Cyprus-Forum.com

[miltiades]

Yeah, I get you.

Russia is in Syria to secure their interests like everyone else. If Obama and Putin come into an agreement Syria will be solved in a matter of weeks. The humanitarian crisis they caused will of course scar the region for centuries to come.

Well yes it would. It is possible to solve this and Russia can still protect its interests. Everything is a give and take.

Russia has always had a base in Syria so that is not really an issue the West is worried about.

However, the West will want Assad to step down as a minimum and transition to democracy or somekind of soft Dictatorial administration which includes the Sunnis and Kurds as well as Christians.

Assad can either be tried in Syria by Syrians or he can be handed over to the ICJ. Probably be better for him to go to the ICJ.

You are talking a load of shit boy, you are getting more ridiculous by the day. Grow you naïve little boy!

[Lordo]

this is the russian army. what brave soldiers.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

Do not lie. The US Government has a "no first use policy" for Nuclear Strike there is no policy to pre-empt a Nuclear Strike but naturally, if they knew (Thought?)that Russia was going to launch Nuclear ICBMs they would pre-empt it. (A bit like they thought an Afghan MSF hospital was a Taliban hot bed!!!!) only logical and it's all about survival at this point. They just won't pre-empt with Nuclear Weapons until theirs (US or Russian?) are launched.

I am not a liar ...... liars always get caught out eventually, and ...... oh yes they do have a first strike policy!!!!!

“The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review established the (US) Administration’s goal to set conditions that would allow the United States to safely adopt a policy of making deterrence of nuclear attack the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons. Although we cannot adopt such a policy today, the new guidance re-iterates the intention to work towards that goal over time.”

In other words, “nuclear deterrence” is not now and has not been the policy of the Obama administration going back to and including their 2010 Nuclear Posture Review as well. Since “nuclear deterrence” is not now and has never been the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy from the get-go, then by default this means that offensive first-strike strategic nuclear war fighting is now and has always been the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy. This policy will also be pursued and augmented by means of “integrated non-nuclear strike options.” Id.

Reality and to put it simply ........... the US retains the first strike policy! The problem with the US is that this nuclear capability is spread worldwide, it is not just a defensive/retaliatory policy for the homeland. It is in place simply to ensure US supremacy by a nuclear first strike capability and threat! Very little has changed in that respect since the Bush administration.

I fear the US but I don’t fear Russia! These articles support that view:

http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-backs-first-strike-nuclear-war-us-policy

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304620304575166263632513790

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1387333/US-plans-for-first-strike-nuclear-attacks-against-seven-countries.html

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/911/65/

[DrCyprus]

Russian soldier enacts Obama's contribution to Syria:

https://youtu.be/V_Nr31Lv6H8

Assad is the cat.

[Paphitis]

Yeah, I get you.

Russia is in Syria to secure their interests like everyone else. If Obama and Putin come into an agreement Syria will be solved in a matter of weeks. The humanitarian crisis they caused will of course scar the region for centuries to come.

Well yes it would. It is possible to solve this and Russia can still protect its interests. Everything is a give and take.

Russia has always had a base in Syria so that is not really an issue the West is worried about.

However, the West will want Assad to step down as a minimum and transition to democracy or somekind of soft Dictatorial administration which includes the Sunnis and Kurds as well as Christians.

Assad can either be tried in Syria by Syrians or he can be handed over to the ICJ. Probably be better for him to go to the ICJ.

You are talking a load of shit boy, you are getting more ridiculous by the day. Grow you naïve little boy!

Why? Because you want your lesser of 2 evils Assad to be in power?

It's not going to happen. In fact, the Western Media have indicated that Russia and USA are already discussing ALL transition scenarios behind the scenes. Pootin is not so silly after all.

Further to this, you thought there were going to be no casualties for Pootin's stupidity? Who btw, have not attacked DAESH at all. It seems Pootin too is forming a nice little alliance.

During the Arab Spring, the USA changed its policy and supported regime change in Egypt. Russia will change its policy and support regime change in Syria. Fair is fair.

I remember many celebrating how that was a major defeat for the USA. Childish it was, but the chickens are coming home to roost in Syria.

[Paphitis]

Paphitis:

Do not lie. The US Government has a "no first use policy" for Nuclear Strike there is no policy to pre-empt a Nuclear Strike but naturally, if they knew (Thought?)that Russia was going to launch Nuclear ICBMs they would pre-empt it. (A bit like they thought an Afghan MSF hospital was a Taliban hot bed!!!!) only logical and it's all about survival at this point. They just won't pre-empt with Nuclear Weapons until theirs (US or Russian?) are launched.

I am not a liar ...... liars always get caught out eventually, and ...... oh yes they do have a first strike policy!!!!!

“The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review established the (US) Administration’s goal to set conditions that would allow the United States to safely adopt a policy of making deterrence of nuclear attack the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons. Although we cannot adopt such a policy today, the new guidance re-iterates the intention to work towards that goal over time.”

