I like Putin's response

Post #380,503 by boxley 9/12/13 8:33:16 AM Reply	I like Putin's response http://www.nytimes.c...sia-on-syria.html Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #380,504 by mmoffitt 9/12/13 8:42:56 AM Reply	You beat me. I just read it. And I agree, it is superior. I particularly like these parts: 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. ... It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in AmericaÂs 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 ÂyouÂre either with us or against us.Â 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. ... 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. ... I carefully studied his [Obama's] address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United StatesÂ policy is Âwhat makes America different. ItÂs what makes us exceptional.Â It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.
Post #380,529 by Ashton 9/12/13 7:23:26 PM Reply	Glad the two are getting along better.. and quite agree on most points--especially in his tactful arabesque (from precise-Syria matters)--to put a stake in the JIngo-heart of that exceptionalism fantasy. He didn't have to Lie once! While we realize that Putin's feet are indeed clay-like, he appears quite able to practice Statecraft, even against a virtuoso-rhetorician like BHO. (I so WISH BHO'd dump the 'exceptionalism' thing permanently..) and that all the other Pols would render-Illegal: the use of The 'Murican Peeple think.. phrase --under penalty of $10K-fine for the first one, then escalating until ... all you have left is a small pot to pee in.
Post #380,530 by boxley 9/12/13 7:26:59 PM Reply	here, have a united fruit, you will feel better Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #380,535 by a6l6e6x 9/12/13 8:36:45 PM Reply	I'd be more impressed if Obama could have an opinion piece.. published in Pravda or Izvestia on the institutionalized homophobia of Russia. Now that would be exceptional. The arms merchant to despots of the world does not have the footing to speak down to anyone. Putin is the very definition of hypocrite. Alex
Post #380,536 by Andrew Grygus 9/12/13 9:02:58 PM Reply	"The arms merchant to despots of the world . . . " . . are you talking about Russia, or the U.S.A. here?
Post #380,539 by a6l6e6x 9/12/13 9:21:17 PM Reply	US does the high end stuff. :) Or more specifically it's the military industrial complex who pay off the pols. Alex
Post #380,538 by Another Scott 9/12/13 9:14:13 PM Reply	Even if he makes some good points... it's always easier to respond to someone than to present your case first. I'm of two minds about Putin. 1) The world would likely be a better place if the UN Security Council worked better, and that isn't going to happen without Putin and Li feeling that their positions have as much standing as the USA's. 2) Putin isn't suddenly a democrat who wants to throw his client with that port on the Mediterranean overboard. There's also the issue of various gas pipelines... Qatar/Saudi Arabia/Jordan/Syria/Turkey/Europe - http://www.thenation...ipeline-to-turkey Or maybe Iraq/Iran/Syria/Europe - http://www.aljazeera...133440424621.html Either would dramatically reduce Gazprom's (and Putin's) hold over Europe... So, Meh. There's lots going on in the background and at least the bombing hasn't started yet and Assad's military hasn't used the CW again. But the prospect for a final settlement is not sounding very good at the moment - Syria is naturally trying to delay any concrete actions, while Putin is trying to drag things out and bloody the US government's nose in return for a weaker process (e.g. demanding that the US stop arming the Syrian rebels). They're playing for time, hoping that the longer things drag out, the lesser the ultimate pressure will be. I don't think Obama's going to let this go, though. And all bets are off if Syria doesn't give up these CWs reasonably soon. Here's hoping that Putin isn't stupid enough to believe the yammering in the press over here about how Obama is so weak and so forth... We'll see what happens. Cheers, Scott.
Post #380,549 by pwhysall 9/13/13 1:58:46 AM Reply	Going off-piste a bit: China owns the USA So yeah, Li's perception of China being an equal to the USA is probably grounded. America is a noob. The country has existed for a couple of hundred years and yes, is doing really well at the moment. But bear in mind that it's only two generations ago that, relatively speaking, the UK's global empire dwarfed the current American one, by all meaningful metrics - force projection ability, economy, countries under the jackbooted heel - and history shows just how that turned out for us. (Although we are spanking the colonials at cricket these days, so we'll take that as a triumph of empire) I vaguely recall an anecdote about some diplomatic negotiations or other, and China put a proposition on the table. The Americans said, "but that'll take over a hundred years!", and the Chinese said, "We'll wait." Sheer weight of numbers and current economic progress would tend to indicate that the near future belongs to India and China, and further out, if they ever sort themselves the fuck out (which seems to be far from a given), the Africans. I think the middle-east is unlikely to attain any significance, as once the oil runs out, they'll be dependent on the global market for sand and fundamentalist religion, which is somewhat less lucrative.
