Op-Ed By Vladimir Putin for the American People

[Sunshine]

The lecture isn't nearly as humiliating as it is to have religious leaders, including the Pope agree with a Russian.

The op ed leaves the impression that President Putin is the cop trying to talk the crazy guy off the ledge.

That seems just about right. But given that this is a "very small strike," the ledge is only a foot off the ground. Let him jump. Let him stub a toe.

[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]

How does a problem presented to US citizens to be such a HUGE problem get solved with 'a very small strike?' Just wondering.

 

[mudwhistle]

Seriously, tho...I'm being serious....


Right wingers now care about international law after saying fuck International Law while water boarding the nuts off of any and everyone

I never waterboarded anyone.

Some of my friend got WB during the SERE course. But that's cool. We can waterboard fucken American soldiers, not enemy combatants.

Seems international law just doesn't allow effective tools. Anything that works is verboten. To the US that is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Op-Ed Contributor
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013 239 Comments


MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.


Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0

Ronald Reagan would tell Vlady to go suck an egg, pretty much the exact thing Obama has done to date. Here's the funny thing; without the threat of attack, Putin never would have offered up his plan to have Syria turn over their chemical weapons to the international community to be destroyed. So many of you are acting like Putin is this great savior when in fact he's trying to save his own ass. It's incredible that you cannot see this.

Making threats of violence causes people to play nice? Isn't that exactly the opposite of what Obama was saying last week?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama is good on foreign policy, actually. It's his greatest strength. He's been real tough with the drones, and has overseen the overthrow of dictators our country used to prop up and defend.

By threatening to use force, President Obama has gotten the Syrians and the Russians to admit to the chemical weapons that Syria had. The both of those countries really don't need the Americans to be bombing Syria, because then we begin to control the narrative then and not anyone else.

By threatening to bomb them, we'll get them to agree to everything we want them to do, and if they break the deal, we get to bomb 'em.

Sounds pretty good to me.

I'm tired of morons who seem to like Putin more than Obama. Go fucking live in Russia if you like Putin so much.

Damn, some people just believe whatever they are told.

What you saw over the last four years was a basketball player learning that he cannot play chess.

 

[numan]

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

This is Putin’s big argument: Let’s follow through on the Russian plan to have Syria give up its chemical weapons in exchange for the United States not attacking. And Obama is clearly interested.

It’s hard to miss, though, that this appears to strongly contradict Putin’s claim that rebels were responsible for the chemical weapons attack. As Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein tweets, “Putin’s oped argues: 1. The rebels used chemical weapons, not Assad. 2. Let’s encourage Assad to give up his weapons (no mention of rebels).”

"Black flag" operations are tragically common in the world, today -- including many instigated or carried out by elements of the US government. I will never assume that the atack was carried out by the Assad regime until very clear evidence is presented that such is the case.

If Assad's weapons are put under international control, and there were to be another chemical attack, then Assad's involvement would be clearly ruled out.

Such being the case, it would be a strong deterent to external forces hostile to the Assad regime attempting another chemical attack.
.

 

[Redfish]

Seriously, tho...I'm being serious....


Right wingers now care about international law after saying fuck International Law while water boarding the nuts off of any and everyone

Exactly where is this "international law" written down? Where can I get a copy of the international law statutes? Who enforces "international law"? What court hears cases of "international law" ?

BTW, waterboarding is not torture.

There are mainly two sources of International law

1) Treaties
2) Customs

Treaties are written down. Problem with treaties is that nations can freely enter and exist them. Thus while the treaties are law, they are pretty much law only if the parties to the agreement keep it.

Customs on the other hand aren't always written down. It's just how things have been done. Which means that if nations decide to change what they are doing they can essentially change customary law.

Both types make international law a law that can only really be enforced if the parties enforce it themselves.

It's lead some scholars to speculate whether international law is real.[/QUOTE]

My point exactly.

 

[Annie]

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

This is Putin’s big argument: Let’s follow through on the Russian plan to have Syria give up its chemical weapons in exchange for the United States not attacking. And Obama is clearly interested.

It’s hard to miss, though, that this appears to strongly contradict Putin’s claim that rebels were responsible for the chemical weapons attack. As Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein tweets, “Putin’s oped argues: 1. The rebels used chemical weapons, not Assad. 2. Let’s encourage Assad to give up his weapons (no mention of rebels).”

