Syria

[Kadagar_AV]

We did not get schooled lol. That would imply we lost something. Before this Assad denied having gas and Russia was supporting Assad from a distance. Now assad is giving up his weapons and the Russians are entangled with a losing cause. And we still retain freedom of action by way of having overwhelming force off the levantine coast.

What did Russia win exactly?

Face.

And international respect.

You know, those li'l gems of the world that nations struggle for - that money can't buy.

[Kadagar_AV]

Get real man your facts are that Russia is attempting to an ally that needed to use chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus.

How strong is Assads position that he needs to use sarin just outside his capital city

Oh mate, stop watching Fox "news".

Both sides are accusing the other of having done it, your lenience is only due to YOUR media.







With THAT said, I still struggle to understand why USA should drop bombs on people?

[Kadagar_AV]

Poppycock. Since when has face mattered to us? We are strongest when we think the world is against us. International face is not a currency we trade in, and one we barely give lip service to.

We obviously don't read the same history books.

Nor do we have the current medial landscape in common.


So... You'r idea is REALLY that the USAnians capitalistic military world view is like THE progressive movement? And to hell with all the facts!!

[Pannonian]

We obviously don't read the same history books.

Nor do we have the current medial landscape in common.


So... You'r idea is REALLY that the USAnians capitalistic military world view is like THE progressive movement? And to hell with all the facts!!

Whatever its faults, Pax Americana is the best practical option around. And I speak as a citizen of the previous superpower whom the Americans shafted at the end of the last war. It says much that even today developing countries look to America for an example of freedom and prosperity. Of course, they don't look to America for culture and civilisation, but that's what Britain is for.

[Sarmatian]

Can we dispense with "my nations is the best" talk, please? Thank you. Backroom was supposed to a slightly more mature place for political discussion on the internet, don't turn it into reddit or whatnot. And, besides, we all know Serbia is the best, so stop your yappin'.

I am amazed ye have missed how weak the russian position is in reality, lets remember the only bar on US action is purely domestic politics.

Putin is trying to convince everyone that Russia is the equal of the US but he cannot stop a strike if one happens.

The chemical deal is a well played but essentially weak hand if it stalls the Arab states will press America to act.

Assad is probably on borrowed time hence russian efforts to prevent an American strike.

The way I see it America wins either way, if Assad wins (which he wont) he will be hugely weakened an if he is toppled it will be years before any new potentially hostile regieme can act against Israel/US.

Hizbollah is also weakening/weakened meaning that stirke on Iran looks more tempting too. Iran must be bricks at the thought of this chem deal not working out or worse working out and still assad falls.

If the chem weapons are removed then Israels security will be enhanced even if/when assad falls, an when he does then Hizbollah will lose a vital sponsor and corridor for Iranian weapons.

I don't know what are you considering Russian interests to be, but I don't believe they have anything to do with Hezbollah or Israel's security. They're interested in keeping a presence in the middle east, keeping a port and having someone buy their arms.

Assad was considered "done", then he started getting the upper hand up until the moment with the whole gas incident, when it appeared that some kind of American intervention is inevitable. Russian diplomatic initiative stopped American intervention, at least for the time being, and allowed Russia to promote itself in the international politics.

That's a pure win. And, at least in my book, it is also a win for USA. Maybe not for some from the MIC, but for USA as a whole, it is.

Pax Americana is a catch-all term referring to the loose peace that has existed in the western world since the end of WWII, and the reason Russia has been impotent and only slightly irritating since the end of the Cold War. It also has lots of tin-foily connotations, but I don't mean it that way.

You don't really understand Russian position, or their motives and goals during the Cold War, or even now. I understand that western propaganda portrayed Soviet Union/Russia as an evil expansionist empire, bent on world domination, a godless horde coming to exterminate American way of life and blah, blah, blah... but the truth is, especially after WW2, SU/Russia have been so inward looking and concerned almost entirely with their own security. They have a fear, almost a phobia, that someone is out to get them. Eastern Bloc wasn't about Russia exporting communism and a preparation for a world conquest but a collection of buffer states to protect them from western invasion.

Russia isn't a class bully, Russia's that big guy in the back who had serious trauma as a kid and is jumpy whenever someone makes a move in his general direction.

