Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Russia's interest in Syria is keeping its bases on the Mediterranean and so far the only way it can do that is to support Assad, but this conflict is expensive for the suffering Russian economy and Russia is starting to take casualties, so if Russia had a chance to secure its interests with paying so much in blood and treasure, it is reasonable to think it would take it, but Obama has offered nothing but political slogans calculated to play well in the US but without relevance to ending the conflict in Syria.No, I think Assad should go, but the only way to accomplish this is to reach an agreement with Russia in which the US would support Russia keeping its bases after Assad is gone in exchange for Russia dropping its support for him and working with the US to stabilize Syria.Not at all. After the duplicity of the Clinton administration in breaking Bush41's promise to Gorbachev not to allow any former Soviet satellites states join NATO, an organization created specifically to fight Russia, Russia has good reason to be wary of any western inroads near its border, just as the US would be wary of any Russia inroads on its borders. The only way to end the fighting in Syria and eastern Europe is for the US and Russia to reach agreements to respect each other's legitimate security interests, something no administration since Bush41 has been willing to do.Except the Ukraine.
So you're saying we should let a man that uses chemical weapons in his own people stay in power just to appease Russia? And why should the newly sovereign former satellite countries of the USSR NOT be allowed to join NATO? They are sovereign it should be their decision.
These states would not have been liberated without Bush41's promise to Gorbachev that they wouldn't be allowed to join NATO, so that is the first reason they shouldn't have been allowed to join. Second, few NATO nations would vote to go to war with Russia over a conflict with one of these states. The most important reason is, however, that this duplicitous act by the Clinton administration began the deterioration of relations between the US and Russia in the post USSR era and the US' continuing refusal to acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns over this issue is the reason for the fighting in eastern Europe today.
The question is, should the US continue Obama's failed policy of making confrontational gestures toward Russia that have no effect on Russian policy, as you seem to advocate, or agree to negotiations with Russia in which the US will acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns about US and western European presence in its border states in return for a change in Russian policy?
Look, you are only look at this from one side, the Russian side, which I think is a bit odd. How is it the right of the United States to negotiate a deal about the ability for a sovereign nation to make it's own decisions? I'm still trying to comprehend how you can even come up with that.
Russia has steadfastly fought against forcing Assad to leave. At one point they said that it would be possible, but only after the country was made stable and then fair elections were done where Assad could still run for President. Well, when do you foresee Syria being stable in the near future when Russia is attacking not only ISIS by the Syrian rebels?
Lastly, Russia made threats against Norway recently with nuclear war over the fact they allowed 330 U.S. Marines to come there and train. Do you think you are dealing with a rational nation when they do something like that?
Russia has every reason to distrust the US and especially the Obama administration and that means they have to wonder why Obama sent Marines to train in Norway. The same conditions could have been found in Alaska so why Norway? Was this intended as a provocation or was it just another example of Obama cluelessness?
i wonder what people think of this ? Thanks to the Iran deal sanctions are lifted and we can sell them shit like jumbo jets. Good for the us and good for biz . Usually the righties are happy with that .
But , considering Trumps lies and misinformation in the Iran deal, it appears the whole thing may be ruined .
What say you ?
Boeing's $16B aircraft deal with Iran Air faces challenges
First, most of the death and destruction is the result of indiscreminate bombing by Assad and Russia of all of Assad's enemies, so a US-Russia deal that would end indicreminate bombing would save lives and infrastructure. ISIS is steadily losing territory, so I don't believe it will be a major obstacle to establishing a new government. So right off the top we have a great improvement over the present situation.Russia's interest in Syria is keeping its bases on the Mediterranean and so far the only way it can do that is to support Assad, but this conflict is expensive for the suffering Russian economy and Russia is starting to take casualties, so if Russia had a chance to secure its interests with paying so much in blood and treasure, it is reasonable to think it would take it, but Obama has offered nothing but political slogans calculated to play well in the US but without relevance to ending the conflict in Syria.No, I think Assad should go, but the only way to accomplish this is to reach an agreement with Russia in which the US would support Russia keeping its bases after Assad is gone in exchange for Russia dropping its support for him and working with the US to stabilize Syria.Not at all. After the duplicity of the Clinton administration in breaking Bush41's promise to Gorbachev not to allow any former Soviet satellites states join NATO, an organization created specifically to fight Russia, Russia has good reason to be wary of any western inroads near its border, just as the US would be wary of any Russia inroads on its borders. The only way to end the fighting in Syria and eastern Europe is for the US and Russia to reach agreements to respect each other's legitimate security interests, something no administration since Bush41 has been willing to do.
