International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Assad can stay, for now: Kerry accepts Russian stance
Source:
AP
URL Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... AULT&CTIME=2015-12-15-16-01-54
Published: Dec 15, 2015
Author: Matthew Lee & Bradley Klapper
Post Date: 2015-12-15 17:52:02 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 5152
Comments: 37
"The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change," Kerry told reporters in the Russian capital after meeting President Vladimir Putin. A major international conference on Syria would take place later this week in New York, Kerry announced. Kerry reiterated the U.S. position that Assad, accused by the West of massive human rights violations and chemical weapons attacks, won't be able to steer Syria out of 4½ years of conflict. But after a day of discussions with Assad's key international backer, Kerry said the focus now is "not on our differences about what can or cannot be done immediately about Assad." Rather, it is on facilitating a peace process in which "Syrians will be making decisions for the future of Syria." Kerry's declarations crystallized the evolution in U.S. policy on Assad over the last several months, as the Islamic State group's growing influence in the Middle East has taken priority. President Barack Obama first called on Assad to leave power in the summer of 2011, with "Assad must go," being a consistent rallying cry. Later, American officials allowed that he wouldn't have to resign on "Day One" of a transition. Now, Assad's stay could be indefinite. Russia, by contrast, has remained consistent in its view that no foreign government could demand Assad's departure and that Syrians would have to negotiate matters of leadership among themselves. Since late September, it has been bombing terrorist and rebel targets in Syria as part of what the West says is an effort to prop up Assad's government. Kerry said, "No one should be forced to choose between a dictator and being plagued by terrorists." However, he described the Syrian opposition's demand that Assad must leave as soon as peace talks begin as a "nonstarting position, obviously." Earlier Tuesday in the Kremlin, Putin noted several "outstanding issues" between Russia and its former Cold War foe. Beyond Assad, these include which rebel groups in Syria should be allowed to participate in the transition process and which should be deemed terrorists, and like the Islamic State group and al-Qaida, be combatted by all. Jordan is working on finalizing the list of terrorist v. legitimate opposition forces. Representatives of Syria's opposition themselves hope this week to finalize their negotiating team for talks with Assad's government. The U.S., Russia and others hope those talks will begin early next year. Appearing beside Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov hailed what he described as a "big negotiating day," saying the sides advanced efforts to define what a Syrian transition process might look like. The two countries also have split on Ukraine since Russia's annexation of the Crimea region last year and its ongoing, though diminished, support for separatist rebels in the east of the country. The U.S. has pressed severe economic sanctions against Russia in response and has insisted that Moscow's actions have left it isolated. But Kerry sang a different tune on Tuesday. "We don't seek to isolate Russia as a matter of policy, no," Kerry said. The sooner Russia implements a February cease-fire that calls for withdrawal of Russian forces and materiel and a release of all prisoners, he said, the sooner that "sanctions can be rolled back." The world is better off when Russia and the U.S. work together, he added, calling Obama and Putin's current cooperation a "sign of maturity." "There is no policy of the United States, per se, to isolate Russia," Kerry stressed. MOSCOW (AP) -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday accepted Russia's long-standing demand that President Bashar Assad's future be determined by his own people, as Washington and Moscow edged toward putting aside years of disagreement over how to end Syria's civil war.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Pericles (#0)
Looks like Lurch and Bammy want to get on board with a winner. NATO allies and the Mideast have to be seeing Russia in a very different light than they did even six months ago. Russia is definitely back on the world stage.
