# Syria Poll



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Ok let us see what the forum thinks on Syria. Some say lets invade this pile of ruble, others say lets leave it alone. What we do know is the west wants Assad out because he is next in line of the countries that have already been destroyed.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

This is the kind of poll that RT and Saddams propaganda minister would have been proud of. Working with Russia so far has only created half a million dead bodies, most of them curtesy of Russian UNSC veto and Russian supplied and or fired weapons.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

If I believed that I would have went with option 4. I know you hate Russia and put the blinders on to everything thing else we all can see that. Nuclear war to you would be better then giving up even a square inch of that pile of rubble which Russia didn't start. Russia should be more like China and keep to there selves more but they like the US have to be in everyone else's business.

China of course would like to rule the world but they are smarter about it and trying to slowly buy the world, while building up their military.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

You forgot one more choice, ignore it and go home.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I actually am in favour of this, it is just that nuclear fallout reaches every part of the world. So we are kind of stuck having to make sure the world functions without letting countries go nuts on their neighbours. Having said that it is a fair option to have on the list.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

new dog said:


> I actually am in favour of this, it is just that nuclear fallout reaches every part of the world.


Nuclear fallout doesn't exist. It's like climate change. Some scientists are just pushing the idea for their own gains but God would not let either of these things happen.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

tygrus said:


> You forgot one more choice, ignore it and go home.


I also support this option . When Syrians fight each other , they forget about Israel


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

This is true Gibor keep them busy for as long as possible.

So far peace and war are neck and neck and we have one for the nut jobs. The nut jobs are good for keeping the Syrians busy as long as you send them in and keep tabs on them as they go back and forth.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

what's this *Work with Russia and Create Peace* option?

i'm not going to vote in a rigged poll like this. Shame, shame!

.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Fair and balanced poll, there.

Canada ain't doing noth' of substance on Syria. And this is a Canadian forum. So...


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> what's this *Work with Russia and Create Peace* option?
> 
> i'm not going to vote in a rigged poll like this. Shame, shame!
> 
> .


 
How do you figure this when this option only counts for only 1 out of four choices. Don't people have the right to express their opinion even if it doesn't match yours. The no fly zone, contain and arm the nut jobs are all there so you could say it is more skewed in your favour.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

new dog, can you please vote in my poll below?

Have you stopped beating your wife?
A: Yes
B: No

I'm curious as to which of the two entirely fair and balanced options you will select.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

This thread is funnier than the election thread. 

No vote from me either. The choices are a joke. Sorry dogcom, you are a nice guy but *c'mon man*. Did that old joker, Vlad Putin put you up to this?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^Obama is a much more natural politician than Hillary. Easy to see why he beat her in 2008.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

andrewf said:


> new dog, can you please vote in my poll below?
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> A: Yes
> ...


We are having some fun here but this is not a fun question to ask even for a joke.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It's the canonical example of a loaded question, which was a tongue in cheek way of explaining to you what is wrong with the poll.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

This is the kind of thing Trump would say and it holds no humour or tongue and cheek value what so ever. The poll may be stupid to people here but it doesn't degrade people on the forum.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It is a very commonly used example of the loaded question fallacy, it was obviously not intended as a sincere accusation of spousal abuse.

(this disclaimer should not be necessary)


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> what's this *Work with Russia and Create Peace* option?
> 
> i'm not going to vote in a rigged poll like this. Shame, shame!
> 
> .


I had to laugh when I saw that option. As if "peace" in the middle east was even possible.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

pwm said:


> I had to laugh when I saw that option. As if "peace" in the middle east was even possible.


I have to agree. Peace in the middle east, no matter who brokers it, wont be a long lasting peace. And the same with ceasefires between the warring countries, or more like factions these days.

When there is no strong central government, with different sides fighting each other with different political interests and objectives,
the results will never be favourable for any kind of lasting peace. 

At one time,the US was indirectly supporting the rebels fighting Assad. Once the US discovered that these rebels were ISIS/al-Queda,they quickly stopped supporting the rebels and started to treat them as enemies, bomb ISIS strongholds in Syria. 

The US and Canadian fighter jet bombing didn't come up with a satisfactory military solution (so far),and now Russia/Putin
got involved to continue with the bombing.

The UN should have set up a No Fly zone over parts of Syria (like Aleppo) a couple years ago.. that was a .big mistake on the UN's
part, which one could say was the US decision to fly and bomb all over Syria.

Now the Russians (and Syrians under Assad) are flying around and bombing the rebels (ISIS and whatever) and it just goes on and on.

Imposing a Nofly zone at this date will result in a clash between Russian and US fighter jets in the Syrian corridor, leading to more escalation of a US-Russian war, a lot more serious impact on the world than the current cold war between Putin and the US.

What did all that bombing accomplish in Syria? Is ISIS on the run or reduced in strength? 
Highly unlikely..just a lot of innocent people getting maimed and killed.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

.

new poll:

1) do you beat your wife?
2) do you have a drinking problem?
3) are you planning to join russia's 12-step bombing & sobriety program to achieve world peace?

.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> .
> 
> new poll:
> 
> ...


Russia is a menace-they wrecked Syria-they engineered Brexit-they created Julian Assange-they built Donald Trump-they cheat at sports-they are going to rig the USA election by driving buses around town-they drink Vodka not beer-they speak English with a sinister accent-BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> .
> 
> new poll:
> 
> ...



Never thought that spousal abuse or beating your wife would be requested option on a Canadian forum poll. I always thought that spousal abuse was a serious topic and not to be taken lightly.

Since people here seem interested in it and no one seems to be speaking up except me then clearly I was wrong.

I wouldn't put the poll here because it won't work or be valid. Since you are interested in this then what you need to do is start a new thread and then select the poll option. I probably wouldn't vote, but that is because I don't think asking someone if they beat their wife is right but to each their own.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^Crocodile tears.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

A Russian commander in Donetsk was blown up earlier today. Russian proxies called it a declaration of war by Ukraine. They suspect Ukraine because that particular commander had committed war crimes against Ukrainian prisoners and Poroshenko promised retribution. 

Wouldn't be surprised if Russia invaded either Ukraine or Moldavia in the next couple of months and escalated bombardments in Syria to consolidate gains while Obama is in the office.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

dogcom you are right, wife beating is so much more unthinkable than crushing & burning to death hundreds of terrified syrian children every night in a country that anyhow is nothing more than a pile of rubles [sic.]

now that we've taken wife beating off the table, we can go ahead & continue to praise russia for bombing peace into the middle east & into east ukraine, while strategically enlarging its borders.

.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Saudi Arabia the US and others who bomb only hurt flowers and trees. Of course it is horrible humble, what kind of idiots do you take us for. Being strong and containing Syria and letting Russia get bogged down in Syria is the right thing to do I would think. Your brilliant plan is to bomb Syria past the stone age and then create world war 3 bombing the rest of the world to the stone age doesn't seem like a very healthy option for any child on our planet.

If you look in the middle east the west or the US is all over it and of course Russia would also like to be all over it as well. There are no good guys here from what I can see, so best to find a way to work together because we know how world war 4 is fought it is fought, with sticks and stones.

Still however if Trump looks like he is going to win or Hillary is truly sick then we could probably see some kind of incident that will drag everyone into a war to cover it up. Otherwise some major bank failure bringing down the system could push a war to again cover up, blame and distract us form something they can't fix. I don't believe all this war talk all of a sudden escalating to such a pitch is because Russia suddenly wants to go nuts and create world war 3 because they won't win, no one would.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> dogcom you are right, wife beating is so much more unthinkable than crushing & burning to death hundreds of terrified syrian children every night in a country that anyhow is nothing more than a pile of rubles [sic.]
> 
> now that we've taken wife beating off the table, we can go ahead & continue to praise russia for bombing peace into the middle east & into east ukraine, while strategically enlarging its borders.
> 
> .


