On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Maybe I was being overly charitable, but I read mdb's post as a parody.
On August 26 2013 20:59 oneofthem wrote: arab world should step up with better refugee outlets.
No matter what you do to help the refugees it is never enough, there are too many and the resources too few, the best that can be done is to end this god damn war quickly, stablish a temporary syrian goverment and then send aid to the people that have no homes/no money/nothing that way, it is just much more efficient than send help to the refugees camps, beware that i'm not saying that help shouldn't be send there! just that the big chuck of help should be aim towards the war so it can be ended quickly so people can go back to their actual homes.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
Russia will only intervene here to restablish Assad, nothing more, USA and NATO can't really finish this war without the rebels winning because otherwise they would be blamed for all the killing of civilians, and they can't avoid no acting because of the chemical weapons, otherwise they we will be blamed for all the killing, so the only thing that they have left is to help the rebels but they know that when Assad gets overthrown the war will most probably continue because of al-nusra and the extremists groups that will try to make Syria a Muslim state and a good percentage of the population doesn't want that, so Western countries don't really have a option, they have to help the rebels and they WILL get blamed for that.
I woud realy like to see what Yuljan said (pardon and asylum thing) but i don't think it is possible, not now since chemical weapons have been used, and that forces the western countries to move, or they will see their image damaged.
//EDIT// Whelp that's what happens when i take too much time writing and start taking everything srsly -.-;
On August 26 2013 20:40 FallenStar wrote: Is there ANY way (invading, not invading, some kind of political shenanigans, whatever) Syirian people will stop suffering? Why don't we make a plan first, and then think of a method to apply it later? Not a long reader of the thread, it's too long to read it fully, but I'm seeing a lot of Invading vs. Not-invading (or interfering, whatever you want to call it) discussion, but I think we should think of a real solution first and then think if direct interference is the way to go.
Please, define the "we", and find a more serious ambition than wanting "Syrian people to stop suffering". It's mainly a Syrian civil war with attrocities commited on both sides. To our western standards, just as I said before, both camps would be referred as (theologico-)fascists. It's good sometimes to be humble and step aside.
Besides, there are already indirect interferences through ultimatum, threats, and the fact it is American and Israeli forces who arm and train a large part of the Syrian rebels.
I admit I just rushed the post without considering not everyone would get what I wanted to say. By "we" I mean any developed country with enough power/influence to make a significant change in the way the problem is being handled (major NATO countries, USA, etc...).
I agree "Syirian people stop suffering" is a bit silly. What I wanted to mean is something to change the current situation so it stops being such a big and costful conflict. I know, whatever happens, violence will continue to happen, but is still better than a total war between rebels and goverment, with artillery, airstrikes, and forbidden weapons.
About the indirect interferences, I'm not sure how effective they are, I think they will most probably worsen the situation. Lastly, Ponera really made me think and maybe he/she's right, maybe the situation will just go to shit whatever we do, so maybe not interfering is the way to go? But still, if teels so awful to just let them do their thing and let them "develop". Maybe there's no way out for them, and that saddens me a lot.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
It should be obvious from your writing which country had been liberated, but I have no idea. Especially not "liberated", you ought to know it's a very loaded term.
Secondly, Russia is the biggest supporter Assad has, while Hizbollah and Iran send some troops, Russia provides the diplomatic support with its UNSC veto (which it is very vocal about) and the equipment (massive arms supplies to the military) which keep Assad fighting. It cannot be said that Russia has not stepped up. Russia is doing a lot, and that "a lot" has lead to this stage of the conflict.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
Sorry but, please, for the love of god, USSR and Russia is not the same thing. So is not Germany and Natzi-Germany, they are COMPLETELY separate things.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
It should be obvious from your writing which country had been liberated, but I have no idea. Especially not "liberated", you ought to know it's a very loaded term.
Secondly, Russia is the biggest supporter Assad has, while Hizbollah and Iran send some troops, Russia provides the diplomatic support with its UNSC veto (which it is very vocal about) and the equipment (massive arms supplies to the military) which keep Assad fighting. It cannot be said that Russia has not stepped up. Russia is doing a lot, and that "a lot" has lead to this stage of the conflict.
