|
I just finished the first half of Charlie Rose interview of Vladimir Putin. While from what Ive heard Putin is a PoS on domestic issues, he raises some pretty good points about ISIL and Assad, citing Libya and Iraq as examples of what happens when you destroy a "bad government" by arming rebel opposition and leave an anarchy in place easily plucked up by radicals or terrorists. Im not an expert in the subject, what did you guys think?
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
I was really disappointed that Putin wasn't called out on his complete bullshit on gay rights. He talks about sodomy laws in the US and implies that they are still in force which is entirely false. He characterizes the Russian anti-gay law as simply protecting children which is also completely false. Any public support of gay rights or expression of gay identity is banned in Russia but since that's not what the text of the law says Putin can easily characterize it differently unless the interviewer actually has a clue. I wish people like Charlie Rose would talk to some LGBT organizations beforehand to have some idea how to handle these questions, he clearly didn't know what to ask to actually press Putin on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Can't imagine Putin has any incentive to argue that authoritarian governments are cool and good and stabilizing OP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
I think I'm tempted to close this thread, but that's pretty rich coming from Putin, who has no problem arming the "rebels" in Ukraine,
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I think I'm tempted to close this thread, but that's pretty rich coming from Putin, who has no problem arming the "rebels" in Ukraine, Is he wrong about the effects of arming rebels to overthrow assad though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:Is he wrong about the effects of arming rebels to overthrow assad though? Is it wrong that the rebels and the communities that supported them would have been exterminated had Assad defeated them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Is it wrong that the rebels and the communities that supported them would have been exterminated had Assad defeated them? Im not pro putin, but in the interview he reacted to this by talking about how change in Syria has to come from the Syrian people, and encouraging political channels and use of the UN is the correct/lawful/best case scenario. As training and arming rebels to destroy the government would result in a Syria that would look like the current state of Iraq, which despite how evil Sadam was, is now worse off than when he was in power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:Im not pro putin, but in the interview he reacted to this by talking about how change in Syria has to come from the Syrian people, and encouraging political channels and use of the UN is the correct/lawful/best case scenario. As training and arming rebels to destroy the government would result in a Syria that would look like the current state of Iraq, which despite how evil Sadam was, is now worse off than when he was in power. Sounds like Assad is making a good start murdering or driving out as many people as possible until the survivors agree with his political consensus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Sounds like Assad is making a good start murdering or driving out as many people as possible until the survivors agree with his political consensus. I dont think anyone would defend Assads actions, but the fact is hes the only one fighting ISIL in Syria, do you think an ISIL ran Syria would be a better alternative?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:Im not pro putin, but in the interview he reacted to this by talking about how change in Syria has to come from the Syrian people, and encouraging political channels and use of the UN is the correct/lawful/best case scenario. As training and arming rebels to destroy the government would result in a Syria that would look like the current state of Iraq, which despite how evil Sadam was, is now worse off than when he was in power. What concessions do you imagine Assad could make that would make the large majority of his people accept his rule? While those negotiations are taking place what would prevent Assad from regrouping, building up his weapons stores and then simply wiping out his opposition?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:Im not pro putin, but in the interview he reacted to this by talking about how change in Syria has to come from the Syrian people, and encouraging political channels and use of the UN is the correct/lawful/best case scenario. As training and arming rebels to destroy the government would result in a Syria that would look like the current state of Iraq, which despite how evil Sadam was, is now worse off than when he was in power. Assad led/leads a minority Alawite government. A government who, when faced with massive peaceful protests demanding government reform chose to roll out AAA guns and light up crowds of people in the street on live TV which sparked a civil war. A civil war that he has been losing despite controlling the lion's share of the military and security establishment - because he's fighting the majority population of his own country. The Syrian people attempted change, Russia backed their client government in opposition of that change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:I dont think anyone would defend Assads actions, but the fact is hes the only one fighting ISIL in Syria, do you think an ISIL ran Syria would be a better alternative? No, he isn't. The SDF (including the YPJ and several FSA groups) is fighting ISIL. Assad is mostly ignoring ISIL to go after everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Putin makes legit points about the failure of US foreign policy as a way of deflecting attention from the failure of his own. It's basically a modern variant of "americans lynch negroes".