Don't worry-if your Crooked Hillary wins she will get you that nuclear war you dream about-as an aside, I am old enough to remember when so called "liberals" were not warmongers.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

mordko said:


> A Russian commander in Donetsk was blown up earlier today. Russian proxies called it a declaration of war by Ukraine. They suspect Ukraine because that particular commander had committed war crimes against Ukrainian prisoners and Poroshenko promised retribution.
> 
> Wouldn't be surprised if Russia invaded either Ukraine or Moldavia in the next couple of months and escalated bombardments in Syria to consolidate gains while Obama is in the office.


In unrelated news, Sweden, Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, etc etc have all been invaded to the cheers of the MSM.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

new dog said:


> Saudi Arabia the US and others who bomb only hurt flowers and trees. Of course it is horrible humble, what kind of idiots do you take us for. Being strong and containing Syria and letting Russia get bogged down in Syria is the right thing to do I would think. Your brilliant plan is to bomb Syria past the stone age and then create world war 3 bombing the rest of the world to the stone age doesn't seem like a very healthy option for any child on our planet.
> 
> If you look in the middle east the west or the US is all over it and of course Russia would also like to be all over it as well. There are no good guys here from what I can see, so best to find a way to work together because we know how world war 4 is fought it is fought, with sticks and stones.
> 
> Still however if Trump looks like he is going to win or Hillary is truly sick then we could probably see some kind of incident that will drag everyone into a war to cover it up. Otherwise some major bank failure bringing down the system could push a war to again cover up, blame and distract us form something they can't fix. I don't believe all this war talk all of a sudden escalating to such a pitch is because Russia suddenly wants to go nuts and create world war 3 because they won't win, no one would.


It is all the same story over and over-INVADE AND INVITE-make big money wrecking some country halfway around the world and then make even more money wrecking your home country.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Your right here nelly, they are only war mongers when they are told to be by their Liberal leaders. If however their Liberal leadership turned on them and introduced the draft and told them they would have to fight suddenly they would care and would wake up but it would be to late.

Also look in the US they only care about Trump grope talk and I don't hear anyone talking about children who died in a far away war. They will only turn their attention there if the mainstream media feeds it to them to sell the war or whatever. Many Liberals have become zombies to the media and all the media has to do is show images to make them do anything. When the US first bombed and created the refugees the media put horrible images on TV so that Europe and who ever would accept them wholesale and now they are wrecking Europe and groping Liberals everywhere.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If any of that comes to pass there is nothing I can do about it anyways, so I will grab a bowl of popcorn and watch the fireworks.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

sags said:


> If any of that comes to pass there is nothing I can do about it anyways, so I will grab a bowl of popcorn and watch the fireworks.


True, but in a way it is people just like you that caused it through your never ending support of MSM warmongering.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

new dog said:


> they are only war mongers when they are told to be by their Liberal leaders ... Many Liberals have become zombies to the media and all the media has to do is show images to make them do anything. When the US first bombed and created the refugees the media put horrible images on TV so that Europe and who ever would accept them wholesale and now they are wrecking Europe and groping Liberals everywhere.



paranoia
will destroya

PS where are the "Liberal leaders" you're referring to in the US of A? or are you talking about canada now?

.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Unfortunately it is the Liberals who are in power in Canada and the US so I do find myself going after them a lot. If the conservatives were in power and Trump wasn't running my thinking is I would be going after them instead on this topic.

We need the sort of leadership we saw when Paul Martin and Chretien were in charge back in the day. They didn't lead us into Iraq and they also stopped the banks. If Harper was in charge instead of them back then we would have been in big trouble.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

new dog said:


> When the US first bombed and created the refugees the media put horrible images on TV so that Europe and who ever would accept them wholesale and now they are wrecking Europe and groping Liberals everywhere.


The US is targetting ISIS and is not responsible for creating most of the refugees.
The refugees were mainly created by the Assad regime and its allies Hezbollah and Iran, ISIS and similar groups ,and the Russians who bomb civilians.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

The US needs to invade Syria and fix the middle east, once and for all.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

new dog said:


> Unfortunately it is the Liberals who are in power in Canada and the US so I do find myself going after them a lot. If the conservatives were in power and Trump wasn't running my thinking is I would be going after them instead on this topic.
> 
> We need the sort of leadership we saw when Paul Martin and Chretien were in charge back in the day. They didn't lead us into Iraq and they also stopped the banks. If Harper was in charge instead of them back then we would have been in big trouble.



but this is a thread about the US election. We're not re-living the october 2015 federal canadian election here.

as usual, whether ottawa would be red or blue, there's not much canada could do right now to affect washington or moscow.

what can be done by canada about ISIL is being done to the hilt, imho. Canada is deploying elite special forces ground troops who will very soon assist with the re-capture of Mosul. This will put a temporary halt on ISIL, although Amal Clooney is no doubt right when she says that one cannot stop an idea & terrorist islam is an idea whose time is now.

canada has sent a movable emergency hospital as well as armoured helicopters to carry out rescue operations during combat in northern iraq. If that isn't dedicated courage from brave canadian military, i don't know what is.

the decision to pull canada's six F18s from the anti-ISIL coalition & send them to patrol eastern europe instead was precisely to avoid the hideous war crimes of mass civilian slaughter which we are seeing in syria right now, as executed by russia.


.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> The US needs to invade Syria and fix the middle east, once and for all.


Sergeant York: After you invade Syria you can invade France and Belgium and Sweden and Greece, etc. etc.etc.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Nelley said:


> Sergeant York: After you invade Syria you can invade France and Belgium and Sweden and Greece, etc. etc.etc.


All in good time. Freedom isn't free!


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

new dog said:


> We need the sort of leadership we saw when Paul Martin and Chretien were in charge back in the day.


Paul Martin was the last conservative prime minister of Canada.

He reduced spending and balanced the books. He's the reason we were less decimated by the depression of 08/09. ... and, at least in the west, he was pretty much universally hated.

Nobody wants the books balanced. Nobody wants responsible government. Just give us our free stuff and shut the hell up.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

TomB19 said:


> The US needs to invade Syria and fix the middle east, once and for all.



(laughter) you are being funny/silly/provocative, no? there's no simplistic fixing of the middle east & you know that perfectly well. As Amal Clooney says, no one can stop an idea. Especially not an idea that's out-of-control raging in more than 32 countries plus 4 continents.

the most we can do is protect our own country, contain the global horror & look for ways to tone down the spreading revolutionary violence. Sooner or later even radical zealots have to trade with the enemy. Although it took a long time in burma & cambodia & it's taking a long time in north korea.

here's a tiny scrap of news that might alarm you if you didn't see it last fall. Soon after election, Justin Trudeau floated a trial balloon.

classically, trial balloons are departure policies that are floated in the media for a few hours or a few days, in order to note public reaction.

what trudeau floated was the possibility of ottawa establishing diplomatic relations with ISIL. Well. You can imagine the uproar that ensued within 2 seconds of that hitting the wires. That particular trial balloon disappeared within an hour or two, never to be seen since. However, i imagine it's still somewhere on the remote back burner. 


.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

humble_pie said:


> (laughter) you are being funny/silly/provocative, no?


Back in 06, when the war in Iraq was doing particularly poorly, I suggested to an American friend the US should pull out and let that cesspool implode because it wasn't worth the lives of any more young Americans. He said, "We need to stay and fix the middle east, once and for all."