That's awful white of him,ain't it? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
NATO allies and the Mideast have to be seeing Russia in a very different light than they did even six months ago. Russia is definitely back on the world stage. The Paris bombing changed everything. The French, led by Hollande, want BLOOD, and they really don't give a damn what nuances there are to American policy. Obama wants Assad gone, but the French want ISIS destroyed NOW, and they don't care about Assad. America won't help, but Russia immediately stepped up and began helping, even providing sea escort for the French carrier. So the French ARE de facto allied with Russia, already, and HAVE BEEN conducting air strikes as allies. Russia and France are allies, now, and have been since about a week after the Paris attacks. France went to the EU, not NATO, the EU pledged its support, and the British have sent ships to the Eastern Med, part of what is now a de facto Russian- French-British task force. Yes, the British are there for the French, and the French and Russians are there for themselves, but the Russians were actually providing the sea escort for the French carrier. Meanwhile, American-paid operatives were blowing up the power grid for the Crimea and shooting at the electric work crews sent to fix the problem, and the Americans were vectoring the Turks to shoot down a Russian plane. Madness and stupidity. And failure. The French President came to Washington and asked for alliance, and the Americans engineered the power cut for the weekend before and the Turkish shootdown for that day, and said that no, we would not be allies with Russia. Then Hollande went to Moscow, allied with Russia anyway, and now the Russians and the French, with British sea support, are killing ISIS and other terrorist groups. Oh, and to get there, the Greeks let the Russians overfly their territory, directly contrary to a formal request by the US government to deny them overflight. So, you have one EU state, the most important one diplomatically and in terms of power projection capacity, in a military alliance with Russia, and the second most important EU military state there operating with the French, and de facto alongside the Russians (because the French are allied with the Russians). And you have Greece ignoring the United States in favor of Russia. You have Germany, who doesn't send forces abroad, on the wrong side of a Ukrainian war started by the US, and the US as odd-man out. And you have nobody in Europe liking the refugee flow, and wanting Syria dealt with NOW, ISIS destroyed NOW, and so tacitly backing the Russians while actively supporting the French. The US lost. We lost on the Ukraine: it won't be NATO, it won't be EU, and it's not going to cause the Europeans to freeze out Russia. The US lost on Greece - so did the bankers. The Greek workout is not the "sell the islands" nonsense that German bankers were demanding, because Greece can ally with Russia, and that's more dangerous than letting the Greeks have somewhat better terms. The US lost in Syria: Assad will stay. At the end of all of this, Putin may even get those ships from France, and the Russians and the French and British, anyway, will see eye to eye. The Americans have to come to the table, or else we're going to have our allies allied with Russia and ignoring the USA. The destruction of ISIS is going to calm the waters in Europe about Russia, and deconflict. Obama's and the neo-Cold-Warrior's obsession with Russia has failed.
Good God, does anyone associated with the Liar'n'Chief haver any pride, much less integrity? Or perhaps they all truly believe that We The People are a total bunch of ignornant dupes that will believe any and all of their BS de jure? Either way, Drats are truly repugnant and total lying sacks of sh*t. How in the world can any American with an ounce of intelligence and integrity vote for them? '"By autumn 2011, weeks after President Barack Obama demanded that Bashar Assad step aside and with the rebels making some modest gains on the battlefield, the question among the administration’s Syria watchers was: Thanksgiving or Christmas? Apart from a couple of holdouts, the president’s entire foreign policy brain trust was convinced at the time that Assad would be out by the holiday season; there was only bickering about just how soon. Syrian President Bashar Assad, shown here on Feb. 10, 2015, during an interview with the BBC, has outlasted the Obama administration’s 2011 prediction that his day are numbered. AP With the administration’s most trusted Middle East hands – diplomats, generals, intelligence officers – predicting that the Syrian leader wouldn’t last into 2012, the White House felt comfortable rolling out a tough-sounding talking point: “Assad’s days are numbered.” Throughout all those efforts, the Obama administration has refused to retire the “days are numbered” talking point. The line has floated around the State Department for so long that it’s survived two secretaries and four spokespeople. From time to time, reporters in Washington ask about it at the daily briefing – Matt Lee of The Associated Press once did the math and brought it up on Day 706 – but the administration appears unable to acknowledge that its plan for Syria hinged on a miscalculation about Assad’s staying power. The administration’s adherence to an obviously incorrect and outdated assumption now sounds almost farcical, drawing smirks at times even from the government spokespeople who have to repeat it. July 12, 2012 {Secy of State} Hillary Clinton: Bashar al-Assad’s days as Syrian leader are numbered "Despite that admission and the continuing fierce fighting between forces loyal to the government and armed opponents, Mrs Clinton claimed the Assad regime was on its last legs. Speaking at a conference in Tokyo, she said: ‘The future, to me, should be abundantly clear to those who support the Assad regime – the days are numbered.’ But in the revered words of the Drat faithful useful idiots' icon: потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You should ... eat less --- not vomit so much ! Take your ... frenchy babble back ---- to where it came from ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
What about Bulgaria? Russians can access Greek space only through Bulgaria.
Bulgaria or Romania, then Serbia.