So you're saying we should let a man that uses chemical weapons in his own people stay in power just to appease Russia? And why should the newly sovereign former satellite countries of the USSR NOT be allowed to join NATO? They are sovereign it should be their decision.
These states would not have been liberated without Bush41's promise to Gorbachev that they wouldn't be allowed to join NATO, so that is the first reason they shouldn't have been allowed to join. Second, few NATO nations would vote to go to war with Russia over a conflict with one of these states. The most important reason is, however, that this duplicitous act by the Clinton administration began the deterioration of relations between the US and Russia in the post USSR era and the US' continuing refusal to acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns over this issue is the reason for the fighting in eastern Europe today.
The question is, should the US continue Obama's failed policy of making confrontational gestures toward Russia that have no effect on Russian policy, as you seem to advocate, or agree to negotiations with Russia in which the US will acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns about US and western European presence in its border states in return for a change in Russian policy?
Look, you are only look at this from one side, the Russian side, which I think is a bit odd. How is it the right of the United States to negotiate a deal about the ability for a sovereign nation to make it's own decisions? I'm still trying to comprehend how you can even come up with that.
Russia has steadfastly fought against forcing Assad to leave. At one point they said that it would be possible, but only after the country was made stable and then fair elections were done where Assad could still run for President. Well, when do you foresee Syria being stable in the near future when Russia is attacking not only ISIS by the Syrian rebels?
Lastly, Russia made threats against Norway recently with nuclear war over the fact they allowed 330 U.S. Marines to come there and train. Do you think you are dealing with a rational nation when they do something like that?
Russia has every reason to distrust the US and especially the Obama administration and that means they have to wonder why Obama sent Marines to train in Norway. The same conditions could have been found in Alaska so why Norway? Was this intended as a provocation or was it just another example of Obama cluelessness?
How is helping ISIS accomplish one of the two stated goals in it's name a good thing again?
Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer. Say how you believe the ensuing government will be better
So why would Obama send the Marines to Norway unless it was to suggest they were training for operations there? Why not Alaska?Russia's interest in Syria is keeping its bases on the Mediterranean and so far the only way it can do that is to support Assad, but this conflict is expensive for the suffering Russian economy and Russia is starting to take casualties, so if Russia had a chance to secure its interests with paying so much in blood and treasure, it is reasonable to think it would take it, but Obama has offered nothing but political slogans calculated to play well in the US but without relevance to ending the conflict in Syria.No, I think Assad should go, but the only way to accomplish this is to reach an agreement with Russia in which the US would support Russia keeping its bases after Assad is gone in exchange for Russia dropping its support for him and working with the US to stabilize Syria.Not at all. After the duplicity of the Clinton administration in breaking Bush41's promise to Gorbachev not to allow any former Soviet satellites states join NATO, an organization created specifically to fight Russia, Russia has good reason to be wary of any western inroads near its border, just as the US would be wary of any Russia inroads on its borders. The only way to end the fighting in Syria and eastern Europe is for the US and Russia to reach agreements to respect each other's legitimate security interests, something no administration since Bush41 has been willing to do.