I've long kept that beautiful, uncut diamond in the back of my mind.

When I saw Nelley in this thread, I realized he is more than sufficiently ignorant as to not realize I am mocking him with that statement.

BTW, I will be voting against Justin in 2019, at which time Justin will win and get four more years of crushing us with outsourcing, guest workers, and global philanthropy.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

TomB19 said:


> The US needs to invade Syria and fix the middle east, once and for all.


The West can't "fix the Middle East", only they can fix their ongoing sectarian violence since the death of their prophet in 632 A.D. Is the Middle East safer today with the removal of multiple brutal dictators?

ps: I had thought you were being sarcastic.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

It is God's will that the US fix the middle east.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> All in good time. Freedom isn't free!


It took a while but you finally made me LOL.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> (laughter) you are being funny/silly/provocative, no? there's no simplistic fixing of the middle east & you know that perfectly well. As Amal Clooney says, no one can stop an idea. Especially not an idea that's out-of-control raging in more than 32 countries plus 4 continents.
> 
> the most we can do is protect our own country, contain the global horror & look for ways to tone down the spreading revolutionary violence. Sooner or later even radical zealots have to trade with the enemy. Although it took a long time in burma & cambodia & it's taking a long time in north korea.
> 
> ...


Haircut Boy has a good idea-lets just bring them to Canada-diversity is our strength.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> Back in 06, when the war in Iraq was doing particularly poorly, I suggested to an American friend the US should pull out and let that cesspool implode because it wasn't worth the lives of any more young Americans. He said, "We need to stay and fix the middle east, once and for all."
> 
> I've long kept that beautiful, uncut diamond in the back of my mind.
> 
> ...


In my defense, you write such stupid stuff constantly that one cannot discern the sarcasm from the stupidity.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

In all seriousness, even the staunchest Hillary supporters must accept that there has never been a candidate for POTUS more willing/likely to start a nuclear war. I mean look at Trump-the guy is SMUG-he is literally the definition of a fat cat-that is why a lot of people hate the guy. He loves his life-it is written all over his face. Obama is the same-Bill Clinton is the same smug guy. OTOH Hillary Clinton has a rage and visceral unhappiness that is palpable and exhibits a recklessness, a willingness to do whatever her emotions tell her in the moment that is pretty damn scary if she is given this position.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Nelley said:


> In my defense, you write such stupid stuff constantly that one cannot discern the sarcasm from the stupidity.


Touche, my friend.

Good morning and welcome to another day of pointless bickering. I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Nelley said:


> In all seriousness, even the staunchest Hillary supporters must accept that there has never been a candidate for POTUS more willing/likely to start a nuclear war.


lmao!

You give so much and ask so little. Thanks! 

By the way, you forgot to mention that Hillary is the anti-Christ and Hitler.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> Touche, my friend.
> 
> Good morning and welcome to another day of pointless bickering. I'm looking forward to it.


We are the modern PC version of George and Martha from Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> lmao!
> 
> You give so much and ask so little. Thanks!
> 
> By the way, you forgot to mention that Hillary is the anti-Christ and Hitler.


She definitely has the Hitler rage-what other POTUS could match those two in that regard? When Bill Clinton was POTUS she almost killed him (according to the top agent assigned to her)-imagine how they would have had to spin that mess-Hillary didn't give a ****-this broad will send the nukes if Putin implies she is fat.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Maybe a war with Russia would be a good thing? It would be highly profitable for the military industrial complex and there would be a huge, new market for radiation protection gear.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

TomB19 said:


> It is God's will that the US fix the middle east.




allah said Hi, too

but with my trusty sword ExCalibur i smote em dead


(signed)

Richard the Lionheart

mighty crusader
killer of saracens
comte d'Anjou
future king of England

fontevrault
le 22 aout 1182

.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> In all seriousness, even the staunchest Hillary supporters must accept that there has never been a candidate for POTUS more willing/likely to start a nuclear war. I mean look at Trump-the guy is SMUG-he is literally the definition of a fat cat-that is why a lot of people hate the guy. He loves his life-it is written all over his face. Obama is the same-Bill Clinton is the same smug guy. OTOH Hillary Clinton has a rage and visceral unhappiness that is palpable and exhibits a recklessness, a willingness to do whatever her emotions tell her in the moment that is pretty damn scary if she is given this position.


Dunno. Hillary seems sensible enough to avoid diplomatic situations where risk of nuclear war becomes imminent. Trump was talking about maybe he will/maybe he won't defend eastern Europe NATO allies. That is dangerous if Russia miscalculates and decides to try their luck. Trump may say he won't honour NATO obligations but he may not be the one who ultimately makes the call. Very dangerous to be ambiguous about it.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Dunno. Hillary seems sensible enough to avoid diplomatic situations where risk of nuclear war becomes imminent. Trump was talking about maybe he will/maybe he won't defend eastern Europe NATO allies. That is dangerous if Russia miscalculates and decides to try their luck. Trump may say he won't honour NATO obligations but he may not be the one who ultimately makes the call. Very dangerous to be ambiguous about it.


Firstly, he never said that-he said some NATO countries should be paying more money-and he is 100% right on that one. Secondly, NATO is probably outdated-as an example Turkey (a total shithole) is in NATO-maybe you want to die to protect that shithole (in that case go over there and fight) but most reasonable Canadians and Americans sure as hell don't.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Russia has >$100 billion of US government bonds. Russian government officials have multi-million "dachas" in California and slush funds in Panama. Wonder what would be their chances of seeing any of these assets if they started a war against US? 

Russian regime is more likely to start a war against Siberia because that particular area has none of their personal assets.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Nelley said:


> Firstly, he never said that [ie donald trump never said NATO would not defend countries that do not pay their fair share of NATO expenses.)
> 
> - he said some NATO countries should be paying more money-and he is 100% right on that one.



donald trump not only said he would not defend NATO countries that don't pay their fair share, he actually repeated this assertion twice. Here's the 2nd repetition, on 27 july/16.

canada, btw, is one of the countries that pays less than its fair share to NATO. Fair share is calculated as 2% of GDP.


*" Donald Trump reiterates he will only help Nato countries that pay 'fair share' "*

*" Republican makes more isolationist comments about US foreign policy, saying he wants to keep Nato but only if member countries pay for defense"*


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/27/donald-trump-nato-isolationist


.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> donald trump not only said he would not defend NATO countries that don't pay their fair share, he actually repeated this assertion twice. Here's the 2nd repetition, on 27 july/16.
> 
> canada, btw, is one of the countries that pays less than its fair share to NATO. Fair share is calculated as 2% of GDP.
> 
> ...


I just read the article-typical MSM B/S-try reading it again-really really slowly if that is necessary for you to comprehend English-Lord give me strength.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Firstly, he never said that-he said some NATO countries should be paying more money-and he is 100% right on that one. Secondly, NATO is probably outdated-as an example Turkey (a total shithole) is in NATO-maybe you want to die to protect that shithole (in that case go over there and fight) but most reasonable Canadians and Americans sure as hell don't.


No, he is not right about our Eastern Europe allies not paying their fair share. They are generally meeting the NATO commitment of spending 2% of GDP. He also made comments about not wanting to be predictable about whether he would honour NATO commitments.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...oreign-policy-dangerous?target=topic&tid=2602
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html


> Asked about Russia’s threatening activities, which have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing if those nations have “fulfilled their obligations to us.”
> 
> “If they fulfill their obligations to us,” he added, “the answer is yes.”