France isn't big enough or equipped to be decisive in Syria and they can't persuade the rest of the EU to join in, even on bombing or no-fly zones. Germany won't go, Greece won't shut off the refugees, etc.
Is that a trick question? I'm waiting for the punch line. : )
France was attacked, and went to the EU, not NATO, and the EU agreed to back France fully. That's why the British already have naval forces in the Eastern Med, operating with the French and the Russians. Of course France isn't big enough to be decisive in Syria, but France plus Russia, and Britain, with help from Greece and other European countries, even if only moral support, IS big enough to take down ISIS. Take down ISIS, and the refugee flow stops. It's not a matter of the Greeks saying no - it's a matter of breaking ISIS so people stop flooding out of Syria. Even the Germans want that. And because the Russians and French, with a British assist, are going to do that, Russia will be rehabilitated, and Merkel will have a way clear to patch up with Putin. Germany is staring into the abyss with all of this immigration, and they know it has to be stopped at the source. They will abandon the American jihad on Russia and go along with the French and British and Greeks and others to make things work with Putin again, which is the better answer for Europe. It's the better answer for America too. It's what Trump would negotiate if he were in office. It's not just France. France is just the element whose shift into alliance with Russia changed the balance of diplomatic and political power towards patching up with Russia and not letting the Americans get their policy desires in Syria or the Ukraine. It is also convenient that Turkey created a crisis by shooting down the Russian plane. The Turks got some goodies from America for that, but the price is that Turkey will not be getting into the EU, which was a much bigger prize for them. The Turks behaved stupidly, and they will now pay for it for a generation.
The only problem is that NATO/EU exhausted its major weapons stores during the fight with Ghaddafi and has never really recovered. Maybe they could buy some missiles from the Russians. They can't buy them from us because it takes 3-4 years to build new ones and America is out of its easily-disposed arsenal, at historic lows. And Britain, however compliant Cameron would like to be, isn't going anywhere near another major commitment in the Mideast. Not. Happening. Our so-called NATO allies are so weak, they could barely fight their way out of Europe let alone defeat a dug-in foe like ISIS. At this point, I doubt NATO/EU can even stop the refugees. I think I'd bet on the refugees, not Brussels/Paris/Berlin/London.
Brussels/Paris/Berlin/London/MOSCOW. You left out the key.
C'mon, you've already lost if you can't win without Russia. How low our supposed NATO allies have fallen. We need to tell them we're pulling out of Europe altogether. As long as we help them, they just get weaker and more useless. We're the enablers of their learned helplessness.
The US lost on Greece - so did the bankers. The Greek workout is not the "sell the islands" nonsense that German bankers were demanding, because Greece can ally with Russia, and that's more dangerous than letting the Greeks have somewhat better terms. The US lost in Syria: Assad will stay. Good post. And the sweet thing is that Americans did not lose, America's ruling class lost. I love seeing them with egg on their face, and Putin is the the smacking them. Putin is the enemy of our biggest enemy, our own 5th column ruling class. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
Bulgaria can thank Russia for freeing her of Turkish rule. Turkey is surrounded by enemies, and Erdogan is uniting the enemies of Turkey. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
We're the enablers of their learned helplessness. Excellent observation. Our great weakness is that we are too good of an ally, and we end up with weak allies as a result. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
Bulgaria can thank Russia for freeing her of Turkish rule. Regular Bulgarians know that, but their ruling class does what is told by the West. Russians were flying through the Iran and Iraq. Did it change?
How low our supposed NATO allies have fallen. We need to tell them we're pulling out of Europe altogether. As long as we help them, they just get weaker and more useless. We're the enablers of their learned helplessness. It's not about the USA and what the USA does. It's about destroying ISIS. The US won't. Russia will. France is helping. So is England. So is Greece. Germany, too, wants to see it done. The US loses prestige and power when France and the UK and Greece and Russia take out ISIS without US cooperation. But all of Europe gains independence, wiggle room, an enhanced margin of independence.
We don't do this out of the goodness of our hearts. We do it because we refuse to share control. Also, our allies are impressed by nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons mean that you really can't be invaded, and therefore don't need a huge, expensive conventional army, as before.
If ISIS is eliminated, everybody wins. It is not about pride of one country.
It is always about the pride of one or more countries. Always.
So for the pride are you ready to promote ISIS or cause WWIII? Perhaps it would be rather shameful?
