning houses, so this is real sensual data. Compared to a TV box and its peaceful claims with high ranking leaders telling you it is all well, logical, and "common sense," and the later wins over! Why?

Perhaps because we, all of us are peaceful people. We do not want war even if it is already occurring. We may want to avoid it and would rather accept a peaceful lie than a required truthful ugly war.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From the source.

The Kosovo campaign was also less tidily packaged at the time than it appears in retrospect. When the bombing began, NATO had not yet formulated its political conditions for halting the bombing. NATO nations hardened their views when the Serbs retaliated against the civilian population of Kosovo and neighboring Macedonia. These episodes are always fluid, but so long as your political coalition is well organized — and NATO was — objectives can be modified and clarified during the course of military action. Not every "I" has to be dotted or "t" crossed before initiating a strike.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I simply found it to be absolutely mind boggling that Putin, of all people, would try and play "high and mighty" on the issue.

He doesn't care one iota for any of the "innocents" in Syria. He's simply looking out for number one.

I do not think the two of us could stress that enough even if we were to use speakers with high, wall crushing, volumes. We know these things from experience. But laypeople... I guess they should mind the actions rather than words?

People, look at what is occurring (houses burned in Dardania's case, civilians murdered in Syria's case) to realize how deviant, sublime, and far reaching these lies are. One can attempt to copy the behaviors of leaders of a civilized world and seem this appealing, but what good is it if off the cameras they order manslaughter, torture, and other forms of mass murder?
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
My response is simply this...if you don't like the messenger simply superimpose the face of someone you'd find more appealing and still listen to the message.

Everything he has stated is rational, reasonable, and responsible. Trying to undermine the message with fallacious comparisons simply because the messenger is a political opponent is disingenuous.

If there is actual evidence then our duty is to reveal it. Claiming how it was obtained is a secret, therefore we can't show it demands we grant our government a level of trust it has yet to prove itself worthy of. Basically, our government lies to us ALL THE TIME!

It is also true that the Syrian government has requested investigation of the incident, so why must we act militarily before such an investigation by NEUTRAL parties is concluded?

Finally, it is also true that we will inevitably cause "collateral damage" among the civilian population. Strange that we'd think ourselves morally justified to cause such harm on the grounds that such harm has already been caused.

It is irrelevent that the message comes from Putin, it is still a valid message nonetheless.



Mornin CA. :2wave: Not to mention he has the UN Secretary General in his corner on this one. Already stating this Military Action against Syria would be illegal. Nor do they prefer any military action. They want a political solution.

Yet it was the Rebels from the get go that refused negotiations and stated there will be no Alawites in the Future of Syria.


AP Interview: Putin warns West on Syria action
AP Interview: Putin warns West on attacking Syria, wants 'convincing' evidence on poison gas.

1d828d1dd13f651d3c0f6a706700d8ee_original.jpg


President Vladimir Putin warned the West against taking one-sided action in Syria but also said Russia "doesn't exclude" supporting a U.N. resolution on punitive military strikes if it is proved that Damascus used poison gas on its own people.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press and Russia's state Channel 1 television, Putin said Moscow has provided some components of the S-300 air defense missile system to Syria but has frozen further shipments. He suggested that Russia may sell the potent missile systems elsewhere if Western nations attack Syria without U.N. Security Council backing.

The interview Tuesday night at Putin's country residence outside the Russian capital was the only one he granted prior to the summit of G-20 nations in St. Petersburg, which opens Thursday. The summit was supposed to concentrate on the global economy but now looks likely to be dominated by the international crisis over allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the country's civil war.

"President Obama hasn't been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia. And your humble servant hasn't been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either," he said of their relationship.

"We work, we argue about some issues. We are human. Sometimes one of us gets vexed. But I would like to repeat once again that global mutual interests form a good basis for finding a joint solution to our problems," Putin said.

Putin said it was "ludicrous" that the government of President Bashar Assad — a staunch ally of Russia — would use chemical weapons at a time when it was holding sway against the rebels.

"From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force," he said.....snip~

AP Interview: Putin warns West on Syria action
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,880
Reaction score
24,980
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Mornin CA. :2wave: Not to mention he has the UN Secretary General in his corner on this one. Already stating this Military Action against Syria would be illegal. Nor do they prefer any military action. They want a political solution.

Yet it was the Rebels from the get go that refused negotiations and stated there will be no Alawites in the Future of Syria.


AP Interview: Putin warns West on Syria action
AP Interview: Putin warns West on attacking Syria, wants 'convincing' evidence on poison gas.