Making it conditional on his assessment in the event of an incident is reckless and dangerous. This is how we get ourselves into a war with Russia.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Firstly, he never said that-he said some NATO countries should be paying more money-and he is 100% right on that one. Secondly, NATO is probably outdated-as an example Turkey (a total shithole) is in NATO-maybe you want to die to protect that shithole (in that case go over there and fight) but most reasonable Canadians and Americans sure as hell don't.


Perhaps you should review the history of Turkey's membership. Turkey is not an ideal ally but was strategically very important to NATO. Now that Turkey is turning down the path of Islamism and authoritarianism (and given the stunt they pulled shooting down a Russian aircraft), it would probably on balance be better if Turkey were no longer a member. NATO doesn't have a provision for expelling members, so I guess they would have to be invited to withdraw.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Perhaps you should review the history of Turkey's membership. Turkey is not an ideal ally but was strategically very important to NATO. Now that Turkey is turning down the path of Islamism and authoritarianism (and given the stunt they pulled shooting down a Russian aircraft), it would probably on balance be better if Turkey were no longer a member. NATO doesn't have a provision for expelling members, so I guess they would have to be invited to withdraw.


Yeah like you say Turkey is not an ideal ally-LOL-I guess the only solution is to bring Russia into NATO as a full member and throw Turkey in the trash.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Russia should have joined NATO, but instead it serves Putin's interests to make enemies of the West. There's no reason Russia could not have joined the West.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Russia should have joined NATO, but instead it serves Putin's interests to make enemies of the West. There's no reason Russia could not have joined the West.


You should just stick to salivating over Donald Trump tapes.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^If you have nothing to contribute, you can choose to not respond.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

.

nelley it's obvious that you're in over your head when it comes to foreign affairs & for your own sake you probably should refrain from commenting (do you know where turkey is on the map?)

we don't refer to other countries as ess-aitch-eye-tee. We refer to them as challenges. In a couple of worst case scenarios we term them *failed states.*

nelley you're kind of a failed state yourself don't you think ...




Nelley said:


> NATO is probably outdated-as an example Turkey (a total shithole) is in NATO-maybe you want to die to protect that shithole (in that case go over there and fight) but most reasonable Canadians and Americans sure as hell don't.





Nelley said:


> Yeah like you say Turkey is not an ideal ally-LOL-I guess the only solution is to bring Russia into NATO as a full member and throw Turkey in the trash.


.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> .
> 
> nelley it's obvious that you're in over your head when it comes to foreign affairs & for your own sake you probably should refrain from commenting (do you know where turkey is on the map?)
> 
> ...


You would fit in real well over in Turkey-I am sure they are very interested in your opinions on everything-lots of political correctness over in Islamoland.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

tygrus said:


> You forgot one more choice, ignore it and go home.


Probably this one is the solution for the middle-east.　↑

Iraq, Libya, (Ukraine)....Just see the results!
Those countries are destroyed.
It's a obvious that's west made middle-east unstable.

The double standard /propaganda war crimes should stop.

- Life was BETTER under Saddam Hussein: Iraqis say 'Tony Blair and George Bush destroyed our country...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lair-George-Bush-destroyed-country-devil.html

'They removed Saddam Hussein, but they didn't think about the consequences of doing so,' said shopkeeper Selman Hussein.
...But the shopkeeper went on: *'They did not plan for the future. We are now living in a destroyed country, Tony Blair did not make anything good for Iraq,' he said.
'Under Saddam we were happier, it was much better.*Now, it is Sunni-Shiite and Kurds. Everybody is fighting, now there are bombs everyday. Before we had a strong president. His name was Saddam,' he said.
Selman, also believes Mr Blair twisted intelligence about the threat posed by Saddam to justify the war that led to the deaths of 179 British soldiers and left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.*
'He said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. What weapons? They lied,' he added.

- 28 before and after pictures tell you what war did to the largest city in Syria:
http://9gag.com/gag/avnnqGM/28-befo...you-what-war-did-to-the-largest-city-in-syria

- Photos of Sirte Before The NATO Bombing in Libya :
http://www.informafrica.com/blog/photos-of-sirte-before-the-nato-bombing-in-libya/3/

- Photos of Sirte After The NATO Bombing in Libya :
http://www.informafrica.com/blog/photos-of-sirte-after-the-nato-bombing-in-libya/


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Very smart s123 you are seeing the picture for what it is. This what America needs to see when they consider more intervention and on this front Trump is right. On the immigration, TPP and refugee front he is also right.

Let us now review:

We had a Syrian refugee thread when the refugee thing started up and the media showed horrific pictures to sell the refugee thing.

Most posters on the thread were all fooled by the pictures and all for letting everyone in. There was a small minority against it and it turns out they were right and destroyed the majority argument. The refugees came into Europe and destroyed it, sending rape, terrorism and groping soaring. The jury is still out on the Canadian version but odds are it will not be good and not worth the risk bringing in to many.

In the US many voters don't want Trump because of locker and grope talk. Well if Hillary gets elected she will open the doors and there will be equal opportunity for all Americans to be groped. Then of course there will be the increased terrorism to go along with it.

On the Syria front there is nothing that can be done really except to stay out and this argument will also turn out to be the winning argument once again. Even if Russia leaves and Assad gives up, the country will probably be worse off under some crazy religious regime to follow.

On Russia we hear Russia bad and Russia is taking over the whole world. In reality the west or the US is all over the world and Russia is really only in its corner. Iran and Syria are Russian friends but they are not taken over by Russia. On Ukraine it was destabilized by outside entities and is now a far worse place then before. This is on the Russian border so sure they are going to be annoyed by it, just like the US would be if Russia installed a puppet government in Mexico. 

Again Russia had an empire before so can't be trusted we all know but look around you in the world and who is all over it.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

History did not stop in 2008 when George W. left office.One can't live in the past conveniently piling all the blame on Bush etc.
His successor Barack Obama ,motivated by the need to right the wrongs done to his Kenyan ancestors and Muslims by white Western colonialists was reluctant to use force in the Middle East. This passivity has greatly contributed to the deteriorated situation we see in Syria,
Iraq and Libya.The favoritism that he displayed toward Muslims has made the situation much more dangerous. Leon Panetta who was 
Secretary of Defense and head of the CIA under Obama has expressed similar opinions.Robert Gates,Obama's Secretary of Defense,
has also stated similar ideas.

Obama has left the world in a colossal mess. He was reluctant to surge the troops in Afghanistan insisting on a smaller number and a stated departure date. The Taliban just waited till the Coalition forces departed. He unwisely withdrew US forces from Iraq,allowing ISIS
the opportunity to flourish. When the rebels in Syria staged an uprising after the Arab Spring, he did not support them in a meaningful way
with arms or a no-fly zone . He did not intervene when Assad used chemical weapons and violated his 'red line'.This allowed the Russians
to come in on the side of Assad. He did not intervene in Syria because he did not want to upset the Iranians with whom he wanted to conclude a nuclear deal. This deal is very suspect indeed. He did not support the Green Movement in Iran.


Obama was motivated singularly by a desire to right the wrongs done to his Muslim brothers by Western,white colonialists. Soon as he came into office he got rid of the statue of Churchill outside the Oval Office.
His foreign policy has been much worse than Bush's.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

All this is true and everyone should have left the place alone as s123 pointed out, basically there is no good policy in the middle east no matter who is doing the bombing.

The rebels you mention are just more crazy nut cases that will bring no good to Syria.