"Black flag" operations are tragically common in the world, today -- including many instigated or carried out by elements of the US government. I will never assume that the atack was carried out by the Assad regime until very clear evidence is presented that such is the case.

If Assad's weapons are put under international control, and there were to be another chemical attack, then Assad's involvement would be clearly ruled out.

Such being the case, it would be a strong deterent to external forces hostile to the Assad regime attempting another chemical attack.
.

As I said, this has quite a bit of editorializing from the writer, though good points are made.

A problem of likelihood for the administration is that whether it was government troops or rebels, it does appear both have WMD and the means of using. Brings the Benghazi issue to the front once all this hoopla dies down.

 

[Redfish]

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

This is Putin’s big argument: Let’s follow through on the Russian plan to have Syria give up its chemical weapons in exchange for the United States not attacking. And Obama is clearly interested.

It’s hard to miss, though, that this appears to strongly contradict Putin’s claim that rebels were responsible for the chemical weapons attack. As Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein tweets, “Putin’s oped argues: 1. The rebels used chemical weapons, not Assad. 2. Let’s encourage Assad to give up his weapons (no mention of rebels).”

"Black flag" operations are tragically common in the world, today -- including many instigated or carried out by elements of the US government. I will never assume that the atack was carried out by the Assad regime until very clear evidence is presented that such is the case.

If Assad's weapons are put under international control, and there were to be another chemical attack, then Assad's involvement would be clearly ruled out.

Such being the case, it would be a strong deterent to external forces hostile to the Assad regime attempting another chemical attack.
.

How will we ever know if we have all of them? How will we keep anyone from making more? Who will control the "international control"?

 

[Annie]

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

This is Putin’s big argument: Let’s follow through on the Russian plan to have Syria give up its chemical weapons in exchange for the United States not attacking. And Obama is clearly interested.

It’s hard to miss, though, that this appears to strongly contradict Putin’s claim that rebels were responsible for the chemical weapons attack. As Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein tweets, “Putin’s oped argues: 1. The rebels used chemical weapons, not Assad. 2. Let’s encourage Assad to give up his weapons (no mention of rebels).”

"Black flag" operations are tragically common in the world, today -- including many instigated or carried out by elements of the US government. I will never assume that the atack was carried out by the Assad regime until very clear evidence is presented that such is the case.

If Assad's weapons are put under international control, and there were to be another chemical attack, then Assad's involvement would be clearly ruled out.

Such being the case, it would be a strong deterent to external forces hostile to the Assad regime attempting another chemical attack.
.

How will we ever know if we have all of them? How will we keep anyone from making more? Who will control the "international control"?

How many stars in the sky?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

This is Putin’s big argument: Let’s follow through on the Russian plan to have Syria give up its chemical weapons in exchange for the United States not attacking. And Obama is clearly interested.

It’s hard to miss, though, that this appears to strongly contradict Putin’s claim that rebels were responsible for the chemical weapons attack. As Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein tweets, “Putin’s oped argues: 1. The rebels used chemical weapons, not Assad. 2. Let’s encourage Assad to give up his weapons (no mention of rebels).”

"Black flag" operations are tragically common in the world, today -- including many instigated or carried out by elements of the US government. I will never assume that the atack was carried out by the Assad regime until very clear evidence is presented that such is the case.

If Assad's weapons are put under international control, and there were to be another chemical attack, then Assad's involvement would be clearly ruled out.

Such being the case, it would be a strong deterent to external forces hostile to the Assad regime attempting another chemical attack.
.

How will we ever know if we have all of them? How will we keep anyone from making more? Who will control the "international control"?

certainly not the putz in the White House....he's still 'investigating' Benghazi.....

 

[TemplarKormac]

The lecture isn't nearly as humiliating as it is to have religious leaders, including the Pope agree with a Russian.

The op ed leaves the impression that President Putin is the cop trying to talk the crazy guy off the ledge.

That seems just about right. But given that this is a "very small strike," the ledge is only a foot off the ground. Let him jump. Let him stub a toe.

[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]

How does a problem presented to US citizens to be such a HUGE problem get solved with 'a very small strike?' Just wondering.

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION]: It doesn't get solved with "a very small strike." But on the other hand, I've seen and read about wars which started with the death of one person. One.

