Russian military presence in Syria poses challenge to US-led intervention

[Kurioxan]

"Humanitarian Crisis!"
"World Police!"
"something something Illuminati!"

What no? lol.

"Has natural resources we want"
"geopolitical place of interest"
"basic behaviour for a hegemony oriented nation"

[Deleted]

Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons either.

But that argument is past.

Not confirmed, but they have never denied it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Most people take it for granted that they do, considering how close they are to the USA I dont doubt they have them. Not to mention them talking about the samson option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

[Elegiac]

Not confirmed, but they have never denied it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Most people take it for granted that they do, considering how close they are to the USA I dont doubt they have them. Not to mention them talking about the samson option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

I'd rather keep the possible pool of nuclear states to the first world, personally.

---------- Post added 2012-12-24 at 03:17 PM ----------

What no? lol.

"Has natural resources we want"
"geopolitical place of interest"
"basic behaviour for a hegemony oriented nation"

The notion that US foreign policy operates from a basis of geopolitical interest is almost as laughable as Russian 'prevention' of intervention.

The US is one of the most naive and politically zealous powers that has ever existed. When they say "we want to spread democracy, solve humanitarian crises, etc.", as farfetched as it may seem, they do actually mean it.

[Deleted]

Well then, to join the current one:

My country has a strong historic connection to Russia (both pre-communist and during), so I consider Russia to be the better power out of the two (US) if I have to make a comparison. I doubt they currently have the military power to overcome the US, but they probably have a trick up their sleeve, as always.

And no, I don't see neither US nor Russia as a villain. If anyone has to play that role I think it would be China.

[Elegiac]

Well then, to join the current one:

My country has a strong historic connection to Russia (both pre-communist and during), so I consider Russia to be the better power out of the two (US) if I have to make a comparison. I doubt they currently have the military power to overcome the US, but they probably have a trick up their sleeve, as always.

And no, I don't see neither US nor Russia as a villain. If anyone has to play that role I think it would be China.

"Trick up their sleeve"? Even if that were the case, Russia lacks the motive and willpower to maintain this course of action, so no. If the US really wants to intervene, there is really no external impediment.

China is no more a villain than Russia or the US. The reason for this is simple; 'good and evil' are irrelevant concepts in terms of international relations.

[billytwice]

Alot of stuff to respond to here, and im not trying to brush anything under the rug, but i can only do my best.

1. France is a small nation with regard to the global scale. It became great because of its advanced organization,size and autocratic control, especially with regard to other nations in Europe. Russia isn't just going to fall off because of issues such as these -- Russia, China and the United States are the 'Biggest Fish' in the pond, so to speak.

2. I fully understand and admit that Russia has not been without great hardship in wars such as those with Germany, Afghanistan and such. But I stand by the fact that, despite their uncouth way of going about their affairs, especially with comparison to the glamorous and decadent nations of the West, like France, Britain and America, the Russians have a talent for following along the paradigm of "lose the battle, win the war": They manage to come out pretty well in a large number of scenarios in history.

3. Another poster made this point, and I shall reiterate it: Russia is NOT the biggest and baddest thing out in the world today. I may have spiced them up a few posts back, but I had to to overcome the egregious slander that was being flung at that nation. My main message is: do not underestimate Russia, they have won against the odds before and will do so again.

4. I agree that Russia will not challenge the USA, for a very long time, when push comes to shove. But that has never been Russia's character; it's what has guided her through close calls with so many powerful neighbors and empires. This Syrian garrison is a (rather paultry, I must say) show of strength for the benefit of the Americans, largely stemming from Russia's insecurity in regard to the Uncle Sam. But then again, who isn't insecure when standing next to the Red, White and Blue colossus

[Deleted]

"Trick up their sleeve"? Even if that were the case, Russia lacks the motive and willpower to maintain this course of action, so no. If the US really wants to intervene, there is really no external impediment.

China is no more a villain than Russia or the US. The reason for this is simple; 'good and evil' are irrelevant concepts in terms of international relations.

True, but usually China is labeled as evil due to how they treat their citizens. (Though I have yet to meet a Chinese who has complained from this)

[traen]

The title is extremely misleading. There is no russian military presence in Syria. Russia sold weapons to Siria.
Russia sells weapons to anyone who have money to buy it.

Blaming Russia for selling weapons to other countries is the same as if burglar was blaming a gun shop for selling guns to house-owners.

Yes, people are buying weapons to PROTECT themselves. Get over it. This right is written in bloody american constitution!

[Elegiac]

True, but usually China is labeled as evil due to how they treat their citizens. (Though I have yet to meet a Chinese who has complained from this)

Which again, is irrelevant on the international stage. The only time governments label other nations as 'good' or 'evil' is when they are trying to justify courses of action to the public.

[Kurioxan]

The US is one of the most naive and politically zealous powers that has ever existed. When they say "we want to spread democracy, solve humanitarian crises, etc.", as farfetched as it may seem, they do actually mean it.

Maybe their presidents are, but those change every 4/8 years, the men who are in control of high military operations, advisory and so forth have been up there before and will be after most presidents, and those men have the ear of the president.

It has always been interesting how the Iraq war developed for example, one can believe the story told that it was a single individual who managed to mislead the whole US military and presidency into believing that Iraq had WMD's using decade-old photographs and fake confessions, which later resulted in several officials quitting their jobs, or you can think about the sudden increase in Saddams guard and an interesting amount of assassination attempts because he was trying to sell his oil in Euros instead of Dollars, which would among others really devalue US dollar and risk destabilizing the whole cold war effort of making all big oil exporters use the Dollar, which then resulted in a military strike to just off him.