You should probably look for some kind of large false flag operation that will escalate things over there and put the public squarely against Russia. The public is easily fooled by the mainstream media as forum buddies were fooled by them when the refugees went to Europe


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

new dog said:


> You should probably look for some kind of large false flag operation that will escalate things over there and put the public squarely against Russia. The public is easily fooled by the mainstream media as forum buddies were fooled by them when the refugees went to Europe


A false flag operation like the Americans bombing civilians and blaming it on the Russians,dog?

The Russians are experts at false flag operations. It is said the Russian secret police themselves were responsible for the apartment bombings that lead to the intervention of the second Chechen war. They were caught bringing explosives into the third apartment.
The explosion was announced in the Duma before it happened .


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

wraphter said:


> A false flag operation like the Americans bombing civilians and blaming it on the Russians,dog?
> 
> The Russians are experts at false flag operations. It is said the Russian secret police themselves were responsible for the apartment bombings that lead to the intervention of the second Chechen war. They were caught bringing explosives into the third apartment.
> The explosion was announced in the Duma before it happened .



- US spokesperson struggles with questions about the difference between bombings in Syria and Yemen | The Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-obama-saudi-arabia-arms-sales-a7357171.html

A US government spokesperson has*struggled to answer questions put to him on why the US condemns Russian bombing in Syria, and supports Saudi-led bombing in Yemen, both of which have killed thousands of civilians.

--

And some other conflict
- Police Van Rams Protesters At Anti-U.S. Demonstration In Philippines
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...s-at-demonstration-against-u-s-in-philippines

"Associated Press TV footage showed the van repeatedly ramming the protesters as it drove wildly back and forth after activists surrounded and started hitting the vehicle with wooden batons they seized from police.

"The protesters were calling for American troops to leave the southern island of Mindanao, where they have been helping Philippine troops to fight Islamist militants," Anthony says. "President Rodrigo Duterte has said that he, too, wants the U.S. troops out."


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Wraphter once again I agree the Russians are probably very good at false flags. Countries use this along with propaganda to get support for most wars I would think.

Good link s123 this really shows that the US only cares when a foe does the bad things but it isn't worth mentioning if they or their allies do it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Osama Bin Laden launched the 911 attacks from the ME. 

ISIS and other terror groups use the ME as a base to recruit, train and build resources and plan future attacks.

Thousands of miles may separate us from the ME, but many countries in the world are within easy reach of the terrorists and North America is not completely immune because of distance.

We fight terrorists there to stop attacks here.

Letting them do their own thing isn't a viable solution when their thing is to attack innocent civilians all over the world.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Regardless of who was or still is president it is the constant bombing and intervention in the middle east that has created the terrorism. The people living in those countries have seen their families killed or their country destroyed and are easily recruited because of this. This is why they think nothing of blowing themselves up somewhere.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

new dog said:


> Regardless of who was or still is president it is the constant bombing and intervention in the middle east that has created the terrorism.


No doubt, the bombing has directly created terrorists but I don't think it radicalized the area. To a large extent, the area was full of nut jobs and the US caught their attention by intervening in their affairs.

I don't have an opinion as to whether it was worth it to get involved in the middle east. I'm not sure things are any worse than they would have been, without US involvement. ... but a lot of young Americans have given their lives. For what? It can't be fixed. Too many people there are beyond salvation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

As I recall, it was videos and pictures of the carnage that Assad was leveling on innocent civilians that galvanized the world to intercede.

The rebels were making progress, pushing Assad into a small enclave as rebel forces prepared the final battle. 

There was talk of offering Assad asylum somewhere to end the fighting quickly.

And then Russia entered the conflict and their support allowed Assad to hang on and turn the tide against the rebels.

And now Syria is a quagmire, caused by Russian involvement.

I think Hillary Clinton has the best solution. 

The US can protect a safe zone for Syrians and let Russia get bogged down as they did in Afghanistan.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Let us start by saying the west, rebels, Russia and the US are all to blame and Russia and the US are equal partners in blame I would estimate.

Russia will not give up Syria and Assad for anything because it would mean a Nat Gas pipeline could go through Syria and compete with Gazprom. Also they want to have a position in the middle east much like the US does and this has always been the case since WW 2. 

Knowing this it is absolutely essential that Russia is part of any solution to stabilize or do anything in Syria. If Russia plays hardball like Kennedy did in Cuba and says Syria is off limits then you have to ask yourself if it is worth WW 3. If we think it is then we have to accept possible annihilation for everybody in the world. Hopefully the media and the next US government will be totally truthful whatever the stakes are so people can press congress or whatever so at least they have some kind of say. 

To this point the American people I don't think have been told even half the truth by their media or their government about what really is going on in the middle east. They need to know and the media should be set free to really press and report without being fired or whatever is going on in the mainstream media.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Bombs do not create terrorists. If we go to early 20th century USA, KKK were lynching blacks who did not act in a subservient manner. They did very few lynchings, but successfully terrorized huge numbers of people. That was terrorism, which had the objective to intimidate civilian population. It was caused by a hateful ideology. Same here.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

sags said:


> And now Syria is a quagmire, caused by Russian involvement.



According To Leon Panetta ,ex-CIA head and Secretary of Defense for Obama,it was the latter's* lack* of involvement in Iraq and Syria that led to the humanitarian disaster we see now



> Obama's Former Secretary Of Defense And CIA Director Has Been Shredding Him On Syria And ISIS
> 
> .......
> 
> ...


Feckless in the White House and reckless in the Kremlin, and the world teeters on the brink.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I disagree Wraphter as you know but you make a good argument. I have to ask you or anyone else do you really think getting rid of Assad has anything to do with terrorism, democracy, helping or saving people?

The plan to lessen terrorism, help and save the people doesn't seem to be working anywhere they have tried it. This is why I don't think they care less about anybody except power, oil, control and money.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

new dog said:


> Russia will not give up Syria and Assad for anything because it would mean a Nat Gas pipeline could go through Syria and compete with Gazprom.



dogcom you've voiced this syria-gas-pipeline theory several times before. As i recall it was altaRed more than a year ago who said there is no merit to the theory. As best i can recall, altaRed said syria will not be the conduit for a natural gas pipeline, there isn't enough gas in syria.

idk, altaRed is an energy sector heavyweight with lifetime experience all over the planet, i for one would not question his views on energy transport in syria. Or anywhere else for that matter.

i believe the situation is quite a bit broader. Russia wants to secure the western end of the new Silk Road. It's a joint russian-chinese railroad system. Newly built & now operating from china to afghanistan. Still adding rail towards the west. From east mediterranean ports, chinese goods will move into europe.

silk road rail transport will be shortened to 3 weeks. The same goods shipped in capesize ships around the cape of good hope to west european ports require 3 months. Plus the railroad will carry more than manufactured goods. The undeveloped mineral & energy resources of the vast himalayan region will be shipped along the new rail lines.

it seems to me that looming Silk Road prosperity is why - now more than ever before - it's in russia's interest to stretch her hegemony over so many states near southern russia, southwestern russia, southeastern russia.

.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

The gas would come from Qatar.

Your right though, so I can't see Russia giving up all this and much more just to see the US make another gain in the region leaving them with only Iran. So there is a no win situation here for the west when it comes to removing Assad. On ISIS the US really doesn't care about them and only want to chase them into Syria as a way to get into Syria.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Central Asia could benefit from improved rail links to ports, but I am skeptical about the market for China-Europe rail transportation. Commodities will still go by ocean. Cheap manufactured goods will also likely still go by ocean. High value manufactured goods will continue to be shipped by air freight. There is a narrow wedge in the middle of moderate value goods for which the time savings/goods-in-transit inventory reduction will be worth more than the significant increase in energy cost. Rail takes about 2.5x the energy of ocean. 

http://business.tenntom.org/why-use-the-waterway/shipping-comparisons/


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

My post above was just a thought and then I saw this. It appears Russia was thinking the same thing.

