Putin speaks to the American people in The New York Times

What would happen to global Muslim terrorism if USA and Russia became frenemies, i.e. temporary allies, and went after the radical Muslims TOGETHER?

One two punch.

Tag team.

Would cost less.

Of course they won't be holding hands and singing Kumbaya.



Snack for thought. Don't go apeshit and don't lose your pants.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Supporting Islamist's anywhere for any reason always seems to bite us in the butt.


giving freedom to Muslims is like letting the animals out of the zoo.

once free, they go nuts.
 
Russia will boost it's naval fleet to 10 warships for Task force off the coast of Syria.

<B>Syria Crisis: Russia Bolsters Mediterranean Naval Fleet amid Geneva Talks
Russia to anchor 10 warships near Syrian coast as tensions remain high over chemical weapons</B>
By VASUDEVAN SRIDHARAN September 13, 2013 8:34 AM GMT

The Russian Navy intends to build its presence in the Mediterranean Sea - particularly in the area close to Syrian shores - to up to 10 battleships, announced Admiral of the Fleet Viktor Chirkov.

Russia has dispatched a "carrier killer" missile cruiser and other ships to the eastern Mediterranean in its largest naval deployment since Soviet times.

The destroyer Smetlivy left a naval base in Sevastopol, Ukraine, on Tuesday on a mission to the Syrian coast, a military source told the state news agency Interfax on Thursday.

The source said the Smetlivy would travel to the Mediterranean with the amphibious assault ship Nikolai Filchenkov, which left Novorossiysk on Monday carrying unidentified supplies for the Damascus government.

The missile cruiser Moskva, the flagship of Russia's Black Sea fleet, is also on its way to the Syrian coast to lead the Russian force there. The ship is reportedly known as a "carrier-killer" because it is outfitted with Vulkan missiles, that are designed to destroy large ships.

Upon the arrival of the ‘Moskva’, its commander, Sergey Tronev, will assume operative command of the task force.
 
...Part 2 continued

Quote from President Obama:

Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force? As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.”

I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.

However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.

It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.

I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action.

Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.

My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.

And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.

Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?

Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.” Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.

America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

Transcript courtesy of the White House.



Here >>
 
Quote from Ricter:

Sure, tell us all about your higher education attainments.


my iq is 70, i was home schooled, i was repeatedly verbally and physically abused as a child, i always wear tin foiled hat, and i have a terrible tick.

oh, i am short, overweight, bald, and most importantly, have a small member.

i am still a virgin, single and ready to mingle!
 
Quote from SteveNYC:

my iq is 70, i was home schooled, i was repeatedly verbally and physically abused as a child, i always wear tin foiled hat, and i have a terrible tick.

oh, i am short, overweight, bald, and most importantly, have a small member.

i am still a virgin, single and ready to mingle!

And yet...you still speak the truth. :)
 
acc11460f729013013b2001dd8b71c47
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:



The point is that Putin is making a sensible argument and Obama is not.

Many have made sensible arguments right up until the time they knifed others in the back.

This man is capable of far worse than your blinders will allow you to see.

Your tunnel vision on your target (((Obama))) will only prevent you from seeing the truth.


Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Obama is already providing weapons to the "rebels", ie al qaeda. How is that in our interests?

At times you seem capable of interesting and original thought, but you seem to say little more than repeat heated rumors distributed by the KGB and far right websites.

You only slander yourself with such statements.


Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Assad may be a brutal dictator, but as far as I know, he hasn't crossed us.


yet?

But how would you know? You seemingly spend most of your time on the websites which stack up rumors and lies, and maybe some truths too about Obama.

Take off the hood which restricts your vision.


America and the world has much at stake!
 
Quote from Ricter:

Direct vs. systemic causation:

Systemic Causation and Syria: Obama's Framing Problem
By George Lakoff
Posted: 09/13/2013 8:10 am

"This is the second of two articles analyzing the mode of thought and the language in public discourse on Syria from the perspective of cognitive science and linguistics.

"Every language in the world has a way in its grammar to express direct causation: a local application of force that has a local effect in place and time. You pick up a glass of water and drink it: direct causation. You bomb a hospital, destroying it and killing those inside: direct causation.

"No language in the world has a way in its grammar to express systemic causation. You drill a lot more oil, burn a lot more gas, put a lot more CO2 in the air, the earth's atmosphere heats up, more moisture evaporates from the oceans yielding bigger storms in certain places and more droughts and fires in other places: systemic causation. The world ecology is a system -- like the world economy and the human brain.