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
The comparison to Iraq doesn't work because the US invaded without there being any real native rebellion against saddam. The US lacked allies local to the area who were ideologically aligned, so the people that worked with them were just ones chasing money or trying to settle old disputes or whatever. Same with Afghanistan. He would have a point where the Syrian war not a 3/4-party war, with the non-ISIL rebels actually not wanting to ethnic cleanse anyone, and being way better than Assad overall. But it's natural for him to want to ignore it, since that runs counter to the narrative that Assad wants of there being no opposition other than ISIL. This is also why Russia spent so much of its air resources attack these rebels, and not ISIL, and why Assad and ISIS have an alliance of convenience when it comes to the rebels. As usual with these sorts of things, the best lies contain elements of truth to make them believable - that doesn't mean they're not lies. Every country does this, you shouldn't expect any better from Russia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:Im not pro putin, but in the interview he reacted to this by talking about how change in Syria has to come from the Syrian people, and encouraging political channels and use of the UN is the correct/lawful/best case scenario. But he's bombing the Syrian people to prevent them from enacting change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Xandu posted:But he's bombing the Syrian people to prevent them from enacting change. Sadam was gassing people (while we supported him, but thats another conversation), would you say Iraq is in a better state with no government structure than it was when a tyrant was in charge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:Sadam was gassing people (while we supported him, but thats another conversation), would you say Iraq is in a better state with no government structure than it was when a tyrant was in charge. I'm not sure you understand, Putin is doing the exact opposite of what he is saying it is important to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:Sadam was gassing people (while we supported him, but thats another conversation), would you say Iraq is in a better state with no government structure than it was when a tyrant was in charge. Please make a list of your acceptable Tyrants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:I dont think anyone would defend Assads actions, but the fact is hes the only one fighting ISIL in Syria, do you think an ISIL ran Syria would be a better alternative? You do realize they aren't the only two factions in Syria right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Not to mention that out of all those factions Assad (and now Russia) has paid very little attention to ISIL.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Also I'm not sure that indiscriminate bombings of civilian areas, ethnic cleansing, and death camps are good indicators of a desire for a diplomatic solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:I dont think anyone would defend Assads actions, but the fact is hes the only one fighting ISIL in Syria, do you think an ISIL ran Syria would be a better alternative? This is not accurate at all. And a false choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Pahlavi the younger kept Iran "stable" for 38 years. Iran's weakness during the transitional period in part led to the costliest war in modern Iranian history. Even if you count the protesters killed during the revolution, The Imperial State executed far fewer political prisoners than The Islamic Republic. The hamvatan were still right taking to the streets, because the Shah made it the only path to his throne. Get me drunk (haaram) and I will figh yout over this, left, right, Iranian expat- prepare for some sweet chin music
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:He would have a point where the Syrian war not a 3/4-party war I believe it's considered a 5 sided war: -Assad's Baathist government -Democratic/moderate rebels (Free Syrian Army, etc) -Islamist rebels (al-Nusra, etc) -ISIL (distinct from the other Islamist groups) -Kurds
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Is it wrong that the rebels and the communities that supported them would have been exterminated had Assad defeated them? Strange that Assad waited until they were armed and foreign-backed to try. I wonder how his genocidal urges were contained before the rebels took up arms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Whiskey Sours posted:I believe it's considered a 5 sided war:
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I was really disappointed that Putin wasn't called out on his complete bullshit on gay rights. He talks about sodomy laws in the US and implies that they are still in force which is entirely false. He characterizes the Russian anti-gay law as simply protecting children which is also completely false. Any public support of gay rights or expression of gay identity is banned in Russia but since that's not what the text of the law says Putin can easily characterize it differently unless the interviewer actually has a clue. I wish people like Charlie Rose would talk to some LGBT organizations beforehand to have some idea how to handle these questions, he clearly didn't know what to ask to actually press Putin on the issue. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Flocons de Jambon posted:Strange that Assad waited until they were armed and foreign-backed to try. I wonder how his genocidal urges were contained before the rebels took up arms. Assad has been running torture prisons and disposing of undesirables since forever. How do you determine that he waited to do anything?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Assad has been running torture prisons and disposing of undesirables since forever. How do you determine that he waited to do anything? Yeah he buried the syrian muslim brotherhood under a hail of high explosives during the Hama massacre.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Assad has been running torture prisons and disposing of undesirables since forever. How do you determine that he waited to do anything? Don't shift the goal posts. You said exterminated. I know he's waited to exterminate them, because there was no attempt to exterminate them since Assad came to power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Flocons de Jambon posted:Don't shift the goal posts. You said exterminated. I know he's waited to exterminate them, because there was no attempt to exterminate them since Assad came to power. Have you missed the whole genocidal civil war in Syria? Like it's gone on for years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Have you missed the whole genocidal civil war in Syria? Like it's gone on for years. Why did he wait? If he's hell bent on exterminating the Sunni population of Syria, why wait? He was in power for years before The Moderate Rebels began their insurrection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Flocons de Jambon posted:Why did he wait? If he's hell bent on exterminating the Sunni population of Syria, why wait? He was in power for years before The Moderate Rebels began their insurrection. The only way this line of thinking makes sense to me is if you think Assad's sadistic response to the protests were acceptable and had no effect on the growth and support of the rebellion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Flocons de Jambon posted:Why did he wait? If he's hell bent on exterminating the Sunni population of Syria, why wait? He was in power for years before The Moderate Rebels began their insurrection. He didn't wait until they took up arms, he waited until they took to the streets and demanded government reform. Insurrection came afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Flocons de Jambon posted:Don't shift the goal posts. You said exterminated. I know he's waited to exterminate them, because there was no attempt to exterminate them since Assad came to power. You are the one shifting the goal posts. I said "rebels and the communities that supported them", I didn't suggest Assad would one day randomly attempt to kill all Sunnis during peacetime. Assad was killing protesters from the very early days - the Free Syrian Army was created by army deserters specifically because they wanted to stop the regime from killing civilians. The narrative is that they should negotiate but it couldnt be done because the US armed some of the groups. Assad never, ever attempted to negotiate. He got his hands bloody as soon as people started protesting. If the US weapons made a significant contribution then why wouldn't Assad simply have continued the killing until there was no more to kill, had the US not armed those groups?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Ok, fine. You only suggested he was going to exterminate rebels and the communities that supported them. If you feel this is an important distinction to be make, I disagree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:He didn't wait until they took up arms, he waited until they took to the streets and demanded government reform. Insurrection came afterwards. Police and security personnel were attacked from the outset. They were never peaceful protests for government reform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Flocons de Jambon posted:Police and security personnel were attacked from the outset. They were never peaceful protests for government reform. Hmm, if you put it that way it makes the wholesale murder of thousands sound okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Don't start wars if you don't like massacres 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Flocons de Jambon posted:Police and security personnel were attacked from the outset. They were never peaceful protests for government reform. #deathsquadlivesmatter
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 06:50
|
|