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/iraq-isis-...-us-over-sending-terrorists-into-syria-700352

Oh oh forum buddies it seems Jill Stein also agrees with the people here who think Hillary's policy is dangerous.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...d_syria_policy_could_start_a_nuclear_war.html


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Central Asia could benefit from improved rail links to ports, but I am skeptical about the market for China-Europe rail transportation. Commodities will still go by ocean. Cheap manufactured goods will also likely still go by ocean. High value manufactured goods will continue to be shipped by air freight. There is a narrow wedge in the middle of moderate value goods for which the time savings/goods-in-transit inventory reduction will be worth more than the significant increase in energy cost. Rail takes about 2.5x the energy of ocean.
> 
> http://business.tenntom.org/why-use-the-waterway/shipping-comparisons/




the Silk Road rail runs north of the himalayas, through landlocked central asian countries that are thousands of miles from any seaport.

the rail line is intended to transport far more than finished goods. The new Silk Road is expected to transport raw mineral & energy resources that will be extracted from countries lyiing along the foothills of the himalayas.

also pushing the value will be the economic & cultural benefits to all countries along its route, from china to the western terminals of the Silk Road in turkey or syria.

.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

- Is Natural Gas Fueling the Syrian Conflict?
http://muftah.org/is-natural-gas-fueling-the-syrian-conflict/#.VktcOrerSM9

Unlike Iran, Russia did not become militarily involved in the Syrian hostilities until recently. The question on many people’s minds is, why now? One underexplored reason may be Russia’s gas-related interests, after the Iran nuclear deal.

From a geopolitical perspective, Vladimir Putin’s worst possible outcome in the Syrian conflict – before the Iran deal – would have been a rebel win. In addition to eliminating one of Russia’s regional allies, this outcome would have potentially given Gulf states an avenue for routing their gas reserves to Western markets. A new Syrian government would have, however, been unlikely to allow Iran to transport its gas through the country. If Assad was victorious, Putin could rest assured that neither the Gulf states nor the Iranians would be able to sell gas to the West, assuming, where Iran was concerned, that sanctions were still in place.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

That was an interesting article I never knew about the Iranian angle to build a Nat Gas pipeline through Syria to western markets.

So Russia will keep its heels dug in on this one for sure for many reasons. The west will want Assad out to get this gas to Europe and to isolate Iran and Russia in the region. Iran for its part may want to work with the west as its interest go up if Assad is removed and isolation is not a good option.

As far as people go, know one cares, they are only pawns to feed propaganda to the various countries to sell their involvement.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Russia has been involved militarily in Syria from day 1. Russian supplied helicopter gunships were used by Assad to bomb bread queues. Russian advisors were helping to direct missiles from the very beginning, I personally know one guy who played that role at the start of hostilities.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> the Silk Road rail runs north of the himalayas, through landlocked central asian countries that are thousands of miles from any seaport.
> 
> the rail line is intended to transport far more than finished goods. The new Silk Road is expected to transport raw mineral & energy resources that will be extracted from countries lyiing along the foothills of the himalayas.
> 
> ...


It's being sold as a China-Europe play. More likely it is intended to tie central Asia to China. The market for China-Europe rail freight is not going to justify the investment.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

The Economist has a leader on Russia. Very good article, highly recommended to anyone interested in the country.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Putin is making noises by moving Russia's aircraft carrier past NATO countries and apparently heading for Syria.

The Russians want to build a permanent naval base in Syria.

The biggest concern for the Russians is expansion of the US missile shield. From the Russian point of view, the more protection the US has against incoming missiles, possibly placing a shield around NATO countries, the higher is the likelihood of a US first strike. The US is continuing to expand the missile defense system in the US, specifically along the East Coast of the US.

Russia's main nuclear deterrent is land based missiles located in silos. Russia doesn't have much of a "triad" approach as their naval capacity is very limited. They have one aircraft carrier, compared to the 10 the US have. Much of the Russian navy is ancient and in disrepair. Of a 800,000 military force, about 600,000 are conscripts who are unmotivated and poorly trained. The remaining 200,000 are highly trained and well equipped.

They worry that a US first strike would eliminate Russia's land based missiles and the US missile shield would protect the US against most of the remaining Russian arsenal.

The Russians believe the US is building towards a position where they can launch a first strike and survive, which defeats the theory of MAD.

There is a continuing "arms race", not in numbers of weapons but in technological advancement.

The world isn't much safer today than it has been in the past. Technological advancement continually changes the dynamics.

Einstein and the nuclear scientists were right..........delving into atomic and nuclear weapons was a grave mistake.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

The main concern for Putins regime is that the economy is tanking. Private share of the economy is down from 70 percent to 30 percent. The growth is down from 7 percent to -1. Middle class is hurting. For the regime to stay in power Putin needs nationalism. Russian TV is filled with war propaganda, including Syria, Ukraine and nuclear war threats. As time goes on, Russia is becoming more and more like North Korea.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This is all complicated stuff. Can people really imagine Donald Trump dealing with it in a crisis ?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> Putin is making noises by moving Russia's aircraft carrier past NATO countries and apparently heading for Syria.
> 
> The Russians want to build a permanent naval base in Syria.
> 
> ...



good post above. There is a deadly serious arms race going on. Arms races throughout history do not end well.

the US is expanding more than its defence system along the US east coast. Via NORAD, canada is involved as well. Some of the expansion(s) are here on canadian soil, for the simple reason that that's how the continent works.

focusing just on syria, i for one don't believe the struggle has anything to do with this gas line or that gas line. There was an old gas pipeline starting not far from Raqqa, running northwards into turkey & thence to a turkish seaport. This may have been bombed by now.

to me the struggle as it involved recent russian aggression in syria looks like russia seeking to expand a powerful stronghold across the middle east. There is already a colossal smuggled trade going on. From the golden triangle west to ukraine & the balkans. Arms, drugs, slaves, prostitutes, stolen cars & electronics. Legitimize that with a good portion of the Silk Road & russia's economy will regain power again.

.



.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

andrewf said:


> The market for China-Europe rail freight is not going to justify the investment.



lol we know this already? an obscure chat board in canada has a good enough grasp on world trade statistics that it knows this already?

me i think that the Silk Road - using the expression "Silk Road" as a metaphor for future economic growth across asia & the middle east & including multinational resource exploitation of the rich untouched himalayan region - Silk Road will be a fine thing for Sino-Russia. The rest of the world should get thinking about it imho, instead of pooh-poohing the reality.

.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

The aggressor and intimidator is Putin not the US. His rhetoric is alarming. He repeatedly refers to Russian nuclear misssiles. The state controlled media is full of anti-American propaganda designed to make the populace afraid of an impending nuclear attack. Apparently there are drills in some cities where the population practice going into fallout shelters.The media in Russia is state controlled so they can easily manipulate the people.
Loose cannons like Vladimir Zhirinovsky
gin up the fear and paranoia.The Russian people only get one message unlike in the West; They do not have a free press.



> Americans should vote for Donald Trump as president next month or risk being dragged into a nuclear war, according to a Russian ultra-nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin who likes to compare himself to the U.S. Republican candidate.
> 
> Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a flamboyant veteran lawmaker known for his fiery rhetoric, told Reuters in an interview that Trump was the only person able to de-escalate dangerous tensions between Moscow and Washington.
> 
> ...



This is the kind of message coming out of Russia, not out of the US.

