• 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!

Vladmir Putin

Congress will not say no. The one thing our two major parties agree on is blowing people up across the globe. Then they wonder why they hate us. Newsflash: It ain't because of our freedoms.

I support our country in military actions, when it actually threatens our country.

Afghanistan, I was OK with. Iraq and this....not so much and stand against it.

I think the world in part, needs to stop looking at the U.S. as their police dogs. It's utter crap.
 
Personally, I would rather address the issue than the people involved. The fact Hitler loved dogs does not mean dogs are bad. The fact Putin has a strong interest in the status quo does not mean we have a strong interest in upsetting the status quo. I look at the recent history in the ME. I look at the fact that Islamic fundamentalists are raising cane through out the world and I ask if it is in our interest to get involved in Syria. In my opinion the answer is no.

And that would be my personal opinion as well. Let's not assume anything.
 
You people always fall on the wrong side of history .....you always get it wrong.

Iraq was the wrong war.

This Strike ...will be the right action.

Remember ...you guys couldn't wait to get into Iraq in 2003 ....to save people Saddam gassed 1988.

And all of sudden you can't stomach a strike that won't involve ground troops ...that can save lives being lost now???

Your insane partisan stance ....sickening. The idea that nothing ...no matter what the situation is ...means you must always be against the president ...is sickening.
I remember in 2003 how you guys wanted all America to ..."come together and invade Iraq.
I remember how the Dixie Chicks literally had to run for their lives because they simply disagree.

Remember Michelle Bachman cries of communist among the democratic party.....and now look ...look at the right wing siding with Vldimir and Assad...against America and Israel......very very sickening to see.

Citizenship should means something .....it shouldn't be ...part-time. Any idiot can criticize America and the President ...and receive cheers from the right right-wing ...including Russia...and it's sickening to watch.
 
You people always fall on the wrong side of history .....you always get it wrong.

Iraq was the wrong war.

This Strike ...will be the right action.

Remember ...you guys couldn't wait to get into Iraq in 2003 ....to save people Saddam gassed 1988.

And all of sudden you can't stomach a strike that won't involve ground troops ...that can save lives being lost now???

Your insane partisan stance ....sickening. The idea that nothing ...no matter what the situation is ...means you must always be against the president ...is sickening.
I remember in 2003 how you guys wanted all America to ..."come together and invade Iraq.
I remember how the Dixie Chicks literally had to run for their lives because they simply disagree.

Remember Michelle Bachman cries of communist among the democratic party.....and now look ...look at the right wing siding with Vldimir and Assad...against America and Israel......very very sickening to see.

Citizenship should means something .....it shouldn't be ...part-time. Any idiot can criticize America and the President ...and receive cheers from the right right-wing ...including Russia...and it's sickening to watch.

Who is "you people"?

Here's a clue for you my friend: Don't assume that just because someone has an "R" next to their name that they were in support of the Iraq war.

The quickest way to tell a partisan hack , is by the broad brush strokes they paint others with.
 
Who is "you people"?

Here's a clue for you my friend: Don't assume that just because someone has an "R" next to their name that they were in support of the Iraq war.

The quickest way to tell a partisan hack , is by the broad brush strokes they paint others with.

Labeling arguments and attacking individuals is what people who cannot debate the issues do.

Let us get back to the issue. Pat Buchanan asks some good questions.

•Do we have incontrovertible proof that Bashar Assad ordered chemical weapons be used on his own people? And if he did not, who did?

•What kind of reprisals might we expect if we launch cruise missiles at Syria, which is allied with Hezbollah and Iran?

•If we attack, and Syria or its allies attack U.S. military or diplomatic missions in the Middle East or here in the United States, are we prepared for the wider war we will have started?

•Assuming Syria responds with a counterstrike, how far are we prepared to go up the escalator to regional war? If we intervene, are we prepared for the possible defeat of the side we have chosen, which would then be seen as a strategic defeat for the United States?

•If stung and bleeding from retaliation, are we prepared to go all the way, boots on the ground, to bring down Assad? Are we prepared to occupy Syria to prevent its falling to the Al-Nusra Front, which it may if Assad falls and we do not intervene?
Maybe we should have some answers to those questions before we proceed.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I would rather address the issue than the people involved. The fact Hitler loved dogs does not mean dogs are bad. The fact Putin has a strong interest in the status quo does not mean we have a strong interest in upsetting the status quo. I look at the recent history in the ME. I look at the fact that Islamic fundamentalists are raising cane through out the world and I ask if it is in our interest to get involved in Syria. In my opinion the answer is no.

Wow ...what logic ....hhhmm...Hitler loves dog ...and so Assad and Putin are good people???:lamo
 
Wow ...what logic ....hhhmm...Hitler loves dog ...and so Assad and Putin are good people???:lamo

See someone still cannot address the issue. Why don't you answer the five questions posed by Pat Buchanan. I realize that takes a little snap which you appear to be lacking.
 