So you're saying we should let a man that uses chemical weapons in his own people stay in power just to appease Russia? And why should the newly sovereign former satellite countries of the USSR NOT be allowed to join NATO? They are sovereign it should be their decision.
These states would not have been liberated without Bush41's promise to Gorbachev that they wouldn't be allowed to join NATO, so that is the first reason they shouldn't have been allowed to join. Second, few NATO nations would vote to go to war with Russia over a conflict with one of these states. The most important reason is, however, that this duplicitous act by the Clinton administration began the deterioration of relations between the US and Russia in the post USSR era and the US' continuing refusal to acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns over this issue is the reason for the fighting in eastern Europe today.
The question is, should the US continue Obama's failed policy of making confrontational gestures toward Russia that have no effect on Russian policy, as you seem to advocate, or agree to negotiations with Russia in which the US will acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns about US and western European presence in its border states in return for a change in Russian policy?
Look, you are only look at this from one side, the Russian side, which I think is a bit odd. How is it the right of the United States to negotiate a deal about the ability for a sovereign nation to make it's own decisions? I'm still trying to comprehend how you can even come up with that.
Russia has steadfastly fought against forcing Assad to leave. At one point they said that it would be possible, but only after the country was made stable and then fair elections were done where Assad could still run for President. Well, when do you foresee Syria being stable in the near future when Russia is attacking not only ISIS by the Syrian rebels?
Lastly, Russia made threats against Norway recently with nuclear war over the fact they allowed 330 U.S. Marines to come there and train. Do you think you are dealing with a rational nation when they do something like that?
Russia has every reason to distrust the US and especially the Obama administration and that means they have to wonder why Obama sent Marines to train in Norway. The same conditions could have been found in Alaska so why Norway? Was this intended as a provocation or was it just another example of Obama cluelessness?
People cross train military ALL the time in other countries. Threatening Norway over nuclear war over 330 Marines? That's a fucking joke. We aren't talking about a missile defense system or a nuclear missile silo.
Russia hasn't spent as much money in Syria as you think. Did you know that most of the bombs they have been dropping are the cheap old dummy bombs? That's why they have done so much civilian casualties.
First, most of the death and destruction is the result of indiscreminate bombing by Assad and Russia of all of Assad's enemies, so a US-Russia deal that would end indicreminate bombing would save lives and infrastructure. ISIS is steadily losing territory, so I don't believe it will be a major obstacle to establishing a new government. So right off the top we have a great improvement over the present situation.Russia's interest in Syria is keeping its bases on the Mediterranean and so far the only way it can do that is to support Assad, but this conflict is expensive for the suffering Russian economy and Russia is starting to take casualties, so if Russia had a chance to secure its interests with paying so much in blood and treasure, it is reasonable to think it would take it, but Obama has offered nothing but political slogans calculated to play well in the US but without relevance to ending the conflict in Syria.No, I think Assad should go, but the only way to accomplish this is to reach an agreement with Russia in which the US would support Russia keeping its bases after Assad is gone in exchange for Russia dropping its support for him and working with the US to stabilize Syria.So you're saying we should let a man that uses chemical weapons in his own people stay in power just to appease Russia? And why should the newly sovereign former satellite countries of the USSR NOT be allowed to join NATO? They are sovereign it should be their decision.
These states would not have been liberated without Bush41's promise to Gorbachev that they wouldn't be allowed to join NATO, so that is the first reason they shouldn't have been allowed to join. Second, few NATO nations would vote to go to war with Russia over a conflict with one of these states. The most important reason is, however, that this duplicitous act by the Clinton administration began the deterioration of relations between the US and Russia in the post USSR era and the US' continuing refusal to acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns over this issue is the reason for the fighting in eastern Europe today.
The question is, should the US continue Obama's failed policy of making confrontational gestures toward Russia that have no effect on Russian policy, as you seem to advocate, or agree to negotiations with Russia in which the US will acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns about US and western European presence in its border states in return for a change in Russian policy?
