Military Intervention in Syria.

[eradicator]

looks like she's been hit with sarin gas

 

[Don Juan Tenorio]

Nigel Farage, one of the few (if not the only) consistant and honest man in the political scene, freaking out the European Parlament with his speech:

 

[eradicator]

Nigel Farage, one of the few (if not the only) consistant and honest man in the political scene, freaking out the European Parlament with his speech:

Farage would fit in great on this forum. That is an epic clip right there. This reminds me a little of watching the house of the commons

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

deleted

 

[Vacancier Permanent]

Vladimir is not only the most interesting man in the world, but also he could very well play as the next Bond! I see a striking similarity between him and that latest Bond, Daniel Craig. Does anyone else see the similarities between the two?
I'm tempted to name my first born son Vladimir in hommage to the great Vladimir P!

The most compelling image is that of Putin riding that big ass bike with no helmet, while Obama rides a freaking bike, like a little girl, wearing a helmet! That right there says it all between the 2. Oh and the fact that one is banging a smoking hot thin feminine girl while the other, a monster doesn't help his case neither...JFK, Reagan and all the other great masculine US presidents must be turning in their graves at seeing that...

Not to mention Putin bangs her:

While Obama... well we all know who has the balls in the whitehouse:

 

[Don Juan Tenorio]

Vladimir is not only the most interesting man in the world, but also he could very well play as the next Bond! I see a striking similarity between him and that latest Bond, Daniel Craig. Does anyone else see the similarities between the two?
I'm tempted to name my first born son Vladimir in hommage to the great Vladimir P!

The most compelling image is that of Putin riding that big ass bike with no helmet, while Obama rides a freaking bike, like a little girl, wearing a helmet! That right there says it all between the 2. Oh and the fact that one is banging a smoking hot thin feminine girl while the other, a monster doesn't help his case neither...JFK, Reagan and all the other great masculine US presidents must be turning in their graves at seeing that...

Roosh could grant his excellency Vladimir Putin honorary membership, he is in the same wave-length of the forum and preech game and success with facts, not words.

 

[bojangles]

Send Mr Putin an invite, maybe he can grant as asylum when we need it.

 

[Tex Pro]

Putin wrote an op-ed in the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?hp

A Plea for Caution From Russia

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Speaks volume of the state of our "democracy" when the leader of RUSSIA of all places is the one calling for rational dialogue and adherence to the rule of law in international affairs.

 

[Samseau]

Well, good thing he wrote it to the NYT... where the liberals can appreciate his message.

Top comment:

Dear Mr. Putin, when you state that God created us all equal, you mean also gay people, right?

 

[tiggaling]

The rumour is that Obama is actually gay. (you can just see him out there blowing his little plastic whistle at a gay nightclub in a shiny leather hat can you not?)

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/claim-obama-hid-gay-life-to-become-president/

America proposes it is a bastion of the good and the just; and maybe a long time ago that was actually the case. After WWII, the government of America has instigated many wars that have unleashed untold suffering onto the world. And to what effect and result?

Americans propose they are "the world's policeman", but it doesn't take much to see the cops are completely corrupt! And this is the most dangerous stance of "specialness", that we are the do-gooders, which it is in fact an ignorant egotism a lot of people still buy; yet, the "obama administration" is rotten to the core. And what scares me, is when this mask comes off, I really think we are all in big trouble.

Putin's mask is of the tough guy leader, who makes hard line decisions, but underneath that, I think he is a sincere and well meaning guy and I really think that comes through in his letter.

All I read underneath Obama's rhetoric, is slimey policking, compromise and the manipulation of the public. He's never come across as sincere to me, full of schmaltzy platitudes and empty words. Like a used cars salesman trying to sell Americans another dodgy war for the sake of his "mates" in the military industrial complex.

 

[tiggaling]

Note how people say, "Putin is bad because he was head of the KGB!" you might as well be saying, they are the bad guys and we are the good guys!