Nothing good will come out of a US strike on Assad in Syria, so yes, we should be worried. There are no good guys in Syria, and if the rebels force regime change, the "new" Syria will be led by a radical Islamist arm of Al Qaeda. Obama has been so bi-polar about this... let's wait, red flag, let's wait for conformation, more red flags, let's wait, okay we're going in, no we're going to congress instead... it makes me think his foreign policy is based on using a ouija board.
 
Serious, or no? Syria and Russia are allies. Should we worry?




Obama Prepares for Syria Action With Intelligence Report - Bloomberg

Worry? It depends what you mean. If we are talking about military action or intervention then the answer is: No not at all. If on the other hand you mean increased Russian support or amiability towards US opponents like Iran or troublemaking in frontier zones like the Caucuses then then answer is that it is a possibility. However Russia's ability to hurt the US and our interests has decreased significantly especially as the northern distribution network (NDN) that supplies troops in Afghanistan winds to a close.
 
The greatest danger we face from our meddling in the ME is not the actions of a nation but the actions of a terrorist group. We have yet to learn the lesson of 9/11.
 
The Russians rely on oil and gas from Iran and Iran is supporting Syria so Russia is supporting its own interests. Furthermore, as long as the islamists are involved in Syria (or anywhere else in the ME) then they are less of a threat in the Caucasus. Russia's biggest fear is that if Syria becomes friendly to the west then so will Iraq which will then put a whole lot of pressure on Iran to fall in line. If that happens then Russia's primary oil and gas supply (which is its bargaining chip with western Europe) will be in jeopardy. With less bargaining power with the west China can then put pressure on them from the east and, strategically, they're screwed.

What do you mean? Russia does not rely on oil and gas imports from Iran, it is a major net exporter. What Russia does import I'm pretty sure mostly comes from the spot market and I think the situation is greatly improved from where it was a few years ago when they were pulling in something like 100,000bbl a day (I think it's down to the 40,000 mark). Nor is Iran the major conduit for Russian exports so I'm not sure what you are referring to. I'm also not convinced that Iraq figures prominently in Russia's strategic vision, it is fairly far from their potential orbit.

Why is Russia concerned about Syria? For fairly simple reasons. The regime in Damascus and their tiny little naval station at Tartus represents their last real ally and toehold in the wider region. Since 1990 they have seen the collapse of allies (strong or erstwhile) in Yemen, Iraq, and Libya all the while the GCC has strengthened which has further reduced Russian influence in the immediate region, the rise of Turkey has curtailed Russian reach across the northern Middle East and challenged them in the Caucuses, and on and on. The American and Western position has appeared to grow stronger and stronger and with the fall of Assad it will remove Russia from the region entirely except as a peripheral power and as an interlocutor with Iran. Of course there are ancillary reasons some of which you mentioned (bolstering secessionist or Islamist movements in Russia, underlining the doctrine of humanitarian intervention in foreign policy, historical animosities and narratives, etc) but the aforementioned one is the primary root of Russian fear.

The global board has been turning more and more to the liking of the West and Russian efforts have thus far completely failed to halt this trajectory. Losing Syria would be another piece knocked to the ground.
 
The greatest danger we face from our meddling in the ME is not the actions of a nation but the actions of a terrorist group. We have yet to learn the lesson of 9/11.

We do not base our decisions on what a reactionary Islamist thinks. Our foreign policy is not indicted because Bin Laden and his like claimed grievances with us--they can claim all the grievances they want it does not invalidate our decisions morally or in terms of utility. These people are not the arbiters of what we do or do not do. Was it wrong to eject Saddam from Kuwait because it angered Bin Laden? No. If that is a consequence then so be it. In the 1940's when the Japanese Empire attacked us in large part because enacted a restrictive embargo. Was it the proximate 'cause' for the Japanese decision to attack? Probably. But it doesn't mean we made a mistake. Likewise today our country is not hostage to these fanatics.
 
We do not base our decisions on what a reactionary Islamist thinks. Our foreign policy is not indicted because Bin Laden and his like claimed grievances with us--they can claim all the grievances they want it does not invalidate our decisions morally or in terms of utility. These people are not the arbiters of what we do or do not do. Was it wrong to eject Saddam from Kuwait because it angered Bin Laden? No. If that is a consequence then so be it. In the 1940's when the Japanese Empire attacked us in large part because enacted a restrictive embargo. Was it the proximate 'cause' for the Japanese decision to attack? Probably. But it doesn't mean we made a mistake. Likewise today our country is not hostage to these fanatics.

We got no legitimate interest in screwing with Syria. Yes, we could go ahead and nuke Canada and France if we wish. Don't think it would do us much good.
 
We got no legitimate interest in screwing with Syria. Yes, we could go ahead and nuke Canada and France if we wish. Don't think it would do us much good.

That has nothing at all to do with what I said or what you said.
 
That has nothing at all to do with what I said or what you said.

