War with Syria

fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,859
137,964
or even what was discussed, maybe they just said "the rebels used sarin gas", I know people who play stupid word games like that.
I linked an article about it before, it was an anonymous ex israeli intelligence who is making that claim, do you trust that claim?


Reuters: Only 9% of Americans Support War in Syria

- Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

About60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23,found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
76,331
151,459
Eyashusa_sl said:
Apparently the smoking gun evidence is an intercepted phone call in which chemical weapons were discussed amongst Syrian officials. But no one knows what was used and when, if at all, and if it was even authorized or just some rogue officer in the military.
Click to expand...
That still sounds like more evidence than they needed to invade Iraq.

P.s. the call supposedly comes from unnamed source in the Mossad
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Araysar_sl said:
Bro, I see everyone else already covered everything except the population thing so I'll repeat it again since it didn't sink in yesterday

Russian population has been on the rise for almost half a decade
Click to expand...
Citation please! From what I can tell, only in 2012 has there been a significant uptick in the Russian population. Otherwise it has at best stabilized from 2007-2012.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/population

I don't really give a shit, I just like arguing small points of fact.

As far as whether Russia is a "superpower", that I guess can be debated. But most experts would say it isn't. Since the end of the Cold War, only the US really qualifies as a superpower. Russia would still be a great power, and easily one of the top 5 most powerful nations on the planet, sure. But it's superpower days are 20+ years behind it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

After the Cold War, only the United States appears to fulfill the criteria of being considered a world superpower.[1] The term "Emerging Superpower" has been applied by scholars to the possibility that the People's Republic of China could soon emerge as a superpower on par with the United States or at least at par with USSR-USA phase.
Click to expand...
Even a lot of the things that Russia once had going for it are starting to fade. It won't have a monopoly on gas exports to Europe for too much longer, much of it's oil industry is decrepit, and unless Araysar is aware of some demographic trends that no one else is, it's on a downward trajectory population wise that no other modern country save Japan has gone one.

http://www.economist.com/news/busine...-wounded-giant

http://www.economist.com/news/busine...-spooked-shale

The shale revolution is changing the balance of power between the Russian bear and its European customers. In the past Russia was so confident of its producer power that it felt able to bully clients: it cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in both 2006 and 2009 during contract negotiations. But America's shale-driven transformation from a declining energy power to the world's biggest gas producer, and a potential big exporter, is pushing down the price of gas on the world market. Supplies of Middle Eastern liquefied gas that America no longer wants are now being offered to Europeans. This week a consortium was chosen to pipe gas from Azerbaijan to western Europe, further reducing dependence on Russian supplies. Europeans are finding they have bargaining power: Bulgaria recently negotiated a 20% price cut in its new ten-year contract with Russia. Others are also determined to free themselves from their dependence on a country that has used energy as a weapon of foreign policy. Poland and Ukraine are intent on developing their own supplies of shale for strategic as well as economic reasons.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the edits!
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,859
137,964
Yeah I wouldn't call Russia a super power, it's a major power, with some superpower legacy benefits.

it's population recently stabalized from the collapse after the fall of the soviet union, last I heard Europe is like 1.5 total fertility rate, Russia is around 1.7(rebounded from 1.2) and america is around 1.9
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
76,331
151,459
here's a tailor made article for lleauric,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadom...-about-russia/

covering such gems as

1. Russia's population is "shrinking rapidly"

This might be the most common error in Western reporting. In reality, Russia's population is marginally higher now, at the start of 2013, than it was in 2006. Russia's population was declining rapidly during the late 1990's and early 2000's, but this decline has leveled off and the population has stabilized. Russia's population could very well start declining again in the future, but at the moment it is actually growing (albeit at a glacial pace).

RussiaPopulation.png


and some others such as

2. Russia's economy is in "serious decline"

3. Just like the Soviet Union, Russia "spends all of its money on the military"


and many more!!!













So get back on your moose and ride back to your igloo in Saskatchewan, buddy
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Araysar_sl said:
So get back on your moose and ride back to your igloo in Saskatchewan, buddy
Click to expand...
So no, you don't have any citation to back up your claim that "Russian population has been on the rise for almost half a decade ". Thanks for confirming that.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,859
137,964
Chuck Todd: Obama Avoiding Congress Because Isolationists May Block Attack on Syria



You know what, congress kinda likes this too because they don't have to put their names on anything and or face a tough decision like facing many angry voters.

