Is Putin Losing It?

[Leonardo]

I read Putin wants to give Syria a missle defence system, if we attack Syria, after all that b****ing we should `nt give that defence to Europe.We need another President Kenney to do what we are going to do, no matter how much Russia bangs that shoe.

If the US is allowed to do what it wants, why also can't Russia?

What makes the US so special it must be the only nation allowed to "get it's way"?

[TSS]

If the US is allowed to do what it wants, why also can't Russia?

What makes the US so special it must be the only nation allowed to "get it's way"?

Russia does do what it wants, always has done and probably always will. So what's your problem with the US doing what it wants too?

[Leonardo]

Russia does do what it wants, always has done and probably always will. So what's your problem with the US doing what it wants too?

My post was addressing docyabut's apparent discontent with allowing there to be a 'status quo'. I have no problem with the US or Russia doing what they want, unless that 'doing' is malicious and/or detrimental to others.

It seems to be a trend that, if a person has the affront to criticise the US, they are "anti-American". It's the same situation with Israel, if you criticise the Israeli State, you are "anti-Semitic". This is, of course, nonsense, because the US govt is not the people of the US (America) just as the Israeli govt is not the people of Israel (incl the "Semites".)

[TSS]

My post was addressing docyabut's apparent discontent with allowing there to be a 'status quo'. I have no problem with the US or Russia doing what they want, unless that 'doing' is malicious and/or detrimental to others.

I see. Well in this current situation both the US and Russia have no moral card to play, which is why when I see people criticising the US stance i'm amazed at the complete lack of equal criticism of Russia, who are playing the exact same game. I suppose with Russian history of the state slaughtering it's own citizens, complete disregard for a citizens rights and a desire for the good'ol days of fear of the state, then maybe people see Russia as the natural backer of Assad, so have less moral outrage at their actions in this affair.

It seems to be a trend that, if a person has the affront to criticise the US, they are "anti-American". It's the same situation with Israel, if you criticise the Israeli State, you are "anti-Semitic". This is, of course, nonsense, because the US govt is not the people of the US (America) just as the Israeli govt is not the people of Israel (incl the "Semites".)

Agreed.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Can anybody provide a link to a source that has evidence that this comment was made by Putin. All I see are reports saying that Dmitry Peskov is alleged to have made this comment, and not backed up by any proof other than BBC journalist Nick Robinson saying Peskov did, without himself giving any source, and it is denied by Peskov. Seems like "sexed up" news.

[docyabut2]

If the US is allowed to do what it wants, why also can't Russia?

What makes the US so special it must be the only nation allowed to "get it's way"?

Chemical weapons are a threat to the world, so should `nt something be done?

[Leonardo]

The BBC are now just reporting the alleged comment came from "an aide".

I would not be surprised if the comment, or something very similar, was not made in a private conversation, but I would also not be surprised if any comment was "sexed up" by the UK representatives at the conference in an attempt to alienate Russia as "simply being obstructive".

Our (the UK) govt does have form for "sexing up" documents, comments and such to gain political advantage.

[Leonardo]

Chemical weapons are a threat to the world, so should `nt something be done?

History has shown the US to be no less of a threat regarding WMD's than any other nation. If the US wants to show the world the way, then lead on and get rid of your WMD's. Anything else is merely hypocrisy.

[bee]

.

A comment made on the OP article...

Oh look! emotional stories to elicit a response from the public so that we despise Russia and believe none of Russia's legitimate claims that the Syrian rebels committed the chemical attack.

Stay tuned for more propaganda and villainous stories about Russia and putin!

sounds about right to me....

.

[libstaK]

History has shown the US to be no less of a threat regarding WMD's than any other nation. If the US wants to show the world the way, then lead on and get rid of your WMD's. Anything else is merely hypocrisy.

I am sure they will be the first to tell you that if they get rid of their own WMDs they will have have diminished their military capacity to combat other nations which have WMDs

Edited September 6, 2013 by libstaK

[+and-then]

I am sure they will be the first to tell you that if they get rid of their own WMDs they will have have diminished their military capacity to combat other nations which have WMDs

And if the US were to suddenly elect leaders who did this, would all the world's Assads and Jung Uns and such suddenly start singing Kumbaya? These weapons in Syria - no matter who employed them - were there to be used because they were wanted by the Syrian/Russian allies as a counterweight against the US and Israel and even his other neighbors in the region. Nations build nasty things to defend themselves when other nations build nasty things to defend themselves -ad infinitum, ad nauseum. America may be the best recent example but it hardly is the only one. My nation isn't any more corrupt than others - we're just a target because of our wealth and influence. I submit that Britain was no better in it's day nor will China or Europe be when their star rises.

[Leonardo]

And if the US were to suddenly elect leaders who did this, would all the world's Assads and Jung Uns and such suddenly start singing Kumbaya?

Many of the world's Assad's and Jung Un's have acquired their WMD's (or the technology to develop them) from the US in the first place.

And the US getting rid of it's WMD's would have no detrimental effect on the security of that nation. It maintains that security through having a large, well-equipped conventional military and via economic and political power - not via the threat of WMD's.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Leonardo

[Frank Merton]

Many of the world's Assad's and Jung Un's have acquired their WMD's (or the technology to develop them) from the US in the first place.

Not true, and posting things that are untrue ruins your credibility. If you want to persuade people like me stick to reality, not fantasy or conspiracy theories.