Look, you are only look at this from one side, the Russian side, which I think is a bit odd. How is it the right of the United States to negotiate a deal about the ability for a sovereign nation to make it's own decisions? I'm still trying to comprehend how you can even come up with that.
Russia has steadfastly fought against forcing Assad to leave. At one point they said that it would be possible, but only after the country was made stable and then fair elections were done where Assad could still run for President. Well, when do you foresee Syria being stable in the near future when Russia is attacking not only ISIS by the Syrian rebels?
Lastly, Russia made threats against Norway recently with nuclear war over the fact they allowed 330 U.S. Marines to come there and train. Do you think you are dealing with a rational nation when they do something like that?
Russia has every reason to distrust the US and especially the Obama administration and that means they have to wonder why Obama sent Marines to train in Norway. The same conditions could have been found in Alaska so why Norway? Was this intended as a provocation or was it just another example of Obama cluelessness?
How is helping ISIS accomplish one of the two stated goals in it's name a good thing again?
Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer. Say how you believe the ensuing government will be better
So why would Obama send the Marines to Norway unless it was to suggest they were training for operations there? Why not Alaska?Russia's interest in Syria is keeping its bases on the Mediterranean and so far the only way it can do that is to support Assad, but this conflict is expensive for the suffering Russian economy and Russia is starting to take casualties, so if Russia had a chance to secure its interests with paying so much in blood and treasure, it is reasonable to think it would take it, but Obama has offered nothing but political slogans calculated to play well in the US but without relevance to ending the conflict in Syria.No, I think Assad should go, but the only way to accomplish this is to reach an agreement with Russia in which the US would support Russia keeping its bases after Assad is gone in exchange for Russia dropping its support for him and working with the US to stabilize Syria.So you're saying we should let a man that uses chemical weapons in his own people stay in power just to appease Russia? And why should the newly sovereign former satellite countries of the USSR NOT be allowed to join NATO? They are sovereign it should be their decision.
These states would not have been liberated without Bush41's promise to Gorbachev that they wouldn't be allowed to join NATO, so that is the first reason they shouldn't have been allowed to join. Second, few NATO nations would vote to go to war with Russia over a conflict with one of these states. The most important reason is, however, that this duplicitous act by the Clinton administration began the deterioration of relations between the US and Russia in the post USSR era and the US' continuing refusal to acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns over this issue is the reason for the fighting in eastern Europe today.
The question is, should the US continue Obama's failed policy of making confrontational gestures toward Russia that have no effect on Russian policy, as you seem to advocate, or agree to negotiations with Russia in which the US will acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns about US and western European presence in its border states in return for a change in Russian policy?
Look, you are only look at this from one side, the Russian side, which I think is a bit odd. How is it the right of the United States to negotiate a deal about the ability for a sovereign nation to make it's own decisions? I'm still trying to comprehend how you can even come up with that.
Russia has steadfastly fought against forcing Assad to leave. At one point they said that it would be possible, but only after the country was made stable and then fair elections were done where Assad could still run for President. Well, when do you foresee Syria being stable in the near future when Russia is attacking not only ISIS by the Syrian rebels?
Lastly, Russia made threats against Norway recently with nuclear war over the fact they allowed 330 U.S. Marines to come there and train. Do you think you are dealing with a rational nation when they do something like that?
Russia has every reason to distrust the US and especially the Obama administration and that means they have to wonder why Obama sent Marines to train in Norway. The same conditions could have been found in Alaska so why Norway? Was this intended as a provocation or was it just another example of Obama cluelessness?
People cross train military ALL the time in other countries. Threatening Norway over nuclear war over 330 Marines? That's a fucking joke. We aren't talking about a missile defense system or a nuclear missile silo.
Russia hasn't spent as much money in Syria as you think. Did you know that most of the bombs they have been dropping are the cheap old dummy bombs? That's why they have done so much civilian casualties.