Our NATO partners are quite happy we station nukes on their territories for their protection. South Korea is one of the few places we've taken them out of. Our client states rightly see these as tripwires, that any major attack on our EU nuke storage sites are a de facto declaration of nuclear war on the United States. So you barely hear a quiver of protest in Europe about the constant presence of American nuclear arms on their territory, even though they are obvious targets for any serious enemy to attack.
How do you know that they are happy?
Take a hard look at Obama and Putin and their behavior in office. Toss in Dumbya Bush if you like. Try to tell me with a straight face that either of them is not a very prideful man. Try to name any of these mythical selfless humble souls who are powerful heads of state around the world. You certainly have the usual multinational approach of typical EU peons. Of course, the EU wouldn't matter at all except for their status as primary vassals in the American global empire. Specifically, you want to share American military and economic power. That is because no EU country has the will or means to project any real military power. (Germany could be a major power but won't.) In practice, NATO means lobbying America to some action or wading into a conflict (Yugoslavia, Libya) and then pleading for an American bailout after the EU powers exhaust themselves. And that is due to America footing the bill for %75 of the NATO defense spending. At least a half-dozen NATO members contribute nothing to NATO defense spending. Others, like Britain, cheat on their budgets by counting what they spend on veteran care as NATO defense spending. I know Hollande is fired up by the Paris attack and trying to hit ISIS with his limited means via air strikes but France will very quickly exhaust itself. Germany won't join in, neither will the Nordic or Baltic states or Italy or Austria or Spain or even Belgium. The NATO basket case countries (NATO zombies) will contribute nothing, as usual. And Cameron is reduced to pleading with Parliament for permission to conduct air strikes and may have to settle with buying a new squadron of drones for his military.
They are delirious. Giddy even. America has some very classy nuclear weapons. World-class stuff, not like those cheap knock-off Russkie nukes.
Of course. That is smart. The UK and France have their own nuclear forces to protect their home sanctuaries from invasion, but are not willing to trade, say, London for Warsaw. That's the Americans' job.
It's not hard to see why the EU has been content to hide behind the American shield, rarely having to do more than provide token contingents when America is off crusading, like in the Iraq occupation. And EU/NATO can still manage to drag America into some messy fights they start but (deliberately) cannot finish, like Yugoslavia and Libya. Calculating EUroweenies. They're still worthless allies to us as a result.
And EU/NATO can still manage to drag America into some messy fights they start but (deliberately) cannot finish, like Yugoslavia and Libya. Calculating EUroweenies. They're still worthless allies to us as a result. Well, then, if they're worthless, they've cost us trillions and provided no worth. So I guess that makes us chumps for continuing to work so hard to keep them on board, and for being led around by the nose by them. Maybe we should dump them as allies, pull out of Europe and come home. It would save us huge fortunes and reduce our risks. Ditto for Japan and South Korea. It's obvious, isn't it? So why on earth don't we?
Hollande wanted Assad gone more than Obama did. The reason Hollande is now concentrating on ISIS and is OK with Assad being left in charge is because he is afraid the Sarkozy and LePenn right wing - which was and is pro Assad and pro Russia. Hollande is outraged but he is overcompensating for his previous failure against islamists.
It appears they give us some cover in various international venues. Also, our valiant defense of them and cooperation with them is a valuable commodity for warmongering presidents and the American military-industrial complex. So their helplessness and dependency actually makes them a vehicle for increased profits to the defense sector. As well as useful partners in the usual phony debates and diplomacy in the Western countries.
I don't quite see it. Hollande and his party are handing power to Sarkozy to forestall Le Pen and the FN. I think Hollande doesn't want to go down in history for being lax in protecting the public from the massacre but especially does not want to sit around and do nothing about ISIS. And Hollande was right, the French public are supporting him even if it doesn't make Hollande himself one iota more popular with voters. Hollande is a lot more worried about what historians will write than seriously entertaining the thought of winning the presidency or building up his own party again.
Exactly. Which means that they are useful to certain elites, even though they are an economic drain. The American elites use the US treasury to advance their parochial views, at great cost to America. And the European countries do too. So they're not really useless allies after all. They're valuable, and we pay to keep them in an approximate orbit, because it benefits a certain clique of Americans that like it that way and don't have to pay the bill.