[moonshadow60]

IMHO, the leaders of this world are bullies and idiots. God help us all.

[Frank Merton]

IMHO, the leaders of this world are bullies and idiots. God help us all.

Maybe they are what they are because we are what we are.

[Leonardo]

Not true, and posting things that are untrue ruins your credibility. If you want to persuade people like me stick to reality, not fantasy or conspiracy theories.

Really?

The US has collaborated with "Western Allies" in much of it's WMD research. It also shared research with (and sold wmd material to) 'strategic allies' such as Iraq (i.e. Saddam Hussein) during the Iraq/Iran War. This is not to say that Russia and China (and other nations) have not also been proliferators of WMD's, but excusing the US simply on the basis of it's vocal support for WMD non-proliferation conventions is to display naivete.

Additionally, the US supports Israel's military production, and some of that production is towards delivery systems for wmd's which Israel sells to China, which resells on to other nations. In various UN conventions against WMD proliferation, the delivery systems are treated the same as the precursor agents they are intended to deliver.

So, perhaps your 'reality' is actually more fantasy than you realised?

Edited September 6, 2013 by Leonardo

[Knight Of Shadows]

Putin and russia .. have lost it all in syria

and when their dictator ally is gone

they will never set foot in our country .. it's the end of this abusive relationship

[pallidin]

OK, I have a question here.

To preface before my question, I assume that Russia, being a long-time ally of Syria, has significant intelligence resources regarding this event.

So, why hasn't Russia disclosed evidence of what THEY know, in a manner suitable for UN review.

PS. My laptop keyboard is getting funky, and my "Question Mark" key no longer works.

EDIT: I just played with my "on-screen" keyboard, and my ? now works in that scenario, but not the physical keyboard ?. Oh well, at least I have a temp work-around.

Edited September 6, 2013 by pallidin

[Knight Of Shadows]

just correction .. russia is not " ally of syria "

russia is " ally of syrian dictatorship government "

we syrians certinally don't consider russia ally

we consider russia an enemy

[pallidin]

OK, I do get your point. Thanks.

[Leonardo]

OK, I have a question here.

To preface before my question, I assume that Russia, being a long-time ally of Syria, has significant intelligence resources regarding this event.

So, why hasn't Russia disclosed evidence of what THEY know, in a manner suitable for UN review.

Perhaps because there is no evidence to disclose?

If, as some speculation has suggested, the incident was a mishandling of chemical weapons by some within the rebel forces, then there may be no evidence to find - except that chemical weapons had been used.

[+and-then]

Perhaps because there is no evidence to disclose?

If, as some speculation has suggested, the incident was a mishandling of chemical weapons by some within the rebel forces, then there may be no evidence to find - except that chemical weapons had been used.

Do you seriously believe that the rebels have been supplied chemical weapons? If so, by who? It beggars rationality that the US would have done so since we still haven't even given them small arms. Who then? The UK or France? All for the sake of a false flag to justify intervention? Really?

[Knight Of Shadows]

Do you seriously believe that the rebels have been supplied chemical weapons? If so, by who? It beggars rationality that the US would have done so since we still haven't even given them small arms. Who then? The UK or France? All for the sake of a false flag to justify intervention? Really?

they don't have chemcial weapons

only videos showed by god knows who .. could be government agents pretending to be rebels

making experiments on rats

that's the big proof they claim rebels have chemcial

but somehow the rebels finally got chemical weapons

instead of attacking the government with it .. they launch it from government controlled area

unto their stronghold in damascus countryside

that's the mystery of logic that those claim based on

[Kowalski]

they don't have chemcial weapons

only videos showed by god knows who .. could be government agents pretending to be rebels

making experiments on rats

that's the big proof they claim rebels have chemcial

but somehow the rebels finally got chemical weapons

instead of attacking the government with it .. they launch it from government controlled area

unto their stronghold in damascus countryside

that's the mystery of logic that those claim based on

Sorry, but yesterday in a 100 page report to the UN, Russia had scientific data, and irrefutable proof, that the rebels were the ones responsible for the March Sarin gas attack on civilians. And they DO have chemicals. The rebels have been posting videos on Youtube (They ain't too bright) of them gassing small animals....

[Knight Of Shadows]

Sorry, but yesterday in a 100 page report to the UN, Russia had scientific data, and irrefutable proof, that the rebels were the ones responsible for the March Sarin gas attack on civilians. And they DO have chemicals. The rebels have been posting videos on Youtube (They ain't too bright) of them gassing small animals....

youtube video .. those are not proof

any one can post them .. any one can claim they're rebels

not proof at all

the proof is .. that area was hit under rebels control

proof is .. the government attempted invading right after chemical attack

proof is ... government launched hundreds of missiles after the failed attempt to invade on same areas

proof is ... missiles with chem were launched from government stronghold Qasiun mountain

all those are not proof .. and youtube is proof ?

that's unreasonable iand illogical

as for russia they are partner in killing syrian people

and whatever they bring as " proof " it's the word of criminal to us

they have relentlessly provided weapons that they knew the government is using on civilians

and they kept providing

and not only that .. they offer their veto to keep the killing going on

plus they provide experts to lead battles

after all that you want me .. and syrians . to take the word of murderers supporters

those responsable for killing our children and families .. to take their words or any report they might give ?

sorry .. but whatever come out from russia " reports and all " is bs to us

Edited September 6, 2013 by Knight Of Shadows