Actually it is an answer to your question. You asked how the next government would be better than the present one, and I answered they wouldn't kill as many people.First, most of the death and destruction is the result of indiscreminate bombing by Assad and Russia of all of Assad's enemies, so a US-Russia deal that would end indicreminate bombing would save lives and infrastructure. ISIS is steadily losing territory, so I don't believe it will be a major obstacle to establishing a new government. So right off the top we have a great improvement over the present situation.Russia's interest in Syria is keeping its bases on the Mediterranean and so far the only way it can do that is to support Assad, but this conflict is expensive for the suffering Russian economy and Russia is starting to take casualties, so if Russia had a chance to secure its interests with paying so much in blood and treasure, it is reasonable to think it would take it, but Obama has offered nothing but political slogans calculated to play well in the US but without relevance to ending the conflict in Syria.No, I think Assad should go, but the only way to accomplish this is to reach an agreement with Russia in which the US would support Russia keeping its bases after Assad is gone in exchange for Russia dropping its support for him and working with the US to stabilize Syria.
These states would not have been liberated without Bush41's promise to Gorbachev that they wouldn't be allowed to join NATO, so that is the first reason they shouldn't have been allowed to join. Second, few NATO nations would vote to go to war with Russia over a conflict with one of these states. The most important reason is, however, that this duplicitous act by the Clinton administration began the deterioration of relations between the US and Russia in the post USSR era and the US' continuing refusal to acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns over this issue is the reason for the fighting in eastern Europe today.
The question is, should the US continue Obama's failed policy of making confrontational gestures toward Russia that have no effect on Russian policy, as you seem to advocate, or agree to negotiations with Russia in which the US will acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns about US and western European presence in its border states in return for a change in Russian policy?
Look, you are only look at this from one side, the Russian side, which I think is a bit odd. How is it the right of the United States to negotiate a deal about the ability for a sovereign nation to make it's own decisions? I'm still trying to comprehend how you can even come up with that.
Russia has steadfastly fought against forcing Assad to leave. At one point they said that it would be possible, but only after the country was made stable and then fair elections were done where Assad could still run for President. Well, when do you foresee Syria being stable in the near future when Russia is attacking not only ISIS by the Syrian rebels?
Lastly, Russia made threats against Norway recently with nuclear war over the fact they allowed 330 U.S. Marines to come there and train. Do you think you are dealing with a rational nation when they do something like that?
Russia has every reason to distrust the US and especially the Obama administration and that means they have to wonder why Obama sent Marines to train in Norway. The same conditions could have been found in Alaska so why Norway? Was this intended as a provocation or was it just another example of Obama cluelessness?
How is helping ISIS accomplish one of the two stated goals in it's name a good thing again?
Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer. Say how you believe the ensuing government will be better
I gave you a three sentence question and you couldn't read it.
kaz: "Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer"
Just saying the governments sucks so "right off the top we have a great improvement" is bull shit in the Middle East. There is no reason the ensuing government would be better just because the current one sucks.
So try again, and this time answer the question
Actually it is an answer to your question. You asked how the next government would be better than the present one, and I answered they wouldn't kill as many people.First, most of the death and destruction is the result of indiscreminate bombing by Assad and Russia of all of Assad's enemies, so a US-Russia deal that would end indicreminate bombing would save lives and infrastructure. ISIS is steadily losing territory, so I don't believe it will be a major obstacle to establishing a new government. So right off the top we have a great improvement over the present situation.Russia's interest in Syria is keeping its bases on the Mediterranean and so far the only way it can do that is to support Assad, but this conflict is expensive for the suffering Russian economy and Russia is starting to take casualties, so if Russia had a chance to secure its interests with paying so much in blood and treasure, it is reasonable to think it would take it, but Obama has offered nothing but political slogans calculated to play well in the US but without relevance to ending the conflict in Syria.Look, you are only look at this from one side, the Russian side, which I think is a bit odd. How is it the right of the United States to negotiate a deal about the ability for a sovereign nation to make it's own decisions? I'm still trying to comprehend how you can even come up with that.