Russian submarines make incursions into Swedish waters. Russian military aircraft fly without their transponders on.They approach American aircraft and fly too close. NATO jets are repeatedly scrambled to intercept Rissian military aircraft approaching their territory.

Russian jets made a mock strafing of the https://news.usni.org/2016/04/13/video-russian-fighters-buzz-uss-donald-cook-in-baltic-sea] USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea.



> The guided missile destroyer USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) was buzzed on April 11, 2016 in the Baltic Sea by a pair of Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer fighters. As seen in a video released by U.S. European Command on Wednesday afternoon.
> 
> “On April 11, Donald Cook was conducting deck landing drills with an Allied
> military helicopter when two Russian SU-24 jets made numerous, close-range
> ...


It is the Russians who are acting in a provocative,threatening,intimidating and dangerous fashion , not the Americans and NATO countries.

It was a Russian BUK missile launcher that shot down the Malaysian passenger jet over Ukraine.

It is the Russians who carry out assassinations in the heart of London in a flagrant fashion designed to send a message to the Brits and their rule of law.

A British admiral refers to the latest Russian ships sailing close to Britain as " willy waving". 



> 'JUST A BIT OF WILLY WAVING' Royal Navy hero Admiral Lord West blasts Putin as pics emerge of Russian fleet carrying out training missions in the North Sea
> Former navy chief dismisses manoeuvres as Russians trying to assert their position in the world ahead of Syria campaign
> 
> A ROYAL Navy hero has dismissed Russia’s sabre-rattling naval moves in the North Sea as “a bit of willy waving”.
> ...


Russia has serious internal problems so they deal with them by attacking an external foe in order to increase group cohesion.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

^ +1


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

wraphter said:


> The aggressor and intimidator is Putin not the US. His rhetoric is alarming. He repeatedly refers to Russian nuclear misssiles. The state controlled media is full of anti-American propaganda designed to make the populace afraid of an impending nuclear attack. Apparently there are drills in some cities where the population practice going into fallout shelters.The media in Russia is state controlled so they can easily manipulate the people.
> Loose cannons like Vladimir Zhirinovsky
> gin up the fear and paranoia.The Russian people only get one message unlike in the West; They do not have a free press.
> 
> ...


OTOH-look at the serious problems of Europe, the USA and Canada-you can't blame Russia for all that-and fighting with Russia won't fix anything in that regard-it seems like a fight with Russia is meant to distract the public from these serious economic and social problems.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

wraphter said:


> Russia has serious internal problems so they deal with them by attacking an external foe in order to increase group cohesion.



this is exactly what you are doing. Dealing with personal problems by attacking one single enemy. A rorschach projection. I-am-perfect, you-are-questionable, he-is-a-stinking-rotten-criminal. 

waa'ah-daddy-those-bad-guys-over-there-are-the-ones-who-started-it!

the issues are not just russia's. Both sides have aggression histories dating back to WW II. In very recent years russia has been more aggressive, NATO less so, but still libya & the NATO nuclear missile shield currently being built on russia's western border can be seen as unfriendly western moves, if not downright aggressor moves.

the huge advantage of NATO is that it is a coalition supranational with up to 28 voting member/partners, officially & ostensibly looking to police the world's hot spots & keep the peace. The world absolutely needs such an organization & there is nothing, anywhere, that could take its place. .

at some point post-crimea, putin floated a trial balloon that russia might want to join NATO. This idea should be explored. Some good possibilities for cooperation might lurk there. It was only months ago that canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield commanded the international space station, ferrying there aboard the russian Soyuz & even trusting russia enough to land on russian soil, with russian friends, at the end of his mission. 

imho canada & others - including some americans - should be looking to the rare places where russian cooperation can still be worked. I don't mean naiive. It's possible to be clear-eyed & skeptical while looking for mutual cooperation. Dealing with the arms buildup on both sides will require the wisdom of solomon. Sabre rattlers only make a situation worse.

.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

^ typical useful idiot. There is no comparison between us and nationalist totalitarian regimes, be it Nazis, Communists or dictatorships like Putins Russia. Cooperation with Russia is impossible. Talks -sure. Containment - definitely. Clarity - very important. Time is on our side, the regime is weakening through internal corruption and destruction of economic freedoms.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

mordko said:


> ^ typical useful idiot.



there you go again, shooting off with the impulse-ridden insults, the knee-jerk harassment, the verbal abuse ...

do you know how much you remind cmffers of donald trump ... each:

as it happens, i have a valid & reasonable point of view. There is plenty of support for this in the forum, in canada at large, we hope in the US of A. Any citizen has the right to a harmless point of view. It is only bullies like yourself, donald trump & your ilk who will threaten to suppress.

.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Firstly, I don't threaten. That's your imagination playing a nasty trick on you.

Secondly, you remind me of communists in the USSR who used to preamble every statement with "on behalf of myself and all of my mates". I have not noticed that CMFers elected you to act as their spokeswoman.

Thirdly, for someone who is racist and spreads unsupportable blood libel, you ought to quit complaining.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

mordko said:


> Firstly, I don't threaten.


of course you threaten & insult cmffers & they complain about you via pm-mail.




> Secondly, you remind me of communists in the USSR


oh, stop with the whining drivel. You are making a laughingstock of yourself.




> for someone who is racist and spreads unsupportable blood libel


you have gone over this countless times. Your accusations are baseless. I am the least racist member of the forum. I have never posted one syllable of blood libel.

if (laughter) you seriously believe you have complaints, why don't you go to the RCMP. Don't just sit there hoarding your grudges & festering your fumes. Contact the Ontario Provincial Police. Hire a lawyer. Write to your Member of Parliament. Impress upon all - in your trademark limitless detail - how a shockingly peaceful, NATO-liking, law-abiding canadian is secretly a communist who is howwibly & unbeawwably blood-libelling you ... :biggrin:


PS of course the west needs to look for cooperation opportunities with russia, alongside visible containment & strength. Parties who advocate rage instread of cooperation are nothing but destructive war-mongers imho.

everyone can see that canada is trending to the former action, not to the latter.

.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Nobody in the world wants a war with Russia. Only Putin and his paranoid minions promote that idiotic theory. 

Canada is only relevant as part of the overall NATO action, but we are doing our bit here and there. We have imposed mild sanctions on Putins regime and some Canadian armed forces have been relocated to Latvia.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

On Humble's possible co-operation with Russia in some areas is actually a good idea if possible. Russia is in this world if we like it or not and they have some big weapons, so we must find a way to break through to them if we can. It looks bleak right now but who knows what can be accomplished if we tried, it is certainly better then making things worse.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

new dog said:


> On Humble's possible co-operation with Russia in some areas is actually a good idea if possible. Russia is in this world if we like it or not and they have some big weapons, so we must find a way to break through to them if we can. It looks bleak right now but who knows what can be accomplished if we tried, it is certainly better then making things worse.



yes, exactly, thankx for post.

do you remember brave RCAF combat pilot m3s. This was his view. He was the last, last, last, last person in the world who would ever advocate bigotry, hatred, blanket condemnation of another nation, armed attack or violence of any kind whatsoever.

you probably didn't notice but after crimea, as 2014 wore on, m3s mourned the fact that, only months before, he had engaged in weeks of naval rescue training operations in the north atlantic with both NATO & russian air forces cooperating together. Every day, all day, night & day. I believe they were all staying together at spanish air force bases.

but this never stopped m3 from flying the russian border missions. Or the black sea. Or iraq. Eyes wide open.

me i think that this is the best canada can do. I didn't exactly know what the liberal policy would be in the middle east when they were campaigning prior to the october/15 election. The liberals said little because voters were so focused on the economy & other domestic issues. 

but gradually after the election a changed, future-looking foreign & military policy has emerged. Me i think it looks good. I think the current minister of defence is perfect for the job. Looking for cooperation opportunities whenever these can be found. But eyes wide open. Forces well trained. Defences kept at the ready.