1d828d1dd13f651d3c0f6a706700d8ee_original.jpg


President Vladimir Putin warned the West against taking one-sided action in Syria but also said Russia "doesn't exclude" supporting a U.N. resolution on punitive military strikes if it is proved that Damascus used poison gas on its own people.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press and Russia's state Channel 1 television, Putin said Moscow has provided some components of the S-300 air defense missile system to Syria but has frozen further shipments. He suggested that Russia may sell the potent missile systems elsewhere if Western nations attack Syria without U.N. Security Council backing.

The interview Tuesday night at Putin's country residence outside the Russian capital was the only one he granted prior to the summit of G-20 nations in St. Petersburg, which opens Thursday. The summit was supposed to concentrate on the global economy but now looks likely to be dominated by the international crisis over allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the country's civil war.

"President Obama hasn't been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia. And your humble servant hasn't been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either," he said of their relationship.

"We work, we argue about some issues. We are human. Sometimes one of us gets vexed. But I would like to repeat once again that global mutual interests form a good basis for finding a joint solution to our problems," Putin said.

Putin said it was "ludicrous" that the government of President Bashar Assad — a staunch ally of Russia — would use chemical weapons at a time when it was holding sway against the rebels.

"From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force," he said.....snip~

AP Interview: Putin warns West on Syria action

Morning MMC. Yep, the Russians are taking a turn projecting the "diplomatic" solution these days. And what are our leaders doing? John Kerry calls people like us "armchair isolationists," a perversion of interventionist "armchair generals."

Strange, after 2 years of ignoring Syria our government decides an attack on the Syrian government is now due because someone decided to call Obama's chemical weapons bluff...we don't know who but we are suddenly "highly confident" it was the Syrian government while finding it "highly unlikely" it was the rebels.

Gee, I wonder who had more to gain from a chemical attack? The Syrian government who seem to be slowly winning with no desire to risk outside intervention, or the Syrian Rebels who know doing so would bring outside intervention and help them win their war?
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Morning MMC. Yep, the Russians are taking a turn projecting the "diplomatic" solution these days. And what are our leaders doing? John Kerry calls people like us "armchair isolationists," a perversion of interventionist "armchair generals."

Strange, after 2 years of ignoring Syria our government decides an attack on the Syrian government is now due because someone decided to call Obama's chemical weapons bluff...we don't know who but we are suddenly "highly confident" it was the Syrian government while finding it "highly unlikely" it was the rebels.

Gee, I wonder who had more to gain from a chemical attack? The Syrian government who seem to be slowly winning with no desire to risk outside intervention, or the Syrian Rebels who know doing so would bring outside intervention and help them win their war?



I like the part where Putin points out how Assad had encircled some areas and was getting ready to finish the Rebels off. That can be validated by Satallite tracking. Now all of a sudden there is a time out. Course now Kerry and McCain are talking strategical sites to assist the rebels. A Special punishment for Assad and something to help the Rebels to get back into the game.

Kerry has turned into a blithering idiot. It was just a matter of time. He has no business playing with the Big Boyz.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,844
Reaction score
53,552
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I like the part where Putin points out how Assad had encircled some areas and was getting ready to finish the Rebels off. That can be validated by Satallite tracking. Now all of a sudden there is a time out. Course now Kerry and McCain are talking strategical sites to assist the rebels. A Special punishment for Assad and something to help the Rebels to get back into the game.

Kerry has turned into a blithering idiot. It was just a matter of time. He has no business playing with the Big Boyz.

What can be better to keep all else off of the front page? Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize guy, has invented the "mini war" plan where the U.S. unilaterally decides what needs to be blown up in a nation led by a "bad guy" by defing and enforcing "red line" laws in those nations. We are told that this "mini war" will last days, not weeks (whatever that means) and will not require boots on the ground. What is natrually left unsaid is what would happen if China or Russia also decided to define and enforce their own "red line" laws for other nations. Perhaps the Palestinians, Pakistan and Iran need to be told what their "red line" is. Naturally the military coup in Egypt crossed no such "red line", it only violates U.S. law to continue to send aid to them, so Obama (with congressional silence?) pretends that it did not really happen. The UN, which we spend way too much money on, surely seems usless in the "red line" age of Obama.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of course he wants it to go before the UN. He can veto any action. There are three letters that describe how I feel about anything Putin says; KGB.

And George H W Bush was CIA, what's the difference?
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gath, all the discrediting examples you point to on Russia equally apply to the US with its selective outrage of human rights abuses!!

Putin IS correct in the video clip.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
What can be better to keep all else off of the front page? Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize guy, has invented the "mini war" plan where the U.S. unilaterally decides what needs to be blown up in a nation led by a "bad guy" by defing and enforcing "red line" laws in those nations. We are told that this "mini war" will last days, not weeks (whatever that means) and will not require boots on the ground. What is natrually left unsaid is what would happen if China or Russia also decided to define and enforce their own "red line" laws for other nations. Perhaps the Palestinians, Pakistan and Iran need to be told what their "red line" is. Naturally the military coup in Egypt crossed no such "red line", it only violates U.S. law to continue to send aid to them, so Obama (with congressional silence?) pretends that it did not really happen. The UN, which we spend way too much money on, surely seems usless in the "red line" age of Obama.