Russia has steadfastly fought against forcing Assad to leave. At one point they said that it would be possible, but only after the country was made stable and then fair elections were done where Assad could still run for President. Well, when do you foresee Syria being stable in the near future when Russia is attacking not only ISIS by the Syrian rebels?
Lastly, Russia made threats against Norway recently with nuclear war over the fact they allowed 330 U.S. Marines to come there and train. Do you think you are dealing with a rational nation when they do something like that?
Russia has every reason to distrust the US and especially the Obama administration and that means they have to wonder why Obama sent Marines to train in Norway. The same conditions could have been found in Alaska so why Norway? Was this intended as a provocation or was it just another example of Obama cluelessness?
How is helping ISIS accomplish one of the two stated goals in it's name a good thing again?
Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer. Say how you believe the ensuing government will be better
I gave you a three sentence question and you couldn't read it.
kaz: "Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer"
Just saying the governments sucks so "right off the top we have a great improvement" is bull shit in the Middle East. There is no reason the ensuing government would be better just because the current one sucks.
So try again, and this time answer the question
If you were looking for a debate over whether it would be a democracy or another dictatorship or if it would end the sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia, why not ask the question directly?
I do get it. Obama chose to ignore Russia's security concerns, but why did he do it? Did he want to increase tensions with Russia?So why would Obama send the Marines to Norway unless it was to suggest they were training for operations there? Why not Alaska?Russia's interest in Syria is keeping its bases on the Mediterranean and so far the only way it can do that is to support Assad, but this conflict is expensive for the suffering Russian economy and Russia is starting to take casualties, so if Russia had a chance to secure its interests with paying so much in blood and treasure, it is reasonable to think it would take it, but Obama has offered nothing but political slogans calculated to play well in the US but without relevance to ending the conflict in Syria.No, I think Assad should go, but the only way to accomplish this is to reach an agreement with Russia in which the US would support Russia keeping its bases after Assad is gone in exchange for Russia dropping its support for him and working with the US to stabilize Syria.
These states would not have been liberated without Bush41's promise to Gorbachev that they wouldn't be allowed to join NATO, so that is the first reason they shouldn't have been allowed to join. Second, few NATO nations would vote to go to war with Russia over a conflict with one of these states. The most important reason is, however, that this duplicitous act by the Clinton administration began the deterioration of relations between the US and Russia in the post USSR era and the US' continuing refusal to acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns over this issue is the reason for the fighting in eastern Europe today.
The question is, should the US continue Obama's failed policy of making confrontational gestures toward Russia that have no effect on Russian policy, as you seem to advocate, or agree to negotiations with Russia in which the US will acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns about US and western European presence in its border states in return for a change in Russian policy?
Look, you are only look at this from one side, the Russian side, which I think is a bit odd. How is it the right of the United States to negotiate a deal about the ability for a sovereign nation to make it's own decisions? I'm still trying to comprehend how you can even come up with that.
Russia has steadfastly fought against forcing Assad to leave. At one point they said that it would be possible, but only after the country was made stable and then fair elections were done where Assad could still run for President. Well, when do you foresee Syria being stable in the near future when Russia is attacking not only ISIS by the Syrian rebels?
Lastly, Russia made threats against Norway recently with nuclear war over the fact they allowed 330 U.S. Marines to come there and train. Do you think you are dealing with a rational nation when they do something like that?
Russia has every reason to distrust the US and especially the Obama administration and that means they have to wonder why Obama sent Marines to train in Norway. The same conditions could have been found in Alaska so why Norway? Was this intended as a provocation or was it just another example of Obama cluelessness?
People cross train military ALL the time in other countries. Threatening Norway over nuclear war over 330 Marines? That's a fucking joke. We aren't talking about a missile defense system or a nuclear missile silo.