But they never blinked an eye about George H. W. Bush being former head of the CIA, because "we" are supposed to be "the good guys". when in reality, spying is a nasty business whatever team you are on.

I thought it was crazy enough when George H. W. Bush's obviously inept SON got job of President. Is this democracy or some sort of dictatorship where Baby Doc gets into power after Papa Doc? or the comparison can be made to Bashar Al-Assad suceeding his father!

 

[Samseau]

Anyone who trusts Putin is kidding themselves.

 

[ElJefe]

I used to not think well of Putin, but we must admit... is there any leader in the world today who is doing more to stem the tide of cultural relativism and all its minions?

As an intellectual, I'm almost more in favor of fighting for Putin than for Obama. Obama would destroy Christianity, Putin seeks an alliance of Christian states.

 

[Samseau]

I used to not think well of Putin, but we must admit... is there any leader in the world today who is doing more to stem the tide of cultural relativism and all its minions?

As an intellectual, I'm almost more in favor of fighting for Putin than for Obama. Obama would destroy Christianity, Putin seeks an alliance of Christian states.

Putin is only doing this to advance his own cause as a hero of the people.

Who knows what his actual motives are? He's been the dictator of Russia for over 10 years, and Russia isn't exactly experiencing a revival right now.

 

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I love democracy. But if it is the sick kind of democracy that we now have in the west, then please give me a benevolent dictator instead.

 

[Don Juan Tenorio]

Putin is only doing this to advance his own cause as a hero of the people.

Who knows what his actual motives are? He's been the dictator of Russia for over 10 years, and Russia isn't exactly experiencing a revival right now.

Let's face it, there are countries which are not ready to have a democracy and the best they can do is have some kind of illustrated tyrant that fills his pockets while he takes care of his people and grant stability and social peace. What would be the alternative to Putin? An oligarch? A communist rebirth? Do you really think Obama, Bush (Jr and Sr) or Klinton looked after the interests of the American people better than Putin does of the Russians?

Let's face it, to have a democracy you need, among other features:

· A community composed by intelectually fit citizens. There is no chance of democracy in countries where more than half of the population can't read nor write and whose wills are manipulated by religious groups or a local warlord). There is no way you can have a democracy in the countries listed in green or yellow, not to mention those in red.

· People must be self-suficient and able to sustain themselves and their families by their own means, having therefor an interest of their own to deffend. Those with nothing left to lose and depending on the intervation of the government are herd of captive voters who will go for him who promise them more social wellfare and social benefits.

· The voters must feel part of the community and an active part in the decission taking; sometime they make feel voters like women: we are told all kind of bullshit we want to hear during elections, then when they bang, they run away and forget all their promisses.

I don't think the corporate plutarchy you have in the USA could be considered a democracy. Lobbysts orders are heard louder and executed fast. If you want to see a real democracy looks like you should check Switzerland:






Take for instance Monsieur Holland, whose rise to power was supported by the 3Ms: moros, mujeres y maricas (muslims, women and fags) while if the only vote that had counted were that of those who have a job and pay taxes results would have been quite different.


There are countries which are unsustainable with a democratical political system.

 

[bojangles]

we have the same here in the UK, the jobless and benefit claimants all vote for Labour, because Labour always promises more benefits.

I'd trust Putin more than any western leader because his actions are the same as his words.

Whilst Obama wins a Nobel Peace Prize and then wants to start wars.

 

[Quintus Curtius]

I wanted to share something related to "military intervention" in Syria. The Asia Times a few years ago published a fantastic 3 part analysis by Alastaire Crook of how Hezbollah defeated Israel in the 2006 war. Anyone interested in modern military conflicts should really check this out. It's a textbook example of how a more powerful foe can be defeated by a determined guerrilla organization:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Others/hezbollah.html

 

[bojangles]

That's a good article, guerillas have defeated the US before as well