[gaelic cowboy]

@ sarmation the sponsor and corridor refers to syria not russia ie israels security is enhanced if assad falls as hizbolah freedom of action is reduced. Even if he doesnt fall (whch I fell is unlikely) Hizbolah are now engaged in the syrian civil war and will likely be weakend for some time after it ends.

russian interests are in status quo but that seems less amd less likely

[Ironside]

As we both know, "pax" means "peace".

Has the USA even managed like a decade of any sort peace?

The term was coined by the Roman Empire. Romans could go around, and would be respected as they brought peace.

Pax Romana wasn't that peaceful. It just meant that Rome had little expansion (they did take Britain, Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was during this period for example) and had internal peace instead of civil wars. It's also coined by an historian 250 years ago, not by the Romans. Proxy wars works perfectly fine for that term.

Now GC is severly misusing upstart though, since it's all about demeaning the newer power because they don't have the proper age. So Lithuania could call the US upstarts, but the US can't call Europe that (nor China). They can call Brazil that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Its okay. A european complaining about America is like a flea complaining about the dog its attached to.

Well according to the IMF, GDP in $millions during 2012 were:

EU - 16,641,109
USA - 15,684,750

Statistics from the World Bank and CIA World Factbook gave pretty much the same result. And of course, that only includes EU members states, thus ignoring some of Europe's wealthiest countries (Norway, Switzerland)

That is one big, scary flea!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Are you suggesting the EU could be considered one nation? The USA certainly can.

Hmm well I suppose not, although minus the UK, Europe tends to have some sort of coherence in terms of international policy, and the common market etc seem hugely significant if we are talking about economic power (aka, the real power).

Regardless of that, the EU actually outweighs the US in economic might, and most of that wealth is shared by the 4-5 big nations. The flea analogy seems a bit extreme (although by calling it "one flea" I was equally overboard and misleading)!

[rvg]

Face.

And international respect.

You know, those li'l gems of the world that nations struggle for - that money can't buy.

Awww, that's cute. You know what, let 'em have it, they deserve it. If this deal holds, we will save a whole bunch of money in the process, plus relieve a dictator of his WMDs. Let the Russians have whatever it is that "money can't buy" while we concentrate on getting what money can buy. It's a fair trade imho.

So, chew on that. International Face? Are you kidding me? The only reason Syria isn't being bombed into the stone-age right now is because of people like rvg. International Face? lol

Indeed.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I am amazed ye have missed how weak the russian position is in reality, lets remember the only bar on US action is purely domestic politics.

Putin is trying to convince everyone that Russia is the equal of the US but he cannot stop a strike if one happens.

Au contraire, Putin does not have anything to lose but everything to gain. Precedent tends to matter in international relations, hence the song and dance about the UN Security Council & Resolutions. Even Cheney understood as much. Everyone feels compelled to join in; effectively Putin has a week or so time-out to apply pressure on the Assad regime should he choose to. But, he does not need to.

His Oped is a dual edged sword. The one edge is in convincing the American public, and by extension the American Congress into pressuring Obama to back off. Whether or not Russia is capable to stare down the USA in international politics is irrelevant if Putin can manage to co-opt the domestic political currents of the USA and turn the issue to his advantage that way.

The other edge is in the potential to curtail USA power by curtailing the executive power within the USA. The War Powers Act and subsequent doctrines imply that whoever sits at the negotiating table for the USA can pretend to have that power at his command, instantly. Requiring a full blown declaration of war or any other authorisation from Congress adds uncertainty and weakness to the negotiating position of the US executive branch, which in turn should make them more pliable and more cautious and less interventionist in international affairs.

Third, it his Oped has a point. Successful, prestige projects like international relations create political capital which might come in handy should you ever need to survive a power struggle in Russia. Whichever way you put it, Putin can turn and point at his Oped as an exhibit should he ever have to supply proof of competence or knowledge in international relationships. Putin is well known for projecting the "though leader" type image and getting international credit is important if he wants to convince the Russians that Russia is back in the international game.

The chemical deal is a well played but essentially weak hand if it stalls the Arab states will press America to act.

The only ones with a weaker hand in this than Russia are the Arab states.

Assad is probably on borrowed time hence russian efforts to prevent an American strike.

I think the Russian efforts are more to do with sensing the political climate in the USA proper, and extracting some profit from it. Whether it succeeds or not, the talk was cheap (Russia would not be embarrassed if the US turns out to ignore their advice) and there could be profit in it.