We can all agree Russia's commitment to Syria is the biggest deterring factor for western intervention. However their support is mostly diplomatic, stoping outside military intervention, they sold weapons but most of those were from old contracts, they could have really stepped up support by sending serious weapons and provide training to government's forces. Military wise, it's Iran that has their back, not Russia. Iran are the ones providing most weapons, logistics and training beside to the geopolitical power they have (which is honestly not anywhere near Russia's). But Iran have not sent troops, where did you get that from? or do you consider Hezbollah as being sent by Iran? (which is pretty true but they aren't Irani troops).
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
It should be obvious from your writing which country had been liberated, but I have no idea. Especially not "liberated", you ought to know it's a very loaded term.
Secondly, Russia is the biggest supporter Assad has, while Hizbollah and Iran send some troops, Russia provides the diplomatic support with its UNSC veto (which it is very vocal about) and the equipment (massive arms supplies to the military) which keep Assad fighting. It cannot be said that Russia has not stepped up. Russia is doing a lot, and that "a lot" has lead to this stage of the conflict.
If the situation was reversed, you'd be chirping that the West keeping Assad in power is the only thing keeping the country from anarchy and chaos. It's sad you can't see this.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
It should be obvious from your writing which country had been liberated, but I have no idea. Especially not "liberated", you ought to know it's a very loaded term.
Secondly, Russia is the biggest supporter Assad has, while Hizbollah and Iran send some troops, Russia provides the diplomatic support with its UNSC veto (which it is very vocal about) and the equipment (massive arms supplies to the military) which keep Assad fighting. It cannot be said that Russia has not stepped up. Russia is doing a lot, and that "a lot" has lead to this stage of the conflict.
We can all agree Russia's commitment to Syria is the biggest deterring factor for western intervention. However their support is mostly diplomatic, stoping outside military intervention, they sold weapons but most of those were from old contracts, they could have really stepped up support by sending serious weapons and provide training to government's forces. Military wise, it's Iran that has their back, not Russia. Iran are the ones providing most weapons, logistics and training beside to the geopolitical power they have (which is honestly not anywhere near Russia's). But Iran have not sent troops, where did you get that from? or do you consider Hezbollah as being sent by Iran? (which is pretty true but they aren't Irani troops).
There were a number of paragraphs about Iranian Revolutionary Guard being sent to Syria. It was a while ago so I picked out the first google hit.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
Wern't you guys Ottoman vassles untill Serbia and Greece helped your ass in the first balkan war?
Recent poll in Serbia says 60% of the population would want the country to become an autonomous province in Russia, slavic super-state/free oil and gas mmm baby... On a serious note Russia and China are the only hope this world has left, and if those types of countries are the only ones speaking reason then its a crummy world we live in...
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
Wern't you guys Ottoman vassles untill Serbia and Greece helped your ass in the first balkan war?
Recent poll in Serbia says 60% of the population would want the country to become an autonomous province in Russia, slavic super-state/free oil and gas mmm baby... On a serious note Russia and China are the only hope this world has left, and if those types of countries are the only ones speaking reason then its a crummy world we live in...
if they are the only countries speaking reason I don't want to live in a reasoned world.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
It should be obvious from your writing which country had been liberated, but I have no idea. Especially not "liberated", you ought to know it's a very loaded term.
Secondly, Russia is the biggest supporter Assad has, while Hizbollah and Iran send some troops, Russia provides the diplomatic support with its UNSC veto (which it is very vocal about) and the equipment (massive arms supplies to the military) which keep Assad fighting. It cannot be said that Russia has not stepped up. Russia is doing a lot, and that "a lot" has lead to this stage of the conflict.
We can all agree Russia's commitment to Syria is the biggest deterring factor for western intervention. However their support is mostly diplomatic, stoping outside military intervention, they sold weapons but most of those were from old contracts, they could have really stepped up support by sending serious weapons and provide training to government's forces. Military wise, it's Iran that has their back, not Russia. Iran are the ones providing most weapons, logistics and training beside to the geopolitical power they have (which is honestly not anywhere near Russia's). But Iran have not sent troops, where did you get that from? or do you consider Hezbollah as being sent by Iran? (which is pretty true but they aren't Irani troops).