Only ~9% of Americans support war as it stands.
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,968
213,271
The USSR was a superpower, then it collapsed and fragmented. so how is Russia a superpower all by itself?
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,859
137,964
It's a major power if you JUST measure their economic capability, the only current super power(empire)is the US and it's currently declining. However it's still part of a small group of world killing capable countries China/Russia/US(West) they are kinda like the weakest of a triumvirate.
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Araysar_sl said:
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

so yeah i was wrong, not "almost half a decade" but half a decade. 5 years.
RussiaPopulation.png


http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadom...-about-russia/
Click to expand...
Shitty graph is shitty:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...B41.5D.5B42.5D

The total population of Russia only increased markedly from 2011 to 2012, otherwise the changes are well within margins of error. And even in that year the natural change was still negative, although it was finally pretty darn close to nil. Otherwise the population of Russia in 2012 was pretty much the same as it was in 2006. How you equate that with "Russian population has been on the rise for almost half a decade", I just don't get. It's population declined for most of the past 20 years, stagnated for the previous 5-6 years, and increased slightly in 2012. Yay?
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
76,331
151,459
Eomer_sl said:
Otherwise the population of Russia in 2012 was pretty much the same as it was in 2006. How you equate that with "Russian population has been on the rise for almost half a decade", I just don't get.
Click to expand...
Here, let me help you with this one, bro.

2006 population of canada: 5 people
2007: 4 people
2008: 3 people
2009: 2 people
2010: 3 people
2011: 4 people:
2012: 5 people

same population 2006 as it is in 2012

did canada's population increase over the last 4 years or no?



anyways, your own link shows an increase at least from 2010 through present
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/population
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,859
137,964
Arab League Rejects Attack Against Syria

CAIRO - The leaders of the Arab world on Tuesday blamed the Syrian government for a chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people last week, but declined to back a retaliatory military strike, leaving President Obama without the broad regional support he had for his last military intervention in the Middle East, in Libya in 2011.

While the Obama administration has robust European backing and more muted Arab support for a strike on Syria, the position of the Arab League and the unlikelihood of securing authorization from the United Nations Security Council complicate the legal and diplomatic case for the White House.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,859
137,964
Published on Jun 14, 2013


"why the red line, what's the strategic goal, that's what is so baffling"
 
Aaron

Aaron

Goonsquad Officer
<Bronze Donator>
8,194
18,287
With regards to the Russian debate here let me just say this. When it comes to combined economic and military power the USA is top dog. No one can compare. The USA is currently the only power who can project it's (conventional) force globally. Even when the USSR was at its strongest it could not match the US - except in nuclear military power.

When the USSR collapsed and throughout the Yeltsin years Russia became an economic and military (barring nukes) joke. However, they did retain their knowledge base for the development of many highly advanced weapon systems. They just lacked the means to effectively use them, as well as the Russian military was financially starved. At the turn of the millennium this changed due to Putin. Firstly, he practically nationalised the energy sector thereby massively increasing the state revenue, and through that he started to enact military reforms and a massive modernisation program.

In addition he started to form alliances, most notably the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Eurasian Union, both of which strengthen Russian influence in central and eastern Asia, as well as form a counterweight to the US in the area. So when it comes to the Eurasian landmass, Russia is becoming very, very powerful, even potentially rivalling the US now. However, Russia still cannot project power very far from her boarders, unlike the US. Russia, for example, is incapable of threatening, say, Columbia with the same sort of thing that the US is threatening Syria with now.

One thing to note, however, is that Russia does pose a serious threat to the US, if the US ventures close enough to Russia or its allies to come into range of its advanced missile systems. I thought I had a pretty good idea of the power and advancement of Russian missile technology, but when I read this this morning even I was amazed.http://rt.com/news/russian-rocket-engine-ban-039/

So technically speaking Russia is most likely not a superpower (barring nukes), but they are in a position to dominate the Eurasian landmass. That is something the US fears, and anyone who want's to know why the US fears it then they can read this book:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.