The way I see it America wins either way, if Assad wins (which he wont) he will be hugely weakened an if he is toppled it will be years before any new potentially hostile regieme can act against Israel/US.

Don't conflate the two. You might just as well say Russia/Israel. The two are quite cosy, actually. Russia is not interested in war with the USA in any case; or to paraphrase: Putin wins either way.

Hizbollah is also weakening/weakened meaning that stirke on Iran looks more tempting too. Iran must be bricks at the thought of this chem deal not working out or worse working out and still assad falls.

If the chem weapons are removed then Israels security will be enhanced even if/when assad falls, an when he does then Hizbollah will lose a vital sponsor and corridor for Iranian weapons.

Iran is a special case, but I don't doubt that Russia is quite happy to see the backs of Hezbollah. Russia has no love for religiously inspired militias of any stripe, they prefer corruptible government officials whom they can actually sell stuff to. They have a bit of an arms business, too. Additionally Russia may well be worried about the chemicals falling into the hands of those rebel militias once the regime is toppled and do not want to see any such weapons making it out of Syria whatever the cost. The risk is those weapons making it into Russia: they still have the Black Widows and their ilk to consider.

As for a strike on Iran: based on what grounds, exactly?

---------------

And yes, Obama got "schooled" inasmuch that the Oped uses his own political move (going to Congress in order to assert legitimacy of his decisions and pass on responsibility) as part of the ploy. Had Obama asserted his War Powers it would never have worked, but now we're in "write-a-Congress-critter-for-fun-and-profit" season it is very deftly done indeed.

[Fragony]

As we both know, "pax" means "peace".

Has the USA even managed like a decade of any sort peace?

The term was coined by the Roman Empire. Romans could go around, and would be respected as they brought peace.

USAnians get spit in their coffee pretty much wherever they go, if not roadside bombs and snipers in the more hot zones.

Face it, you are the bad guys in the Karate Kid Movie.

How many WESTERN nations have fought EACHOTHER after WW2?

Exactly. The EU loves to have that fact for themselves, but anyone with half an education knows we have to thank America for that. So yeah Pax America.

[Fragony]

Savages. (French), don't worry about clicking the poor sod isn't beheaded yet

Many beheadings by Syrian rebels, including a catholic priest & other christians but also sunni muslims.

Nice bunch. Alllahuh akhbar

[Brenus]

“Exactly. The EU loves to have that fact for themselves, but anyone with half an education knows we have to thank America for that.” ?
If it is about the liberation of Europe, I suggest looking at a map of front lines in June 1944, eastern ones…
Now, if you speak of Marshall Plan, I suggest looking at the elections and place of Communist Parties in France and Italy…
So, yes, thanks to the fact that Germany attacked the USA in New York, they came and fight their share to defeat the Nazi, and then they helped in the reconstruction (against bases in Europe).

“In terms of Realpolitik, those dead Serbs paved our missile factories' hallways with gold.” Agree. The best part is that the EU paid the bills, for the war and the re-buildings… You have to give this the USAnians, they know business.

“International face is not a currency we trade in, and one we barely give lip service to” And you want to do business with Chinese? Or with any Asiatic Civilisations? You will have to learn fast…

[Hax]

The term was coined by the Roman Empire. Romans could go around, and would be respected as they brought peace.

Did you skip past the chapter on Teutoburg or..?

[HoreTore]

How many WESTERN nations have fought EACHOTHER after WW2?

Exactly. The EU loves to have that fact for themselves, but anyone with half an education knows we have to thank America for that. So yeah Pax America.

My dear heavens, I agree with frags on something related to the EU!

Like Pax Romana, the Pax Americana only matters within its hegemony. Rome had no civil wars, the US has had no wars between western powers. Both still had foreign wars.

I'd say that the lack of wars in the western world is due to the US, but the level of cooperation we see in Europe is due to the EU.

[Fragony]

My dear heavens, I agree with frags on something related to the EU!

That can't be right

[Myth]

I'd say the introduction of nuclear weapons is the actual deterrant. Power projection for the USA is costly. If the UK and France wanted another 100 years war (and there were no WMDs, especially nukes), why would the USA intervene? It costs a lot of money to cross the ocean and land troops on the shore of western Europe. Could they do it continously when animocity between nations sparks a conflict? Because there's a lot of history between the nations of Europe and everyone has a bone to pick with... everyone else.