Heya Ttwtt. :2wave: Do you think that much of that has to do with Obama listening to the French. Who they don't think they need any UN mandate to protect other populations?

Here are 10 things Putin told the Associated press.


10 interesting things Russia's Putin told the AP

1e537645d133651d3c0f6a706700900f.jpg


1. CHEMICAL WEAPONS VIDEOS DON'T PROVE SYRIA'S GOVERNMENT IS GUILTY

"As for that footage, video footage showing the dead children allegedly killed in the chemical attack, it is horrible. The question is only who did it and what they did, and who is responsible for this. These pictures do not answer the questions I have just posed. There is an opinion that it's a compilation by these very rebels, who are connected with al-Qaida and who were always distinguished by exceptional brutality."

2. RUSSIA WON'T RULE OUT MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SYRIA — IF U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVES

"I do not exclude this, but I would like to draw your attention to one absolutely key aspect: In line with international law, only the U.N. Security Council can sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. Any other pretext or method which might be used to justify the use of force against an independent sovereign state is inadmissible and can only be interpreted as an aggression."

3. RUSSIAN SHIPMENTS OF AIR DEFENSE MISSILE SYSTEM TO SYRIA ON HOLD — FOR NOW

"We have a contract for the delivery of the S-300s. We have supplied some of the components, but the delivery hasn't been completed. We have suspended it for now. But if we see that steps are taken that violate the existing international norms, we shall think how we should act in the future, in particular regarding supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world."

4. RELATIONS WITH OBAMA CAN BE TESTY — BUT THAT'S NORMAL
5. ... AND DON'T READ TOO MUCH INTO BODY LANGUAGE
6. NO OFFENSE, BUT U.S. SPIES LOST THE PLOT ON NSA LEAKER EDWARD SNOWDEN
7. HOMOPHOBIC, ME? LOOK HOW MANY AWARDS I'VE GIVEN TO GAYS!
8. TERRORISTS MUST BE FACED DOWN AND STOPPED

"Terrorists are always a threat to someone. If we're scared of them, it means they have won. But that doesn't mean we can have a devil-may-care attitude toward this threat. We must do everything to stop these threats and not give the terrorists a single chance to demonstrate their brutality and hatred of mankind."

9. OPPOSITION LEADER ALEXEI NAVALNY SHOULD CLEAN UP HIS OWN ACT BEFORE CRITICIZING CORRUPTION
10. BEWARE OF CALLS BY THE ELITE FOR REVOLUTION

"We should all be aware of the fact that when revolutionary — not evolutionary — changes come, things can get even worse. The intelligentsia should be aware of this. And it is the intelligentsia specifically that should keep this in mind and prevent society from radical steps and revolutions of all kinds. We've had enough of it. We've seen so many revolutions and wars. We need decades of calm and harmonious development.".....snip~

10 interesting things Russia's Putin told the AP
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,844
Reaction score
53,552
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Heya Ttwtt. :2wave: Do you think that much of that has to do with Obama listening to the French. Who they don't think they need any UN mandate to protect other populations?

Here are 10 things Putin told the Associated press.


10 interesting things Russia's Putin told the AP

1e537645d133651d3c0f6a706700900f.jpg


1. CHEMICAL WEAPONS VIDEOS DON'T PROVE SYRIA'S GOVERNMENT IS GUILTY

"As for that footage, video footage showing the dead children allegedly killed in the chemical attack, it is horrible. The question is only who did it and what they did, and who is responsible for this. These pictures do not answer the questions I have just posed. There is an opinion that it's a compilation by these very rebels, who are connected with al-Qaida and who were always distinguished by exceptional brutality."

2. RUSSIA WON'T RULE OUT MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SYRIA — IF U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVES

"I do not exclude this, but I would like to draw your attention to one absolutely key aspect: In line with international law, only the U.N. Security Council can sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. Any other pretext or method which might be used to justify the use of force against an independent sovereign state is inadmissible and can only be interpreted as an aggression."

3. RUSSIAN SHIPMENTS OF AIR DEFENSE MISSILE SYSTEM TO SYRIA ON HOLD — FOR NOW

"We have a contract for the delivery of the S-300s. We have supplied some of the components, but the delivery hasn't been completed. We have suspended it for now. But if we see that steps are taken that violate the existing international norms, we shall think how we should act in the future, in particular regarding supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world."