Russia hasn't spent as much money in Syria as you think. Did you know that most of the bombs they have been dropping are the cheap old dummy bombs? That's why they have done so much civilian casualties.
Because they were cross training with Norway. Not sure why you don't get this. Other countries send their troops here to the U.S. to train all the time, but that doesn't mean that those countries plan on invading Mexico or Canada.
I do get it. Obama chose to ignore Russia's security concerns, but why did he do it? Did he want to increase tensions with Russia?So why would Obama send the Marines to Norway unless it was to suggest they were training for operations there? Why not Alaska?Russia's interest in Syria is keeping its bases on the Mediterranean and so far the only way it can do that is to support Assad, but this conflict is expensive for the suffering Russian economy and Russia is starting to take casualties, so if Russia had a chance to secure its interests with paying so much in blood and treasure, it is reasonable to think it would take it, but Obama has offered nothing but political slogans calculated to play well in the US but without relevance to ending the conflict in Syria.Look, you are only look at this from one side, the Russian side, which I think is a bit odd. How is it the right of the United States to negotiate a deal about the ability for a sovereign nation to make it's own decisions? I'm still trying to comprehend how you can even come up with that.
Russia has steadfastly fought against forcing Assad to leave. At one point they said that it would be possible, but only after the country was made stable and then fair elections were done where Assad could still run for President. Well, when do you foresee Syria being stable in the near future when Russia is attacking not only ISIS by the Syrian rebels?
Lastly, Russia made threats against Norway recently with nuclear war over the fact they allowed 330 U.S. Marines to come there and train. Do you think you are dealing with a rational nation when they do something like that?
Russia has every reason to distrust the US and especially the Obama administration and that means they have to wonder why Obama sent Marines to train in Norway. The same conditions could have been found in Alaska so why Norway? Was this intended as a provocation or was it just another example of Obama cluelessness?
People cross train military ALL the time in other countries. Threatening Norway over nuclear war over 330 Marines? That's a fucking joke. We aren't talking about a missile defense system or a nuclear missile silo.
Russia hasn't spent as much money in Syria as you think. Did you know that most of the bombs they have been dropping are the cheap old dummy bombs? That's why they have done so much civilian casualties.
Because they were cross training with Norway. Not sure why you don't get this. Other countries send their troops here to the U.S. to train all the time, but that doesn't mean that those countries plan on invading Mexico or Canada.
This is obama manipulating Boeing stock. Lewdog says so.i wonder what people think of this ? Thanks to the Iran deal sanctions are lifted and we can sell them shit like jumbo jets. Good for the us and good for biz . Usually the righties are happy with that .
But , considering Trumps lies and misinformation in the Iran deal, it appears the whole thing may be ruined .
What say you ?
Boeing's $16B aircraft deal with Iran Air faces challenges
So this is what Iran is doing with all the cash that BHO gave them then.i wonder what people think of this ? Thanks to the Iran deal sanctions are lifted and we can sell them shit like jumbo jets. Good for the us and good for biz . Usually the righties are happy with that .
But , considering Trumps lies and misinformation in the Iran deal, it appears the whole thing may be ruined .
What say you ?
Boeing's $16B aircraft deal with Iran Air faces challenges
This is obama manipulating Boeing stock. Lewdog says so.i wonder what people think of this ? Thanks to the Iran deal sanctions are lifted and we can sell them shit like jumbo jets. Good for the us and good for biz . Usually the righties are happy with that .
But , considering Trumps lies and misinformation in the Iran deal, it appears the whole thing may be ruined .
What say you ?
Boeing's $16B aircraft deal with Iran Air faces challenges
Eveyone except the pork sellers....and the butt fuckers.This is obama manipulating Boeing stock. Lewdog says so.i wonder what people think of this ? Thanks to the Iran deal sanctions are lifted and we can sell them shit like jumbo jets. Good for the us and good for biz . Usually the righties are happy with that .