There were a number of paragraphs about Iranian Revolutionary Guard being sent to Syria. It was a while ago so I picked out the first google hit.
To the other guy, I wouldn't be chirping anything. And I wouldn't make wide sweeping claims without knowing the other person, if I were you.
I don't need to know you to see your ideological bias. You cannot be on the side of the rebels and the "people" at the same time, the people overwhelmingly support Assad right now, and it's quite obvious the country is better off is he stays in power. There's nothing wrong with supporting Western interests, just stop doing mental gymnastics to convince yourself you're on the side of the "good guys"
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
It should be obvious from your writing which country had been liberated, but I have no idea. Especially not "liberated", you ought to know it's a very loaded term.
Secondly, Russia is the biggest supporter Assad has, while Hizbollah and Iran send some troops, Russia provides the diplomatic support with its UNSC veto (which it is very vocal about) and the equipment (massive arms supplies to the military) which keep Assad fighting. It cannot be said that Russia has not stepped up. Russia is doing a lot, and that "a lot" has lead to this stage of the conflict.
We can all agree Russia's commitment to Syria is the biggest deterring factor for western intervention. However their support is mostly diplomatic, stoping outside military intervention, they sold weapons but most of those were from old contracts, they could have really stepped up support by sending serious weapons and provide training to government's forces. Military wise, it's Iran that has their back, not Russia. Iran are the ones providing most weapons, logistics and training beside to the geopolitical power they have (which is honestly not anywhere near Russia's). But Iran have not sent troops, where did you get that from? or do you consider Hezbollah as being sent by Iran? (which is pretty true but they aren't Irani troops).
There were a number of paragraphs about Iranian Revolutionary Guard being sent to Syria. It was a while ago so I picked out the first google hit.
To the other guy, I wouldn't be chirping anything. And I wouldn't make wide sweeping claims without knowing the other person, if I were you.
I don't need to know you to see your ideological bias. You cannot be on the side of the rebels and the "people" at the same time, the people overwhelmingly support Assad right now, and it's quite obvious the country is better off is he stays in power. There's nothing wrong with supporting Western interests, just stop doing mental gymnastics to convince yourself you're on the side of the "good guys"
eh by people you mean people in damascus supporting Assad you may be right but the wider population don't or we wouldn't have had this whole revolution in the first place.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
It should be obvious from your writing which country had been liberated, but I have no idea. Especially not "liberated", you ought to know it's a very loaded term.
Secondly, Russia is the biggest supporter Assad has, while Hizbollah and Iran send some troops, Russia provides the diplomatic support with its UNSC veto (which it is very vocal about) and the equipment (massive arms supplies to the military) which keep Assad fighting. It cannot be said that Russia has not stepped up. Russia is doing a lot, and that "a lot" has lead to this stage of the conflict.
We can all agree Russia's commitment to Syria is the biggest deterring factor for western intervention. However their support is mostly diplomatic, stoping outside military intervention, they sold weapons but most of those were from old contracts, they could have really stepped up support by sending serious weapons and provide training to government's forces. Military wise, it's Iran that has their back, not Russia. Iran are the ones providing most weapons, logistics and training beside to the geopolitical power they have (which is honestly not anywhere near Russia's). But Iran have not sent troops, where did you get that from? or do you consider Hezbollah as being sent by Iran? (which is pretty true but they aren't Irani troops).
There were a number of paragraphs about Iranian Revolutionary Guard being sent to Syria. It was a while ago so I picked out the first google hit.
To the other guy, I wouldn't be chirping anything. And I wouldn't make wide sweeping claims without knowing the other person, if I were you.
I don't need to know you to see your ideological bias. You cannot be on the side of the rebels and the "people" at the same time, the people overwhelmingly support Assad right now, and it's quite obvious the country is better off is he stays in power. There's nothing wrong with supporting Western interests, just stop doing mental gymnastics to convince yourself you're on the side of the "good guys"
You should show us polls But I go after my friends from Syria, and they definitely don't support Assad (they don't like the rebels either, but they don't hate all of them).
On another note, you don't know a thing about it - ideologically or otherwise. All I did was say that Russia shouldn't be perceived as the torch-bearer of freedom and justice in the world. They do not deserve it.
EPT