Huckle buckle beanbag?
It is an about face by Hollande on Syria in any case. His support for Assad's overthrow helped create the ISIS problem he is facing now.
Exactly.
It seems that And therein lies the lesson to our American friends who seemingly want to become less involved and more European: There is no second America to back you up when you drop the ball. -- Clemens Wergin
#2. To: TooConservative (#0)
Kerry accepts Russian stance
#3. To: TooConservative (#1)
Looks like Lurch and Bammy want to get on board with a winner.
#4. To: TooConservative, Willie Green, A Pole, All (#0)
Assad can stay, for now: Kerry accepts Russian stance
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
(Edited)
The Paris bombing changed everything. The French, led by Holl Hollande, want BLOOD, and they really don't give a damn what nuances there are to A to American policy. Obama wants Assad go to A to American policy. Obama wants Assad gone, but the French want ISIS destroyed NOW, NOW, and they don't care about Assad. A NOW, NOW, and they don't care about Assad. America won't help, but Russia imme immediately stepped up and began helping, even providing sea escort for the Fren French carrier. So the French ARE de facto allied with Russia, already, and HAVE HAVE BEEN conducting air strikes as allies. Russia and France are allies, now, and and have been since about a week af and and have been since about a week after the Paris attacks. France went to the EU, EU, not NATO, the EU pledged its s EU, EU, not NATO, the EU pledged its support, and the British have sent ships to the the Eastern Med, part of what is the the Eastern Med, part of what is now a de facto Russian- French-British task forc force. Yes, the British are ther forc force. Yes, the British are there for the French, and the French and Russians are are there for themselves, but t are are there for themselves, but the Russians were actually providing the sea esco escort for the French carrier. Meanwhile, American-paid operatives were blowing up t up the power grid for the Cri up t up the power grid for the Crimea and shooting at the electric work crews sent to f to fix the problem, and the to f to fix the problem, and the Americans were vectoring the Turks to shoot down a Russ Russian plane. Madness and Russ Russian plane. Madness and stupidity. And failure. The French President came to Wash Washington and asked for a Wash Washington and asked for alliance, and the Americans engineered the power cut for for the weekend before an for for the weekend before and the Turkish shootdown for that day, and said that no, no, we would not be alli no, no, we would not be allies with Russia. Then Hollande went to Moscow, allied with with Russia anyway, and with with Russia anyway, and now the Russians and the French, with British sea supp support, are killing ISIS and other terrorist groups. Oh, and to get there, the Gree Greeks let the Russia Gree Greeks let the Russians overfly their territory, directly contrary to a formal requ request by the US go requ request by the US government to deny them overflight. So, you have one EU stat state, the most important one diplomatically and in terms of power projection capa capacity, in a mil capa capacity, in a military alliance with Russia, and the second most important EU mili military state th mili military state there operating with the French, and de facto alongside the Russ Russians (because the French are allied with the Russians). And you have Greece igno ignoring the Un igno ignoring the United States in favor of Russia. You have Germany, who doesn't send send forces ab send send forces abroad, on the wrong side of a Ukrainian war started by the US, and the the US as odd the the US as odd-man out. And you have nobody in Europe liking the refugee flow, and and wanting and and wanting Syria dealt with NOW, ISIS destroyed NOW, and so tacitly backing the the Russian the the Russians while actively supporting the French. The US lost. We lost on the Ukra Ukraine: i Ukra Ukraine: it won't be NATO, it won't be EU, and it's not going to cause the Euro Europeans to freeze out Russia. The US lost on Greece - so did the bankers. The Gree Greek wo Gree Greek workout is not the "sell the islands" nonsense that German bankers were dema demandi dema demanding, because Greece can ally with Russia, and that's more dangerous than lett lettin lett letting the Greeks have somewhat better terms. The US lost in Syria: Assad will stay stay. stay stay. At the end of all of this, Putin may even get those ships from France, and and and and the Russians and the French and British, anyway, will see eye to eye. The Amer Ame Amer Americans have to come to the table, or else we're going to have our allies alli allied with Russia and ignoring the USA. The destruction of ISIS is going to calm c calm calm the waters in Europe about Russia, and deconflict. Obama's and the neo-Cold Cold-Warrior's obsession with Russia has failed.
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
Oh, and to get there, the Greeks let the Russians overfly their territory, directly contrary to a formal request by the US government to deny them overflight.