[HoreTore]

Excellent rebuttal from McCain.

Too bad he's allied with the loonies.

[Sarmatian]

Excellent rebuttal from McCain.

Too bad he's allied with the loonies.

I like this part the best

I believe you deserve the opportunity to improve your lives in an economy that is built to last and benefits the many, not just the powerful few.

Now, the question is, why does he fight for the opposite in America...

If I were Russia, I'd tell him to take his condescending and patronizing remarks and shove them, but I'm not Rusian, so I can just say: Yes, massa...

[HoreTore]

I like this part the best



Now, the question is, why does he fight for the opposite in America...

If I were Russia, I'd tell him to take his condescending and patronizing remarks and shove them, but I'm not Rusian, so I can just say: Yes, massa...

Even the US is far from the cleptocracy Russia has.

Russia is starting to look more and more like Sicily, but with government sanction and worse movies.

[Sarmatian]

Even the US is far from the cleptocracy Russia has.

Debatable, but let's not go there.

Russia is starting to look more and more like Sicily, but with government sanction and worse movies.

C'mon, even you have to agree that Mccain's letter was an excuse of a comeback to Putin's letter, and it failed miserably.

I agree with you on the movies. But, Battleship Potemkin is still a masterpiece.

Apparently the fighting between the FSA (which is hardly a single organized group) and the more hardline Jihadis has begun to overshadow the civil war against the regime. Western journalists are assumed to be spies. Assad apparently gets a year to disarm. I'd say the forces of democracy have been defeated and/or sidelined, and the world's job here is done.

Funny how I don't think I've seen a single force of democracy in this whole ordeal.

[Sarmatian]

A complicated question. Between the great powers playing their power games, a country in a volatile region with troubled history, dictators, terrorists, jihadists, mass murderers and organ eaters, it's really hard to say.

[Brenus]

“Because there's a lot of history between the nations of Europe and everyone has a bone to pick with... everyone else” How many wars USA had waged on neighbours from the beginning?
Just on Mexico? Cuba, Canada, South America, annexing of Hawaii, foreign excursions (even in Mediterranean Sea), China, this only during the 19th Century.
The US isolationism is a Myth. The USA is a young and aggressive country that developed on one of the most aggressive colonialism. What USA couldn’t buy, they took it. The 20th Century was nearly the same in term of expansion and wars, not entirely by USA own decision, but the post-WW2 saw a deliberate move of this country toward wars under various pretexts/reasons.

[rvg]

Debatable, but let's not go there.

Why not go there? Things in Russia are so much worse than here in the States, that there's no comparison really.

[Fragony]

Yeah, yeah, not news. Every western nation with the opportunity has gone for Empire, its our nature. We folks of European descent are violent, cynical, and exploitative. America is the European set free on a bountiful continent, and later a defeated world, that was not equipped to handle it. We're not the first and won't be the last, as the European mindset is now the global mindset. When we finally tire of asserting ourselves (or, hopefully, decide against it) someone else will step up and start bullying everybody. I just hope we quit while we're ahead, so we can at least live well within our borders.

Yeah, Europe must be the biggest cemetary in the world it is rediculous

Timelaps (posted by other orger in monastary)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14d_1...j7dzj8YtDJZ.01

[Sarmatian]

Why not go there? Things in Russia are so much worse than here in the States, that there's no comparison really.

Discussion about how much of a cleptocracy Russia is at the moment and compared to what, is gonna derail the thread even more. Of course things in Russia are worse than in the US.

[Brenus]

“Yeah, yeah, not news.” Well. It looks like it is news for a lot of USAnians. Always telling how the Europeans Nations are fighting each other’s when the Peace loving USA was growing-up and prospered under nice and gentle successful Administrations. The “let’s the Europeans having their wars and us making business with all of them” party…

[a completely inoffensive name]

What's with the growing popularity of the term "USAnians"? Are Europeans becoming indignant on behalf of Latin America over the term "Americans"?

[Fragony]

Not something we say here at least, most europeans like the Americans, resentment of America is pretty strong in scandinavia though, but they kinda dislike everyone, especially the Germans.