"From infanthood on we experience simple, direct causation. We see direct causation all around us: if we push a toy, it topples over; if our mother turns a knob on the oven, flames emerge. And so on. The same is not true of systemic causation. Systemic causation cannot be experienced directly. It has to be learned, its cases studied, and repeated communication is necessary before it can be widely understood.

"The daily horrors in Syria are direct: shootings, bombings, gassings. When the media reports on "Syria" (as it should), it is reporting on the direct horrors. If "Syria" is the problem, the problem is the daily horrors, the 100,000 killed, the ongoing shootings and bombings, the persistent hatred and oppression. If the president is understood as addressing "Syria," and he proposes directly bombing Syria, the natural question is whether that eliminates the daily direct horrors. When he admits that it does not, when Secretary Kerry says correctly, "There are no good options in Syria," the question naturally arises, "Why bomb when it won't solve the direct problem, but might create other problems?"

"To President Obama, "Syria" is not primarily about direct causation. It is about systemic causation as it affects the world as a whole. It is about preventing the proliferation of poison gas use and nuclear weapons. It is about the keeping and enforcement of treaties on these matters. That is what he meant when he said that the red line is not his, but "the world's red line," "the international community's red line." The president has a broad perspective. To him "Syria" does not just mean Syria; it means the effects of the horrors in Syria on the world. "Limited" bombing in Syria is not about directly stopping the horrors there; it is about an attempt to prevent proliferation of gas and nuclear weapons and about an attempt to move toward a peaceful resolution.

"But the president has not made this clear, and he could not possibly do it in one speech, given that most people don't viscerally react to systemic causation, and many don't understand it at all. He could only do it by discussing it overtly, distinguishing what is systemic from what is direct, and repeating it over and over. Even then, it would be a hard sell for cognitive reasons -- even though he has good reasons to base his policy on it.

"Then there is Russia. In his September 10 speech, Obama addressed the Russian plan to take control of the poison gas in Syria from Assad's hands, which Assad has assented to. He discussed the plan, but never mentioned why the usual rational distrust of Russia should not apply here. It shouldn't apply because taking control is in many ways in Russia's interests: there are business interests, and there are many Russian citizens in Syria working on technology or going to college or married to Syrians. An American bombing could lead to gas falling into the hands of jihadists from Chechnya and elsewhere, who could use gas in terrorist attacks on Russia. Russia has a very strong interest in taking control of Assad's poison gas and we can trust Russia to act in its interests. But the president didn't say that Russia has a real interest in a peaceful diplomatic resolution in Syria, just as we do. Why not? Given the deep suspicion of Russia in the American psyche, that is a hard sell, too.

"Just as there are no easy direct options in Syria, so there are no easy direct short-run communication options for a reasonable policy based on systemic causation. The reason is that the communication of unfamiliar ideas like systemic causation is itself a systemic problem. You can't just mention it once and expect it to be widely understood. It has to be repeated over time by a lot of people in a lot of situations.

"As a result, the president's logic of limited bombing is not understood: he wants to bomb to prevent the systemic effect of the use of poison gas, not to stop the direct killing via other means, which we cannot stop. Obama has two hard sells, which for cognitive reasons lie beyond his immediate control. Systemic causation is not a natural concept that is automatically learned. In the September 10 speech, these ideas were mentioned, but they were not put front and center. And moreover, there has been no communicative groundwork over the past five years that would help citizens understand the logic of systemic causation versus direct causation and how it applies to Syria and other issues of our times."

George Lakoff www.georgelakoff.com is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley.

Here >>



I reread this because it was interesting..

I note the professor failed to think systematically.

"No language in the world has a way in its grammar to express systemic causation. You drill a lot more oil, burn a lot more gas, put a lot more CO2 in the air, the earth's atmosphere heats up, more moisture evaporates from the oceans yielding bigger storms in certain places and more droughts and fires in other places: systemic causation. The world ecology is a system -- like the world economy and the human brain."

Had this guy really been thinking in systems... he would note...
the earth has cycled in the past and that it could very well be that co2 is a thermostat and that as the oceans released more CO2 the earth began to cool.

So it is possible co2 causes cooling or does both depending on my factors within the system.
 
Back
Top