In Obama's case though, it's like trying to pop a flat hot air balloon with a sewing needle.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Black flag" operations are tragically common in the world, today -- including many instigated or carried out by elements of the US government. I will never assume that the atack was carried out by the Assad regime until very clear evidence is presented that such is the case.

If Assad's weapons are put under international control, and there were to be another chemical attack, then Assad's involvement would be clearly ruled out.

Such being the case, it would be a strong deterent to external forces hostile to the Assad regime attempting another chemical attack.
.

How will we ever know if we have all of them? How will we keep anyone from making more? Who will control the "international control"?

How many stars in the sky?

I could be a smart alec and give you an approximate answer.

 

[Avatar4321]

How will we ever know if we have all of them? How will we keep anyone from making more? Who will control the "international control"?

That is an interesting question. Who controls the international control? What will they do with the weapons? How do we know the international control wont use them or smuggle them to undesirables to use in other places throughout the world?

Maybe this "weapons agreement" the Russians are proposing is just a way for them to smuggle the weapons to more profitable locations to them.

We truly dont know any of these things.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Exactly where is this "international law" written down? Where can I get a copy of the international law statutes? Who enforces "international law"? What court hears cases of "international law" ?

BTW, waterboarding is not torture.

There are mainly two sources of International law

1) Treaties
2) Customs

Treaties are written down. Problem with treaties is that nations can freely enter and exist them. Thus while the treaties are law, they are pretty much law only if the parties to the agreement keep it.

Customs on the other hand aren't always written down. It's just how things have been done. Which means that if nations decide to change what they are doing they can essentially change customary law.

Both types make international law a law that can only really be enforced if the parties enforce it themselves.

It's lead some scholars to speculate whether international law is real.[/QUOTE]

My point exactly.

Sooo International Law doesn't count when we want it, is basically the defense.

Putin says we should abide by it and you say "Yeaaaaayyy!!!

People say we violated International Law waterboarding then it turns into "No such thing"

 

[Kondor3]

Things will change for the better when Rand Paul is President of the United States.

Right (or largely right) message, wrong messenger.

 

[Spoonman]

I'd never thought I'd live to see the day when a Russian leader is dictating foreign policy to our own president. It is reprehensible how far our country has fallen. I for one am not going to sit here and take this.

so he threw a little salt on the wound as well. obama is a big boy. hopefully he'll learn a lesson from this

 

[Kondor3]

IMHO...

Bottom line...

Vlad outmaneuvered Fearless Leader...

Everybody gets to 'win' once-in-a-while...

It's Vlad's turn, I guess...

 

[Sunshine]

That seems just about right. But given that this is a "very small strike," the ledge is only a foot off the ground. Let him jump. Let him stub a toe.

[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]

How does a problem presented to US citizens to be such a HUGE problem get solved with 'a very small strike?' Just wondering.

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION]: It doesn't get solved with "a very small strike." But on the other hand, I've seen and read about wars which started with the death of one person. One.

In Obama's case though, it's like trying to pop a flat hot air balloon with a sewing needle.

Love the analogy.

 

[Redfish]

There are mainly two sources of International law

1) Treaties
2) Customs

Treaties are written down. Problem with treaties is that nations can freely enter and exist them. Thus while the treaties are law, they are pretty much law only if the parties to the agreement keep it.

Customs on the other hand aren't always written down. It's just how things have been done. Which means that if nations decide to change what they are doing they can essentially change customary law.

Both types make international law a law that can only really be enforced if the parties enforce it themselves.

It's lead some scholars to speculate whether international law is real.[/QUOTE]

My point exactly.

Sooo International Law doesn't count when we want it, is basically the defense.

Putin says we should abide by it and you say "Yeaaaaayyy!!!

People say we violated International Law waterboarding then it turns into "No such thing"

as usual, you missed the point completely. There is no such thing as enforceable international law. All sides try to quote it when its to their advantage, but there is no body of international law that is binding on anyone.

So this bullshit about complying with international law is a joke no matter who says it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'd never thought I'd live to see the day when a Russian leader is dictating foreign policy to our own president. It is reprehensible how far our country has fallen. I for one am not going to sit here and take this.

so he threw a little salt on the wound as well. obama is a big boy. hopefully he'll learn a lesson from this

Once this is over, he has a government shutdown to worry about. He's being played on both ends of the sea.