#7. To: A Pole (#6)
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
The Paris bombing changed everything. The French, led by Hollande, want BLOOD, and they really don't give a damn what nuances there are to American policy. Obama wants Assad gone, but the French want ISIS destroyed NOW, and they don't care about Assad.
#9. To: SOSO (#4)
Good God, does anyone associated with the Liar'n'Chief haver any pride, much less integrity?
#10. To: TooConservative (#8)
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
France was attacked, and went to the EU, not NATO, and the EU agreed to back France fully. That's why the British already have naval forces in the Eastern Med, operating with the French and the Russians.
#12. To: TooConservative (#11)
I think I'd bet on the refugees, not Brussels/Paris/Berlin/London.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
The US lost. We lost on the Ukraine: it won't be NATO, it won't be EU, and it's not going to cause the Europeans to freeze out Russia.
#15. To: A Pole (#6)
What about Bulgaria? Russians can access Greek space only through Bulgaria.
#16. To: TooConservative (#13)
How low our supposed NATO allies have fallen. We need to tell them we're pulling out of Europe altogether. As long as we help them, they just get weaker and more useless.
#17. To: nativist nationalist (#15)
What about Bulgaria? Russians can access Greek space only through Bulgaria.
#18. To: TooConservative (#13)
C'mon, you've already lost if you can't win without Russia.
#19. To: nativist nationalist (#16)
Our great weakness is that we are too good of an ally
#20. To: TooConservative (#13)
C'mon, you've already lost if you can't win without Russia.
#21. To: A Pole (#20)
If ISIS is eliminated, everybody wins. It is not about pride of one country.
#22. To: TooConservative (#21)
It is always about the pride of one or more countries. Always.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
Also, our allies are impressed by nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons mean that you really can't be invaded, and therefore don't need a huge, expensive conventional army, as before.
#24. To: TooConservative (#23)
Our NATO partners are quite happy we station nukes on their territories for their protection.
#25. To: A Pole (#22)
Also, our allies are impressed by nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons mean that you really can't be invaded, and therefore don't need a huge, expensive conventional army, as before.
#26. To: A Pole (#24)
How do you know that they are happy?
#27. To: TooConservative (#23)
Our NATO partners are quite happy we station nukes on their territories for their protection.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
That is smart. The UK and France have their own nuclear forces to protect their home sanctuaries from invasion, but are not willing to trade, say, London for Warsaw. That's the Americans' job.
#29. To: TooConservative (#28)
It's not hard to see why the EU has been content to hide behind the American shield, rarely having to do more than provide token contingents when America is off crusading, like in the Iraq occupation.
#30. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#3)
The Paris bombing changed everything. The French, led by Hollande, want BLOOD, and they really don't give a damn what nuances there are to American policy. Obama wants Assad gone, but the French want ISIS destroyed NOW, and they don't care about Assad.
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
So why on earth don't we?
#32. To: Pericles (#30)
Hollande wanted Assad gone more than Obama did. The reason Hollande is now concentrating on ISIS and is OK with Assad being left in charge is because he is afraid the Sarkozy and LePenn right wing - which was and is pro Assad and pro Russia. Hollande is outraged but he is overcompensating for his previous failure against islamists.
#33. To: TooConservative (#31)
So their helplessness and dependency actually makes them a vehicle for increased profits to the defense sector. As well as useful partners in the usual phony debates and diplomacy in the Western countries.
#34. To: TooConservative (#31)
So their helplessness and dependency actually makes them a vehicle for increased profits to the defense sector.
#35. To: TooConservative (#32)
#36. To: A Pole (#34)
Huckle buckle beanbag?
#37. To: Vicomte13, A Pole, Pericles (#33)
small great minds think alike. I saw this on the morning thread over at AoS in their QOTD list.
Anyway, I found it notable since we had been saying much the same things on this thread yesterday. The quote is from Wergin, a German reporter from Die Welt and a critic of EU defense policy and the article was originally published in the NYTimes in 2014. It's worthwhile to read it all.
Barack Obama wanted America to learn from Europe's soft-power approach. But while Europeans are loath to admit it, they know that European soft power often doesn't work either - and that it is a luxury that they could afford only because America's hard power always loomed in the background. And when they dropped the ball, America would pick it up.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]