But , considering Trumps lies and misinformation in the Iran deal, it appears the whole thing may be ruined .
What say you ?
Boeing's $16B aircraft deal with Iran Air faces challenges
Hey numbnuts, Obama opened up trade to Iran for EVERY company... so I guess he manipulated stock for every company in the U.S. huh?
There have not been honest elections in Syria ever since Assad's father overthrew the democratically elected government nearly a half century ago and established his dynasty, so holding honest elections now would be quite an amazing feat, and since this is basically a sectarian struggling between the Alawites, a Shia sect, and the Sunni and the Sunni make up the majority of the population, it would be nothing short of a miracle if Assad won.Actually it is an answer to your question. You asked how the next government would be better than the present one, and I answered they wouldn't kill as many people.First, most of the death and destruction is the result of indiscreminate bombing by Assad and Russia of all of Assad's enemies, so a US-Russia deal that would end indicreminate bombing would save lives and infrastructure. ISIS is steadily losing territory, so I don't believe it will be a major obstacle to establishing a new government. So right off the top we have a great improvement over the present situation.Russia's interest in Syria is keeping its bases on the Mediterranean and so far the only way it can do that is to support Assad, but this conflict is expensive for the suffering Russian economy and Russia is starting to take casualties, so if Russia had a chance to secure its interests with paying so much in blood and treasure, it is reasonable to think it would take it, but Obama has offered nothing but political slogans calculated to play well in the US but without relevance to ending the conflict in Syria.
Russia has every reason to distrust the US and especially the Obama administration and that means they have to wonder why Obama sent Marines to train in Norway. The same conditions could have been found in Alaska so why Norway? Was this intended as a provocation or was it just another example of Obama cluelessness?
How is helping ISIS accomplish one of the two stated goals in it's name a good thing again?
Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer. Say how you believe the ensuing government will be better
I gave you a three sentence question and you couldn't read it.
kaz: "Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer"
Just saying the governments sucks so "right off the top we have a great improvement" is bull shit in the Middle East. There is no reason the ensuing government would be better just because the current one sucks.
So try again, and this time answer the question
If you were looking for a debate over whether it would be a democracy or another dictatorship or if it would end the sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia, why not ask the question directly?
...and what if, say Syria does finally get to the point where they are no longer fighting ISIS and the rebels and Assad agrees to the terms of an election, and the Russians help Assad get re-elected? And things go right back to where they are today?
But bat shit crazy enough to put Atheists on trial for denying the existence of God, which is why the CON$ervoFascists worship Putin so much.Russia is Christian and you can deal with them, they arent but shit crazy.
Eveyone except the pork sellers....and the butt fuckers.This is obama manipulating Boeing stock. Lewdog says so.i wonder what people think of this ? Thanks to the Iran deal sanctions are lifted and we can sell them shit like jumbo jets. Good for the us and good for biz . Usually the righties are happy with that .
But , considering Trumps lies and misinformation in the Iran deal, it appears the whole thing may be ruined .
What say you ?
Boeing's $16B aircraft deal with Iran Air faces challenges
Hey numbnuts, Obama opened up trade to Iran for EVERY company... so I guess he manipulated stock for every company in the U.S. huh?
But bat shit crazy enough to put Atheists on trial for denying the existence of God, which is why the CON$ervoFascists worship Putin so much.Russia is Christian and you can deal with them, they arent but shit crazy.
Rampant religious persecution against atheists: Robert P. George
In the Russian city of Stavropol, Viktor Krasnov, a 38-year-old man, faces trial, charged with publicly insulting Orthodox Church believers by supporting atheism in social media. For proclaiming in a heated Internet exchange “there is no God,” Krasnov was confined for a month to a local hospital for psychiatric evaluation. If convicted under Russia’s blasphemy law, enacted in 2013 and making it illegal to “insult the religious convictions or feelings of citizens,” he may spend up to a year in prison.
