Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As putin sees it, America sends a boy to do a mans job
Finally someone figures out that Os boyish charm might seduce the middle class liberal soccer mom but it is a joke in tougher international circles...Obama is a "nice guy" - and you know what they say about nice guys.
The isolationist/anti-foreign policy rhetoric the Libertarians preach is a pipe dream. It's easy to claim you'll ignore NATO commitments and whatnot when you struggle to gain 2% of the popular vote each election.
If pro-neutrality views were exclusive to the Libertarian Party, you would have a point. Since they aren't, you don't.
Not to mention: when did the Syrian rebels join NATO?
For our Country to be the most outspoken and went into the meeting and knew how it was going to go down and just say it like we saw it.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who's been on a European tour on his way to the summit, was not involved in the video call. However, he has accepted the U.S. conclusion about the use of chemical weapons.
"We share the view of our allies, I think, based on the evidence before us, that there have been uses of chemical weapons in Syria by the regime," Harper said at a joint press conference on Thursday with Hollande.
But, speaking Wednesday to the British Parliament, Harper came down firmly against arming the rebels — many of whom are Sunni Islamist forces, fighting to displace a regime backed by Iran and its client Shia militia in Lebanon, Hezbollah.
"The extremist, sectarian nature of much of the opposition cannot be ignored or wished away," said Harper, adding that "Syria cannot be allowed to become another safe haven for the hydra-heads of terrorism."
Now, Harper may have to re-align his policy with those of allies like the U.S., Britain and France, who are all moving away from the sidelines. But, even if he does, it does not seem likely that the Russians will move with them. source Harper heads to G8 summit amid shrinking expectations - Politics - CBC News
Harper is shrewd - we here in Canada have a good but very limited military...it is almost symbolic...Harper is like the smart guy who makes friends with his neighbors who happen to be Hell's Angles...It's not that he likes them - he just likes the protection that is offered- the saving of security costs and the great savings on military spending...Canada has always sucked up to America...we are like parasites on your military...we know one thing...our big brother to the south can kick ass - better to have a bully for a competent bully for a buddy than some wimp.
If pro-neutrality views were exclusive to the Libertarian Party, you would have a point. Since they aren't, you don't.
Not to mention: when did the Syrian rebels join NATO?
Who are these supposed rebels? Does anyone really know including the folks at the White House? I doubt very much that anyone has a clear idea of what and who is going on in Syria...you stick on the title of "rebels" and because it is the middle east - some how the term rebel takes on a noble and just flavor- I suspect they are also monsters.
Who are these supposed rebels? Does anyone really know including the folks at the White House? I doubt very much that anyone has a clear idea of what and who is going on in Syria...you stick on the title of "rebels" and because it is the middle east - some how the term rebel takes on a noble and just flavor- I suspect they are also monsters.
It's all propaganda...I remember how our wonderful government called Kurdish secessionists in Iraq freedom fighters and the same groups across the Turkish border terrorists...
Mr. Assad or Mr. Putin isn't going to allow a foreign country to impose a no fly zone over Syria.
Only since Obama have the Russians brazenly told the U.S. where when and how.
The Rhode Island national guard could impose a no-fly zone over Moscow and the Russians would probably lose.
In the eye of the general populace this is a simple issue and the message needs to be reiterated "stay out of it", but with politics things become far more complicated. With our International Relations being as biased and demanding as it is today, the possibility of changing in the future from being a police state/arms supplier to an non-intervention nation is complicated. Rebels expect the US to supply them because of our extensive history of doing it to other rebels, they don't expect this type of support from say Japan or Sri Lanka. So pretty much we could very well go to war for staying out of this situation, yet we can go to war by intervening.
Simply put, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Looking for an example of a country that forced us into war by not intervening? Look no further than Japan during WWII. But going back to the present, imposing a no-fly zone over Syria will not happen unless Russia feels as if Syria is a threat to their country, their allies, and a handful of other countries. I don't believe Russia would allow Syria to bomb us necessarily because that would positively lead to WWIII, but Russia sees Civil War as a necassary evil to keep a county together. The US has had civil wars, Russia has had civil wars, why can't other countries have Civil Wars? Because people die? I call BS by the political machine.
If the US can magically come up with cash to fight these wars, then we need to magically come up with cash to relieve our citizens and grow our economy. I'm surprised no one is protesting this honestly. I miss the old form of Warefare when countries could fight each other and establish treaties afterwards then eventually becoming close allies, I hate fighting terrorism especially since we, the US, can't seem to understand why they hate us and want us all dead. They don't want us to intervene in their situations, period.
Maybe fighting in Syria will be our Soviets fight in Afghanistan, the fight that ends a Superpower. The world would be better off if there were no military Superpowers at all because there is too much ego involved but that's just my belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
The Rhode Island national guard could impose a no-fly zone over Moscow and the Russians would probably lose.
Idiots.
That's probably the most silly thing I've ever heard. A more appropriate military to say that could possibly stop the Russians on their own is the UK, but Russia has the numbers and it doesn't mind losing millions to win a war hence the 27 million that died to defeat the Nazis. The US could defeat the Russians, even if we didn't use nukes but the world would be too unbalanced without Russia, not to mention that would be the most expensive war ever fought.
Last edited by Die Intellektuelle; 06-18-2013 at 10:12 PM..
Many others have badly underestimated the Russians and haven't lived to regret it.
Hitler was going to roll over them in 8 weeks.
Hitler was vastly over estended. One-on-one, Hitler, at that time, could have set up shop on any continent, in any country, in the world. But... he spread himself thin, engaged in battle on too many fronts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