Post #380,553 by CRConrad 9/13/13 4:35:03 AM Reply	Two things: A) The market for sand may not be so great, but fundamentalism seems to be selling quite well. B) That spanking is only because even the colonies are more and more just shrugging at the whole sport. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #380,557 by pwhysall 9/13/13 7:01:38 AM Reply	On B) notsureifserious.gif You certainly don't have much contact with saffas, injuns, windians or convicts if you think that's the case.
Post #380,573 by CRConrad 9/13/13 9:36:37 AM Reply	No, of course I don't know. Because, after all... ...who gives a fuck? -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #380,583 by pwhysall 9/13/13 10:23:12 AM Reply	Poms, saffas, windians, injuns and convicts, that's who. Even the jockanesians and oirish are trying to get in on it.
Post #380,602 by malraux 9/13/13 5:26:18 PM Reply	Cricket: CalvinBall with big sticks and sweaters. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #380,607 by CRConrad 9/13/13 6:17:01 PM Reply	'Xackly. Almost as weird as, say, baseball.
Post #380,608 by Another Scott 9/13/13 6:18:39 PM Reply	:-) I've tried to watch some matches occasionally, and I've skimmed through the rules on Wikipedia, but its very very strange. The bowler can't/must have a bend in his arm? WTF? And there was some famous bowler who had a birth defect that made his deformity perfect to satisfy the rule or something... Yeah, this guy (or someone like him) - http://static.espncr...et-on-Murali.html The jargon is a little thick on that page, though: The most bizarre irony in world cricket is that the brilliant Sri Lankan spinner Muttiah Muralitharan is perhaps the only Test slow bowler on Planet Earth who legitimately bowls the off-spinner's wrongun, the "doosra". Does Pakistan's Saqlain or India's Harbijhan really bowl the other one? Or is their method of delivering the doosra acheieved with a flawed action? Um, what? :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #380,612 by Ashton 9/13/13 6:53:01 PM Reply	That's Enough.. to quell any further delving here.
Post #380,616 by pwhysall 9/13/13 8:06:48 PM Reply	Not difficult The bowler must bowl the ball, not throw it.
Post #380,618 by CRConrad 9/13/13 8:14:48 PM Reply	How many wickets must he knock down for a strike?
Post #380,623 by Another Scott 9/13/13 9:12:39 PM Reply	A googlie of them. HTH!
Post #380,558 by pwhysall 9/13/13 7:04:08 AM Reply	On A) Seems to me that the defence against the fundies (certainly for Islam) is an educated and comfortable middle-class - which is (eventually) a by-product of economic advancement. Once you get to that point, they all convert to fundamentalist CoE, and then it's cake or death.
Post #380,572 by CRConrad 9/13/13 9:35:40 AM Reply	Yeah, but when all they've got to export is sand... ...and fundamentalism, where is that educated and comfortable middle-class going to come from? As I understood it, they're not building one even now, while they still do have oil. Oh, OK, you mean as the rest of the world goes middle class, there won't be any markets for them to export it to? Yeah, let's at least hope so... But the Middle Easterners will still have an abundant supply, should any part of the world ever run out. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #380,574 by mmoffitt 9/13/13 9:39:48 AM Reply	I wouldn't look for an enlightened Middle Class here. The middle class here (such as it is) cannot afford education. Our right wing governors are busy privatizing K-12 education and post-secondary educations (even at state universities) are becoming well out of reach of the middle class here. Caveat: the solution here is consistent with our government's solution for everything - have college students start their death spiral of debt to Wall Street banksters even before they graduate. That's "working" for now, but I don't think it will last.