.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Sounds reasonable. I am not a fan of Putin but we have to work with him. He is intelligent enough that tension can be reduced through constructive negotiation. He isn't entirely trustworthy. You could probably say the same about most leaders.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

"Working with" Putin should be limited to containment. Any attempt at actually building up relationship ends up in tears and more aggression as Hillary/Obama demonstrated so nicely with their "reset" attempt. 

Putin established himself in Russia through war (Chechen war), he has re-established his popularity following an economic collapse and protests through attacks on Ukraine and now Russian direct role in Syria. He will attack each and every time he feels weakness.

Blowing up airliners, using Po-210 in London, robbing western businessmen, murdering opposition leaders, journalists and lawyers, funding of fascists in France and attempts to interfere in the elections in the US = mafiosi. NOT someone we should be "working with".


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Now... If you are the kind of person who is a fan of Le Pen or Trump then sure - working with Putin is quite logical.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

mordko said:


> Now... If you are the kind of person who is a fan of Le Pen or Trump then sure - working with Putin is quite logical.



there you go again. Grotesquely twisting up all the facts. Seeking to insult. To damage. To poison a discussion for the sole reason that it has taken a reasonable turn towards moderate middle-of-the-road.

only a disturbed person would try so awkwardly to associate canada or defence minister Sajjan or brave soldier m3s with le Pen or donald trump. Why you keep trying to attack a poor dumb insignificant biscuit like myself is truly baffling .:frog:

.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Good points on both sides. 

We can't wait around until the Russian people decide to elect a leader that is more to our liking. We have to work with the leader they chose. Putin it is. 

Negotiation and cooperation are probably more constructive than brinkmanship. 

I wouldn't go so far as to vote for "Work with Russia and create peace" because I think we (or more realistically NATO) have to demonstrate strength to an individual like Putin. That doesn't preclude cooperation when our goals coincide.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

mordko said:


> "Working with" Putin should be limited to containment. Any attempt at actually building up relationship ends up in tears and more aggression as Hillary/Obama demonstrated so nicely with their "reset" attempt.
> 
> Putin established himself in Russia through war (Chechen war), he has re-established his popularity following an economic collapse and protests through attacks on Ukraine and now Russian direct role in Syria. He will attack each and every time he feels weakness.
> 
> Blowing up airliners, using Po-210 in London, robbing western businessmen, murdering opposition leaders, journalists and lawyers, funding of fascists in France and attempts to interfere in the elections in the US = mafiosi. NOT someone we should be "working with".



interesting. I disagree totally, but there we have it. The above may be a legitimate point of view for some parties, although it's not canada's view at the present time. 

nor do i believe that "containment" is a permanent sustainable strategy. Russia will one-up containment with more mlitary. Then the west will two-up with additional missiles. Then russia will three-up ... there isn't an iron dome big enough to cover the US of A, let alone canada.

a more pragmatic approach will contain, eyes wide open in canada (we are the great northern spies for america) while constantly looking for communication & cooperation opportunities.

here's an example. Did you see the videos of Sara Netanyahu welcoming Mahmoud Abbas to the memorial service for Shimon Peres? she was as regal & as gracious as an empress. Magnificently, with visibly total sincerity, she thanked the palestinian leader for attending, while her husband looked on approvingly.

the moment was unforgettable. With this simple gesture, the israeli leader & his wife transcended national strife, rose above conflict, set an old testament kind of noble example for the entire watching world.

there are other small brief opportunities such as these. In bad times, they may be all that we have to work with.

but continually looking backwards at the past, nursing grudges, hoarding furies, spewing out litanies of never-to-be-forgotten past wrongdoings ... where's the forward-looking problem-solving solution in such a conduct.

.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

> although it's not canada's view at the present time.


Of course it's Canada's point of view at the present time. That's why Canada imposed sanctions on Russia. That's why Canada sent troops to Latvia. That's why Canada is putting pressure on Russia over Syria. That's why Canada is training and supplying Ukrainian military. 

All of that does not mean that we shouldn't be talking to Russia and doing whatever is necessary to make our position clear and dissuade Putin from doing something really stupid. The policy should be of containment so that the regime can continue rotting with as little damage to outsiders as possible.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Above all there should be clarity and firmness. Anything Putin interprets as weakness will lead to him starting new adventures abroad. Ukraine paid the price for the "reset". Syrians paid the price for inaction on the crossing of "red line" and non-imposition of a no-fly zone. It could be Moldavia or Belarus or Estonia next. Eventually appeasement would start the very conflict it is supposed to prevent.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Hillary is not a good choice but I am hopeful she will be better internationally than Obama's administration has been. It's hard to be any worse.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

The episode of Putin,Robert Kraft,owner of the New England Patriots,and a ring.



> In a nutshell, Patriots owner Kraft said earlier this year that that President Putin stole his 2004 Super Bowl ring during a visit to Russia in 2005. Then-President Bush tried to defuse the situation and convinced Kraft to say that he gave the Putin the ring, worth more than $25,000, as "a symbol of the respect and admiration that I have for the Russian people and [his] leadership."
> 
> ..........
> 
> ...


The story is that Putin is worth $200 billion.



> A number of compelling but unsubstantiated reports over recent years have suggested that Russian president Vladimir Putin has secretly amassed a personal fortune of as much as $200 billion, far greater than the personal wealth of Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) co-founder Bill Gates who currently sits at the top of the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires with a net worth of $77 billion.
> 
> Bill Browder is the co-founder of the investment fund Hermitage Capital Management, formerly Russia's largest foreign investor. Referring to Putin’s net worth in a 2015 interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, he said: “I believe that it's $200 billion. After 14 years in power of Russia, and the amount of money that the country has made, and the amount of money that hasn't been spent on schools and roads and hospitals and so on, all that money is in property, bank - Swiss bank accounts, shares, hedge funds, managed for Putin and his cronies.”


Good for Stephen Harper for standing up to Vladimir.



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has earned some love from the Australian media for his dustup with Russia's Vladimir Putin on the first day of the Group of 20 summit.
> 
> All-news networks and Australia's Sunday Mail reported on the prime minister's bold admonishment to Putin to "get out of Ukraine" at a private leaders' retreat ahead of the official opening of the summit earlier this weekend.
> 
> ...


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

wraphter said:


> The episode of Putin,Robert Kraft,owner of the New England Patriots,and a ring.



this reminds me of the long-ago half-forgotten accusers of jian ghomeshi, who didn't come forward until more than a decade later.

mr kraft lost his, er, ring in 2005. But he didn't say Boo in public about the deflowering until 2013. it's a bit precious.

.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

The west has their own personal gains much like Putin, it is just that Putin will take any gains he can get and exploit it. This is why we have such a problem is because there is to much about getting something then doing the right thing. Putin needs to realize that the west is onto his games and the west needs to realize that Putin is on to their games.

Next look at what it takes to get rid of a dictator. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad go down to the end and how do you think Putin will go down? Hate will not defeat him, it will take strategy and diplomacy to work with what we are forced to work with.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

OTOH it isn't Putin working overtime to destroy France, Belgium, Sweden and even Germany-and North America is next. The west isn't doing a very good job with its own problems much less worrying about every third world dump.


----------