In other words, “nuclear deterrence” is not now and has not been the policy of the Obama administration going back to and including their 2010 Nuclear Posture Review as well. Since “nuclear deterrence” is not now and has never been the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy from the get-go, then by default this means that offensive first-strike strategic nuclear war fighting is now and has always been the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy. This policy will also be pursued and augmented by means of “integrated non-nuclear strike options.” Id.

Reality and to put it simply ........... the US retains the first strike policy! The problem with the US is that this nuclear capability is spread worldwide, it is not just a defensive/retaliatory policy for the homeland. It is in place simply to ensure US supremacy by a nuclear first strike capability and threat! Very little has changed in that respect since the Bush administration.

I fear the US but I don’t fear Russia! These articles support that view:

http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-backs-first-strike-nuclear-war-us-policy

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304620304575166263632513790

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1387333/US-plans-for-first-strike-nuclear-attacks-against-seven-countries.html

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/911/65/

Nuclear Deterrence has always been a goal from day 1 but that does not include First Use of Nuclear Weapons. That would not be a deterrence, but probably ensure that Russia will retaliate with Nuclear Weapons against Western Countries.

The USA still has a policy of NFU.

[Tim Drayton]

Yeah, I get you.

Russia is in Syria to secure their interests like everyone else. If Obama and Putin come into an agreement Syria will be solved in a matter of weeks. The humanitarian crisis they caused will of course scar the region for centuries to come.

Well yes it would. It is possible to solve this and Russia can still protect its interests. Everything is a give and take.

Russia has always had a base in Syria so that is not really an issue the West is worried about.

However, the West will want Assad to step down as a minimum and transition to democracy or somekind of soft Dictatorial administration which includes the Sunnis and Kurds as well as Christians.

Assad can either be tried in Syria by Syrians or he can be handed over to the ICJ. Probably be better for him to go to the ICJ.

You are talking a load of shit boy, you are getting more ridiculous by the day. Grow you naïve little boy!

I respect your opinion, but I welcome Paphitis' mature and informed comments as events unfold - and unfold they will.

[miltiades]

All ME countries are ruled by dictators, not least Saudi Arabia, a nation that imprisoned a westerner for a year and sentenced him to 350 lashes for the crime of being in possession of 5 bottles of wine. Huge crime !!

No nation in the ME will EVER be governed by a democratic system as such systems are incompatible with their brand of religious mythology.

Why remove a dictator that has ruled Syria for many relatively peaceful years. He is removed and, just like Libya the nation collapses in utter chaos.
The West has got it wrong. Russia is right.

[Tim Drayton]

All ME countries are ruled by dictators, not least Saudi Arabia, a nation that imprisoned a westerner for a year and sentenced him to 350 lashes for the crime of being in possession of 5 bottles of wine. Huge crime !!

No nation in the ME will EVER be governed by a democratic system as such systems are incompatible with their brand of religious mythology.

Why remove a dictator that has ruled Syria for many relatively peaceful years. He is removed and, just like Libya the nation collapses in utter chaos.
The West has got it wrong. Russia is right.

Given your above arguments, I don't see what your issue is with Daesh. They rule with a tyranny unmatched elsewhere and base their rule on a most extreme and warped interpretation the mythology of religion. Surely they then must be the perfect candidates to rule of the Middle East by your criteria.

[miltiades]

All ME countries are ruled by dictators, not least Saudi Arabia, a nation that imprisoned a westerner for a year and sentenced him to 350 lashes for the crime of being in possession of 5 bottles of wine. Huge crime !!

No nation in the ME will EVER be governed by a democratic system as such systems are incompatible with their brand of religious mythology.

Why remove a dictator that has ruled Syria for many relatively peaceful years. He is removed and, just like Libya the nation collapses in utter chaos.
The West has got it wrong. Russia is right.

Given your above arguments, I don't see what your issue is with Daesh. They rule with a tyranny unmatched elsewhere and base their rule on a most extreme and warped interpretation the mythology of religion. Surely they then must be the perfect candidates to rule of the Middle East by your criteria.

Absolutely Not Tim. There is no other dictatorship in the ME with the same credentials as the savage barbarians. You appear to have a great deal of faith in the ability or willingness of ME nations to adopt somehow a democratic mode of governance. In the entire history of the ME there has never been a governance sytem other than dictatorship. It will never change until there is a REAL Arab awakening. Until peoiple in the ME begin to question their driving force which is none other than their religion.
Freedom of speech, though, expression, freedom of faith all are taboo in the ME.

Assad has ruled Syria, and before him his father, for more than 40 years, the country was relatively peaceful if you exclude the Israel war.

The problem the West has is the inability to face realities in that democracy can never be force fed to Syrians or to other ME countries. Its a fact of life in this part of the world.
You can not tolerate and nurture one dictatorship, ie Saudi Arabia, and then demand the removal of another. If and when Assad goes, anothet " Assad" will take his place.