Post #380,560 by Another Scott 9/13/13 7:23:51 AM Reply	Disagree, at least in emphasis. Good points about the UK; but that points more to the dangers of empire, doesn't it? A few counter-points. 1) China doesn't have much choice but to buy US dollars. Their economy would collapse without a cheap Reminmbi/Yuan. They don't "own the US" in any real sense. http://www.theguardi...economics-economy China is already losing business to cheaper countries (Vietnam, etc., etc.). 2) Egypt's culture is older than China's - they're not doing so well these days... :-( Of course, China has had an amazing growth spurt the last 30-ish years. But every economy over-extends itself at some point. Their labor costs are rising; corruption is a huge problem; overbuilding in housing is a huge problem. If they have a bad recession in the next few years, there's no telling how far back they'll fall. Remember when Japan was going to rule the world economy? India has similar problems in may respects, but with a nasty border and territorial dispute to boot... Additional progress in China and India are not inevitable. There are worrying signs of increasing stratification there, and it only takes a few people to start a revolution if things go pear shaped... While revolutions are often necessary to bring social and economic change, they do have a habit of making things worse for the masses at least (in the best cases) in the short run. I agree that Africa has lots of promise, but who knows what the world will be like without cheap transportation fuels. :-/ 3) When countries have a lot of money, for even a few decades or so, they can do their long-term prospects a lot of good. Take, maybe, Norway - http://en.wikipedia....um_Fund_of_Norway . The sandy countries could build themselves a great future with all that oil wealth, but they seem to be more interested in conspicuous consumption and religious fundamentalism in too many cases. On the larger point, yes, the US shouldn't stomp around like it owns the world any more. And the US president shouldn't be able to blow up facilities in another country on just his say-so. I think Obama believes that as well, and that's one of the reasons why he's handling this the way he has - he wants the UN and the rest of the world to stand up and participate in enforcing its noble words about CWs. He wants a different, better world in the next 10-50 years. We'll see if his approach bears fruit or not. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #380,563 by pwhysall 9/13/13 7:46:53 AM Reply	What makes you say that? Progress in India and China absolutely is inevitable. There is no evidence to think otherwise. It's hard to think what could make Indian society more stratified - after all, this is the society that for the past couple of thousand years has had an "untouchable" caste! If anything, Indian society is, as a result of economic progress and Western (by which I do of course mean British) influence, de-stratifying (a bit, and slowly). I'm not going to speculate on what Obama wants - I'm going to see what he does. And what he does, like his predecessor, is go around freeing the shit out of people.
Post #380,566 by Another Scott 9/13/13 8:22:34 AM Reply	Depends on the time scale. Progress isn't linear. It's hard to make extrapolations given the rapid change in the world over the last 50 years or so, but we know that people can't eliminate business cycles, panics, etc. Again, look at Japan. Bubbles happen and can be very destructive. Given the speed and ease of moving money around these days, China and (even more-so) India will hurt very quickly if their economies enter a severe downturn. The widening gap between the rich and the rest of us is a big problem around the world. http://www.economist.com/node/21564414 - a good story(, but taxes do have a large role to play). Watching actions is a good idea. That's why Putin shouldn't pay attention to the chattering classes over here. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #380,568 by pwhysall 9/13/13 8:37:46 AM Reply	Japan is just fine. Fiat currency means that government debt is not the same as personal debt, and by all the accepted metrics, Japan is a great place to live, notwithstanding the contents of some of the vending machines, and will be for the foreseeable. Now, Greece. There's a place with a problem. You need better examples, dude.
Post #380,569 by Another Scott 9/13/13 9:14:54 AM Reply	Heh. Deflation isn't good in general, and is particularly bad in countries with large poor populations that are rapidly growing. Japan has been struggling since their property/stock bubble burst around 1991. They're just starting to finally climb out of the pit that caused. There have been wrenching changes there even though, on the surface, things don't look too bad. ~ 4% unemployment looks great! But it used to be around 2%... China is a special case, having a large foreign-exchange horde. But even they are not immune to market forces. And they're still a poor country in many, many respects. India even more so (without the huge $ reserves that China has). Will they all dodge the bullets? Maybe. We'll see. Cheers, Scott.
Post #380,564 by pwhysall 9/13/13 7:54:59 AM Reply	Norway is very different from the sandy oily countries Tiny population, long history of parliamentary democracy, very low levels of poverty, massively high standards of living, highly-developed infrastructure, incredibly liberal; basically, if you're not one of those folks who's entirely too interested in the bedroom and bodily habits of other people, it's an all-around great place to live. As long as you like rain. Compare to somewhere like Saudi Arabia: Big population, only existed since 1932, huge levels of poverty, wildly varying standards of living, no real infrastructure outside the cities, as uptight as a gnat's chuff about absolutely everything, dreadful human rights record, and if you're not a rich male Arabic-speaking Muslim, a right shithole in which to live.
Post #380,567 by Another Scott 9/13/13 8:29:02 AM Reply	Good points. But things don't change unless people change them. Money is a big enabler if used wisely was my main point. It's hard to do, especially given all the problems you mention, but it can be done. Cheers, Scott.
Post #380,576 by CRConrad 9/13/13 9:40:54 AM Reply	In its defense-as opposed to Norway-Saudi is pretty great... ...if you don't like rain. ;-/ -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #380,580 by Another Scott 9/13/13 10:07:51 AM Reply	rofl.
Post #380,582 by folkert 9/13/13 10:17:04 AM Reply	Re: In its defense-as opposed to Norway-Saudi is pretty grea Hey... Saudi Arabia can "pound sand all day long" for all I care. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #380,555 by hnick 9/13/13 6:13:35 AM Reply	How now? Here's hoping that Putin isn't stupid enough to believe the yammering in the press over here about how Obama is so weak and so forth... Has not the central point of your impassioned defense of the first lout been that he's only the president and not an absolute ruler? I mean, really, he hasn't had the votes to change his underwear in three and a half years. The poor fellow is as helpless as a newborn baby bereft of cradle and tit. He certainly can't do anything for the majority that voted for him. A few bankers may have the votes...