It has everything to do with it. Why risk retaliation if there is no gain from acting in the first place? The risk/ reward ratio needs to be examined. The possibility of retaliation needs to be considered. All potential costs and benefits need to be examined.
 
It seems strange to even contemplate, just going to another country and killing people for no reason whatsoever just because a strange, childlike leader wants to kill people. How far Obama has taken us from the worldwide force for goodness that was America.

My conscience bothers me because of what Obama is doing in our name. He belongs back in a 3rd world country, not in America. He is not one of us and our cultural heritage is strange and foreign to him. He is not an American and he hates the concept of America.

What the Hell is it with you Liberals and your endless inexplicable wars?
 
Last edited:
What do you mean? Russia does not rely on oil and gas imports from Iran, it is a major net exporter. What Russia does import I'm pretty sure mostly comes from the spot market and I think the situation is greatly improved from where it was a few years ago when they were pulling in something like 100,000bbl a day (I think it's down to the 40,000 mark). Nor is Iran the major conduit for Russian exports so I'm not sure what you are referring to. I'm also not convinced that Iraq figures prominently in Russia's strategic vision, it is fairly far from their potential orbit.

Why is Russia concerned about Syria? For fairly simple reasons. The regime in Damascus and their tiny little naval station at Tartus represents their last real ally and toehold in the wider region. Since 1990 they have seen the collapse of allies (strong or erstwhile) in Yemen, Iraq, and Libya all the while the GCC has strengthened which has further reduced Russian influence in the immediate region, the rise of Turkey has curtailed Russian reach across the northern Middle East and challenged them in the Caucuses, and on and on. The American and Western position has appeared to grow stronger and stronger and with the fall of Assad it will remove Russia from the region entirely except as a peripheral power and as an interlocutor with Iran. Of course there are ancillary reasons some of which you mentioned (bolstering secessionist or Islamist movements in Russia, underlining the doctrine of humanitarian intervention in foreign policy, historical animosities and narratives, etc) but the aforementioned one is the primary root of Russian fear.

The global board has been turning more and more to the liking of the West and Russian efforts have thus far completely failed to halt this trajectory. Losing Syria would be another piece knocked to the ground.

While I like your analysis I have to disagree about the oil. The Western Siberian fields are in significant decline and new production is going to have to come from East Siberia which will be both difficult and expensive. Right now Russia's best bet is the Priobskoye field but if prices drop much under $100/bbl then it probably won't be economically viable to increase development. As far as developing reserves farther east or farther north.....well, they better hope global warming kicks in like Al Gore says it will.
 
Obama abandoned the Middle East, his Middle east foreign policies have all been a complete failure.

Russia filled that vacuum that Obama created and Russia is the big outsider in the Middle East who now has the influence.

Even the Egyptian military are now looking at Russia.

Now Putin just doesn't like Obama, Putin thinks Obama is the perfect example of a pantywaist.
 
He's not the only one...

I have to admit that G.W. Bush had a chance to better American/Russian relationships but Bush still had the Cold War mentality and looked at Putin as that evil KGB. But Putin respected Bush because he had cajones.

Russia could have been one of our best allies against Islamist facist and terrorist. Bush blew it.

All Putin wanted was some respect for Russia. He didn't get it and now he's rebuilding a new Russian military.

The Naval Institute "Proceedings" and Janes have both commented on the new Russian navy that is being built. Very interesting. Something new never done before. Over the past sixty years, the worlds navies have always waited to see what the Soviets/Russians would put to sea.
 
I have to admit that G.W. Bush had a chance to better American/Russian relationships but Bush still had the Cold War mentality and looked at Putin as that evil KGB. But Putin respected Bush because he had cajones.

Russia could have been one of our best allies against Islamist facist and terrorist. Bush blew it.

All Putin wanted was some respect for Russia. He didn't get it and now he's rebuilding a new Russian military.

The Naval Institute "Proceedings" and Janes have both commented on the new Russian navy that is being built. Very interesting. Something new never done before. Over the past sixty years, the worlds navies have always waited to see what the Soviets/Russians would put to sea.

Well, you put Dick and Don -- two Cold War relics in positions of prominence. You fill the rest of the field with neocon nitwits, and a soldier not knowing he didn't have to follow orders -- what did you think was gonna happen?

So much for seeing into his soul...
 
I think right now Putin sees this as nothing more than an opportunity to embarrass the US (specifically Obama) and make himself look more 'presidential'. Putin has no respect for Obama.

Putin will never be able to resist an act that would embarrass the US and will happily take every chance he can to strike at the heart of the US-Russia rivalry.

Granting temporary asylum to Edward Snowden is a very good example of that.
 
For once I agree with Putin our adventures in the ME have seldom gone according to plan. It is easy for us to take a dictator down but what is always a threat to take the dictator's place is an Islamic fundamentalist government that even when democratically elected are tyrannical in nature with no respect for women or other minorities. Democracy without respect for individual liberty is nothing more than tyranny of the majority.

Well look at Egypt. They are going back the right path are they not?
 
Back
Top Bottom