4. RELATIONS WITH OBAMA CAN BE TESTY — BUT THAT'S NORMAL
5. ... AND DON'T READ TOO MUCH INTO BODY LANGUAGE
6. NO OFFENSE, BUT U.S. SPIES LOST THE PLOT ON NSA LEAKER EDWARD SNOWDEN
7. HOMOPHOBIC, ME? LOOK HOW MANY AWARDS I'VE GIVEN TO GAYS!
8. TERRORISTS MUST BE FACED DOWN AND STOPPED

"Terrorists are always a threat to someone. If we're scared of them, it means they have won. But that doesn't mean we can have a devil-may-care attitude toward this threat. We must do everything to stop these threats and not give the terrorists a single chance to demonstrate their brutality and hatred of mankind."

9. OPPOSITION LEADER ALEXEI NAVALNY SHOULD CLEAN UP HIS OWN ACT BEFORE CRITICIZING CORRUPTION
10. BEWARE OF CALLS BY THE ELITE FOR REVOLUTION

"We should all be aware of the fact that when revolutionary — not evolutionary — changes come, things can get even worse. The intelligentsia should be aware of this. And it is the intelligentsia specifically that should keep this in mind and prevent society from radical steps and revolutions of all kinds. We've had enough of it. We've seen so many revolutions and wars. We need decades of calm and harmonious development.".....snip~

10 interesting things Russia's Putin told the AP

The French are broke and likely see this as a chance to get a much needed infusion of U.S. cash for spendning a minor amount of it on "helping" the U.S. blow stuff up in Syria. ;)
 

lolabird

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
114
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Putin's Eerily Persuasive Message to Barack Obama



I apologize in advance for the source. It's views are not necessarily my own. The main point here is Putin's message in the video the link contains. IJR simply happens to be the source where I came across it first.

At first glance, I'll admit that Putin's arguments seem rather convincing. After all, he is a suave and pragmatic man, and he does happen to be possessed of a decidedly shrewd political mind. All of those qualities are on rather clear display above.

However, given those qualities I have just enumerated, I suppose it should come as no surprise then that he also just so happens to be a skilled liar and brilliant spin artist. I frankly don't think I've ever seen a greater trove of blatant hypocrisy and historical revisionism than what he suggests above.

For instance, I'm still having a hard time fathoming how he could possibly have the audacity to lecture the United States on any matter pertaining to civilian casualties.

He certainly didn't care about such things in his invasion of Chechnya during the late 1990s. The conlfict is actually estimated to have killed over a quarter million civilians (most of them ethnic Russians living in Chechnya) over the course of its duration.

I'd also venture so far as to say that the UN probably didn't declare the region's capital, Gronzy, to be the "most destroyed city on Earth" after being stormed by Russian forces back in 2003 for nothing.

View attachment 67153079
View attachment 67153080

We could've launched "Shock and Awe" against Saddam Hussein's Iraq one hundred times over and still not reached anywhere near that level of wanton destructiveness, and any damage we could ever conceivably do in Syria doesn't even begin to compare with it either. No offense to Mr. Putin, but methinks he would be wise to avoid throwing bricks in glass houses.

Furthermore, while his talk about going through the UN Security Council is all well and good, it also goes completely against his own track record.

He's absolutely did not "wait" for any kind of UN approval before making the decision to invade Chechnya in 1999, or Georgia in 2008. As a matter of fact, the international community was quite distraught over Russia's behavior during both of those conflicts.

Likewise, his claims that US intervention in the Middle East hasn't helped anything are off the mark as well. Our air campaign in Libya was quite successful, and managed to play a decisive role in toppling Gaddafi's regime without wracking up the outlandish costs demanded by a full scale invasion and occupation.

Granted, the Benghazi attack was unfortunate. However, that appears to have been an isolated incident, and it wasn't even one which the majority of Libya's people supported.

Libyans storm Ansar Al-Shariah compound in backlash after attack on US Consulate

Aside from this incident, Libya has actually been comparatively stable since the civil war's end.

The major meccas of civil unrest, violence, and disorder in the Middle East at the present moment are, as a matter of fact, Egypt and Syria; two nations in which the United States has so far made a point of avoiding direct military or political intervention entirely.

In short, Putin's whole spiel here is basically hypocritical and counter-factual nonsense from beginning to end. It is "do as I say, not as I do" style propaganda specifically meant to appeal to the fear and uncertainty of war-weary Western populations.

He doesn't give a damn about "harming innocents." He just wants to make sure that he doesn't lose one of his nation's most profitable military buyers.

How many people do you think will be suckered in by his arguments anyway regardless? :roll:


He's a suave and pragmatic man you say.
He has no qualms about gassing children. In my opinion that makes him a monster.
 
Top Bottom