That’s not pedantry it’s chauvanism bordering on racism.
Could anyone shed some light on a question that’s been on the back of my mind for a few days now?
I’ve always thought of Americans as hard-nosed realists, accustomed to looking facts square in the face, no matter how unpleasant the facts might be.
But reading this thread paints a completely opposite picture: we got cries and pleadings about hope and change, talks about predictions of the future, discussions about likeability of this figure or that figure, hannityland(?) and a whole bunch of other assorted nonsense.
It’s like the facts of the past few years do not exist:
- We have 2 Presidents, one insisting for years that Bashar Assad must go, one insisting that Assad must stay. We know who’s winning that battle.
- We have a President, who’s been arming “moderate” rebels for years now. They’re being bombed into smithereens by the Air Force of another President as we speak. We know who’s winning that battle.
- We have a President who’s wasted half a billion dollars on training “4-5” (probably dead by now) “rebels”. We also have a President who earned 1.5 billion dollars during the same time period. We know who’s winning that battle.
Am I missing something here? Did Americans really become more like Europeans–weak, spineless and unwilling to face the reality?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
No. Just. . . no. Some are, obviously, but where did you get this impression? See: Americans on race, religion, science, politics.
Once again, you can’t blame President Obama for this. He’s just way above his head, that’s all. It’s like blaming a kindergarten kid for not being able to beat up a judo black belt. Is it really his fault?
How can you breath with your head shoved so far up Hannity’s ass? :rolleyes:
Before you respond, make sure to pick verbatum from the list of Fox News talking points.
The criticism is justified,Obama has been telling us that there is a group of “good” rebels, whom we can groom and equip with weapons, who will then overthrow Assad and lead Syria to peace and prosperity.
An extremely naive worldview, more appropriate to a 6th grade “Current Events” class.
But who would expect more from the great leader?
I say, let Putin grab hold of the tar baby-he will find things are not quite straightforward.
Well, fwiw, I’m a near socialist liberal and imo Obama has been driving the foreign policy clown car for most of his presidency.
And for folks who haven’t yet grasped it, a big chuck of the reason for Putin’s intervention is to drive up the price of crude - good old fashioned mid east instability.
ISIL captured large portions of the Kurdish part of Iraq last summer. As of June 2014, the price of gas in the US was $3.65 a gallon, basically identical to what it was the year before in June. In June 2015, as Syria continues further down the drain, gas costs about $2.40 a gallon. Why didn’t more instability result in gas that cost, say, $4.70 gallon?
Answer: not everything revolves around oil, people.
He’s not a US conservative. He seems to be the operator of the Russian foreign ministry’s Twitter feed.
It’s not even posturing with you, I think; you really are this simplistic.
This is the endgame…especially the last sentence.
By the time this is over there wont be much left to govern and there wont be a Marshall Plan to rebuild it.
So why is the price of oil dropping as Syria gets worse? The answer I’m expecting has something to do with “Shrub and the new world order conspired with Halliburton and Putin to control Syria’s oil reserves to drive Telsa out of business so GM can keep making dirty cars,” or some variation thereof.
Saudi Arabia and OPEC have kept production high, partly to limit the money the IS can make. Normally they cut production when prices start to fall for any reason. This time they let prices fall so far that some North American shale operations were suspended as unprofitable. When some Iraqi production and refinery infrastructure got burned up in fighting earlier this year–a supply-side disruption that started to tick the price back up–the shale came back in and moderated the effect.
No, it’s not all about oil. But oil is the main resource of the region, the lifeblood of much of industrialized life, a vital strategic asset in modern warfare. So an awful damn lot of it is about oil.
Those are very fair points. But my guess right now is that Russia’s deployment is more about Putin’s ego than it is about oil, notwithstanding that other issues are obviously involved as well.
Right, it’s basically high school petulance by some guy who doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Putin is many things, but stupid isn’t one of them.
Well, he’s not the genius that some people make him out to be, either. Exhibit A: sending troops to Syria.
I think it’s less about energy (or is it?) and more about another proxy war between America/Saudi Arabia and Russia/Iran and all their various underlings. It’s a good way to distract from Russia’s little Ukraine adventure, too. Russia wants to regain as much of its former glory as possible. Cold War 2.0, if you like.
Has there ever been a time when two countries have bombed the opposite sides in the same country without shooting at each other? That’s just weird.
Here are some sources to back up my claim:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/31/us-russia-vodka-idUSBREA0U01120140131
As for a comparison between Russia and other countries in terms of alcohol consumption, I’ll see if I can find any.
Partitioned based on what lines though? Please don’t say along religious lines, that is just stupid and unrealistic. The “poor, cute” Alawites are too small to warrant their own state. Syria has different religious sects, just like any nation. Majority of Sunni, with Shite, Chrisitian, Yazidi, Jewish, etc.
The only way Syria can sensibly be split will be the Kurdish north. And geographically it is not large at all, Syria’s Kurdish population and area is the smallest, as opposed to Turkey, Iran and Iraq.
There are smaller ethnic groups like Turkmens and others, but not large enough to warrant their own nation, plus they don’t all live in one part of Syria only.
So this talk of splitting Syria, Iraq and any Middle Eastern nation casually is just not feasible and is nonsense. Reminds when some said Iraq’s “shite part” (wherever the hell they may be) should join with Iran. Except they are Arabs and Iran is not even the homeland of Shiites. Just like Saudi Arabia is not the homeland of Sunnis or Arabs or Muslims in general.