I dont deny what you say might be true, but I find the other reasons to be far more feasible.


Also yes, there is no "good" or "evil" it is just a matter of perspective and to whose media you listen to.
Humans have this thing, they are innately good, so they need to have their enemy vilified to actually want them dead and gone.
That is why propaganda exists, to vilify the enemy and popular support.

[Elegiac]

Maybe their presidents are, but those change every 4/8 years, the men who are in control of high military operations, advisory and so forth have been up there before and will be after most presidents, and those men have the ear of the president.

It has always been interesting how the Iraq war developed for example, one can believe the story told that it was a single individual who managed to mislead the whole US military and presidency into believing that Iraq had WMD's using decade-old photographs and fake confessions, which later resulted in several officials quitting their jobs, or you can think about the sudden increase in Saddams guard and an interesting amount of assassination attempts because he was trying to sell his oil in Euros instead of Dollars, which would among others really devalue US dollar and risk destabilizing the whole cold war effort of making all big oil exporters use the Dollar, which then resulted in a military strike to just off him.

I dont deny what you say might be true, but I find the other reasons to be far more feasible.

Maybe the Presidents are? No. If anything, the Presidents are often the cause of aberrations contrary to the principle; the notion of democratic peace is something that was built in to the United States by its Founders.

The thing you, and everyone, should understand is that wars are never instigated for a single reason. In the Iraq War, oil was -a- reason, but the primary reason for it is that the US genuinely believed they were doing the right thing by removing Saddam from power. I have no doubt that Bush even believed this.

Also yes, there is no "good" or "evil" it is just a matter of perspective and to whose media you listen to.
Humans have this thing, they are innately good, so they need to have their enemy vilified to actually want them dead and gone.
That is why propaganda exists, to vilify the enemy and popular support.

It's not even a matter of perspective; it's simply irrelevant. Conducting foreign policy on the basis of morality only leads to dangerous and stupid mistakes.

[Deleted]

Which again, is irrelevant on the international stage. The only time governments label other nations as 'good' or 'evil' is when they are trying to justify courses of action to the public.

Well, usually, the government's actions need to be justified in order to be executed otherwise the people will riot. "Defending your country" as a reason is slowly being overtaken by "making the world a better place". I don't understand why the US doesn't riot over the wars if they do not approve of them (for economical or moral reasons).

Anyway, it's getting late, happy holidays.

[Elegiac]

Well, usually, the government's actions need to be justified in order to be executed otherwise the people will riot. "Defending your country" as a reason is slowly being overtaken by "making the world a better place". I don't understand why the US doesn't riot over the wars if they do not approve of them (for economical or moral reasons).

Anyway, it's getting late, happy holidays.

A variety of reasons that are too many and varied to go into in the space of a forum post.

[billytwice]

Maybe the Presidents are? No. If anything, the Presidents are often the cause of aberrations contrary to the principle; the notion of democratic peace is something that was built in to the United States by its Founders.

The thing you, and everyone, should understand is that wars are never instigated for a single reason. In the Iraq War, oil was -a- reason, but the primary reason for it is that the US genuinely believed they were doing the right thing by removing Saddam from power. I have no doubt that Bush even believed this.



It's not even a matter of perspective; it's simply irrelevant. Conducting foreign policy on the basis of morality only leads to dangerous and stupid mistakes.

Im really doing this as the devil's advocate, but I must implore you to enlighten us: If that bolded statement is true, then why on earth is the United States, and to a decent extent the Roman and British Empires, so powerful despite this 'zealotry'. If it wasn't obvious, im pointing out the strange predelectiion of democracies like these to erratic behavior, and even more strangely the astounding successes they often amass.

[Elegiac]

Im really doing this as the devil's advocate, but I must implore you to enlighten us: If that bolded statement is true, then why on earth is the United States, and to a decent extent the Roman and British Empires, so powerful despite this 'zealotry'. If it wasn't obvious, im pointing out the strange predelectiion of democracies like these to erratic behavior, and even more strangely the astounding successes they often amass.

The ability to weather certain mistakes is not necessarily contingent on the capacity for making them; furthermore, while mentioned Empires were powerful at their zenith, they did ultimately crumble (and in the US' case, -is- crumbling) partially as a result of the consequences of certain foreign policy choices. Still, the Roman Empire is not really equivocable since -overall- its policy was relatively realistic, as was the British Empire before they became infected by Wilson's idealism.

In the case of the United States, the effects of its idealistic policy are manifest; pursuing wars of democratic proliferation in both Afghanistan and Iraq have proven to be ultimately fruitless and detrimental to the integrity of the American Empire. It has begun to succumb to the effects of hypertrophy, simply because it no longer possesses the wherewithal to maintain itself.

[N-7]

Well at this point it seems that the US government plan is to attack them evil countries for "possessing WMD" like the ones found in Iraq. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Unless there is a solid PROOF from multiple sources let the US go in alone, we don't want anything to do with this insanity.

[Elegiac]

Well at this point it seems that the US government plan is to attack them evil countries for "possessing WMD" like the ones found in Iraq. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Unless there is a solid PROOF from multiple sources let the US go in alone, we don't want anything to do with this insanity.

You believed them the first time? :|

[Illintent420]

Good. about time someone poses a threat to this shit country. IE America.

Infracted: Please refrain from nation bashing.

[N-7]

You believed them the first time? :|

No, but my country did.

[Elegiac]

No, but my country did.

Sorry, that was our fault. Wilson and all that. :-\

When you get another Salisbury or Castlereagh, let me know.