Post #380,561 by Another Scott 9/13/13 7:36:49 AM Reply	See my reply to Peter. But to be more specific... Obama claims he didn't have to go to Congress to act. I think he said that to preserve the President's capacity to act quickly in extreme situations without explicit approval of Congress. But he also said in his address a couple of days ago that he thought Congress should give their advice and have a vote in this case since (roughly) "there isn't an immediate and direct threat to the US". I don't think there's a contradiction in holding those views simultaneously. Congress needs to do its job and give its views on war and peace. But in some future time, that may not be practical or wise. I think Obama is always looking at the long-term. He means what he says when he says that he doesn't want a world where CWs become easier to use. He wants them gone. (Just as he wants nuclear weapons gone - something that lots of people have forgotten.) Obama has been clear, to me at least, about his views on big-picture topics. He said he was going to get bin Laden. He said he would go into any country without their approval if necessary to do so. When the generals and the chattering classes were saying that we had to stay in Iraq, he said no. He said CWs were a red line that would change his calculus about Syria. On these war-and-peace topics, he means what he says. Has he and Kerry messed up their messaging on the Russia negotiations, etc.? Maybe. But on the big picture, he's been clear. Putin needs to understand that. We'll see how it turns out. Cheers, Scott.
Post #380,611 by Ashton 9/13/13 6:50:15 PM Reply	I too retain adequate-'faith' in his Character There is no calculus by which we can comprehend the stultifying effects of the Renegade-Repo collection of sociopaths.. -VS- any possibilities of governance whatsoever. Accordingly, I see it as a cheap-shot to compare BHO's 'success record'--with any previous situation. It is not just the $bankruptcy, via criminal gaming of the Entire Finance bloc-of-greedheads; what has successfully immobilized all sanity in the US is: Our National moral, spiritual and other bankruptcies as have spawned a Winner-take-All, Fuck-you-I've-got-Mine collection of anti-social misfits: The US long ago became the Anti-social-Society, disguising the inculcated absence of any sincere capability for empathy as --'rugged individualism'==Good; social regard, cooperation==Weakness. (If we have any 'Presidential-grade' candidates available to replace Obama -??- they must be well-hidden--as in some survivalist's root cellar) --with the guns, ammo and undrinkable Murican beer-like liquids. Meanwhile, as the unravelling intensifies and the Hate-filled epithets increase in loudness proportional-to-their-vacuity, I'll trust BHO over anyone standing-in-the-wings. He Is the best shot we have of getting out of this mode of Pure-seppuku-outcome: one which we may just Not-survive (whatever he does/doesn't do next.) Our corruption is so vast in extent/in depth/in its Viciousness (and banality: Collect Everything and hoard it is a 2 yo's Dream, having nothing to do with Adulthood) that--We Flunked. By all measures opposite to that 'Success' chimera. Half +/- of all Muricans 'below the poverty level'? While tens of $B are still spent regularly by Koch et al: on propaganda to preserve the status-quo?? qed Carrion
Post #380,614 by CRConrad 9/13/13 7:38:23 PM Reply	I don't see how he can have it both ways. SKott: Obama claims he didn't have to go to Congress to act. I think he said that to preserve the President's capacity to act quickly in extreme situations without explicit approval of Congress. But he also said in his address a couple of days ago that he thought Congress should give their advice and have a vote in this case since (roughly) "there isn't an immediate and direct threat to the US". Isn't the President's conditional power to start bellicose action predicated precisely on there being "an immediate and direct threat to the US"? Either there was, and then he couldn't have had the time to consult Congress; or there wasn't, and then he would have to go to Congress to act. Sure, perhaps one could come up with some reason why he wouldn't have to consult them but still could do so, but this doesn't seem like a logically defensible case of such. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #380,622 by Another Scott 9/13/13 9:04:30 PM Reply	It goes back to the War Powers Resolution http://en.wikipedia....Powers_Resolution The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past, for example, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for alleged violations.[2] Presidents don't like even that restriction, but there's enough wiggle-room in it that they pay lip-service to it. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #380,627 by Ashton 9/13/13 11:31:07 PM Reply	Operative words here, 'in this case' are not weasel-words as Scott has described. At very least (until War Powers Act were to be revisited..) he was signifying that he could afford to wait in this case --whereas in some.. next.. case, maybe not so much. He didn't Have-to wait, and I expect that any other or next CIEIO would have phrased such a matter ~the same way. Nothing to do with 'BHO vacillating', IMO.

Welcome to IWETHEY!