Too many unsubstantiated assertions here. From a website titled Storm Clouds Gathering, rumor mongering isn't exactly a surprise.

John McCain does not represent US foreign policy and sounds misinformed. The 4-5 US trained fighters and provision of tactical equipment pretty much represents the degree of support/involvement the US has provided Syrian rebels. For obvious reasons that he himself points out. There's no credible opposition remotely alligned with US values, and any arms provided risk ending up with radical groups.

Just because McCain thinks it's a good idea doesn't mean it is happening, will happen or that the executive branch shares his mindset. However it is true that Russian air strikes have primarily targeted other groups over ISIS. This aligns with what I talked about elsewhere that Russia's aim is to prop up Assad. With a western coalition taking on ISIS already, this naturally leaves Assad in the strongest position.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20151010_MAM922.png

The foreign policy of both Russia and the US is far more motivated by domestic policy than "imperialism" or "cold war tactics".

Putin just needs to appear to be winning. Winning wars, media arguments, just winning anything. Crossword competitions, ice hockey games, fishing, push-ups, literally anything. With not much to be gained in Ukraine quickly, he can switch to helping Assad to quash rebels and appear to fight the IS. Russian air support and logistics will have small losses and big PR gains. Putin is clever so he will avoid direct confrontation with the IS leading to a long stalemate and much destruction, in Iraq mainly.

Obama needs to do stupid unworkable things like "spread democracy", "help Israel no matter what", "broker peace in the middle east" and "support 'friends' of the US, some of them as bad as Assad" - its nearly impossible for him to have a sane middle east policy. There is nothing Obama can do in the short term in Syria. He probably cant reconsider his position on Assad and there is no reasonable path to topple Assad gracefully. Also no direct path to fight IS - Turkey will fight Kurds before fighting IS, Israel has to be careful.

Is Iran the key then? Iran is definitely not to be trusted http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11903290/Eight-of-Irans-womens-football-team-are-men.html

What? How could anyone seriously propose Obama stop NATO help for Ukraine linked to removing Assad from Syria? What good would that do to anyone but Putin?

Obama does not decide what NATO does and where.

Ukraine will fall to Putin without west European help.

Syria is a tribal and religious mess where no one has anything to gain right now, Assad is hated but legitimate. Rebels are split into factions with unclear objectives. Who exactly would the USA support in Syria if Assad was somehow "removed" by the Russians?

No one wants to fight the IS; Syria wants to fight rebels, Turkey wants to fight Kurds, Iran wants to fight Iraq, everyone wants to fight Israel. OK Kurds want to fight the IS but Kurds dont get much love on this planet. Even Kurds and Assad and Russian air support are unlikely to be enough to fight the IS.

Russia "good cop" in Ukraine... excuse me? You lost me there...

PS: Obama may just have to rethink his position on Assad, everything else is just a standoff hoping to force Putin to respect international treaties that he has agreed to. Which is unlikely. The only possible way out is for Putin to succumb to internal Russian problems over time.

As I said in that thread, I don't see an incentive for the US to intervene. This isn't the Cold War battle over spheres of influence, neither does oil have the same geopolitical relevance. Despite the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Libya, none has led to a spike in oil prices? Instead it's fallen precipitously. Why, because the US being the swing shale oil producer has capped world prices.

Meanwhile I listed the reasons for Russia to intervene, none of which you have challenged or refuted. TOWs have by all accounts been supplied by the Saudis. I don't think Russia is attempting to destabilize Syria, but they do wish to prop up Assad. Bombing has conveniently been primarily of non-ISIS rebels since they challenge the regime more directly than ISIS which is being bombed already.

Syria includes a litany of rebel groups some as radical as ISIS. From what I have read it is suspected that both the Syrian army and al-Nusra/ISIS used various chemical weapons. The Syrian army has undoubtedly dropped barrel bombs, weapons designed to create indiscriminate collateral damage to civilians just like chemical weapons, it is entirely consistent that they would have also tried using chemical weapons which is practical terms are no less likely to be deadly to civilians or likely to incite terror. There are by all accounts >5,000 different rebel groups in Syria. That you would ascribe them all as wanting chaos would suggest you've been fed a narrative.

A Cold War MAD mindset makes little sense today. Russian bombing of western Europe in some kind of hypothetical retaliation against the US makes no sense in this day and age. In any case it was scrapped because of Putin's paranoia.

Lulz, I totally read that as there being military support of Syrian rebels who are in the US. *self facepalm*

Military support of Syrian rebels in by the US has by all accounts been minimal, it's primarily been non-arms tactical equipment. Arms support has come largely from the Gulf states / Iran. The idea that the US fomented the Syrian civil war is also largely groundless. If you want to talk about the private military sector, let's not forget that Russia is a major arms exporter.

Meanwhile Russia has armed and provided direct bombing to support Assad directly, a guy who uses chemical weapons and barrel bombs on his people to intimidate them. His Putin's priorities are to protect his only Mediterranean port in the Middle East and to use his war footing to prop up his own domestic support the same way he did in Ukraine.

If he wanted to end the conflict he would have pressured Assad to step down in favor of a traditional government and have the successor negotiate a settlement and eventual elections with moderate rebels. Instead he's poured fuel on the fire. The longer these conflicts last, the more radicalized the opposition becomes. Now that he's let it play out and fanned the flames, he can blame the US for creating the mess.

And...the rebels are nearly just as much at fault as the Dictator himself...and this guy leaves them out why?

As I said before, the US is a unique nation. We grant our people rights that no other nation before or since would consider. It has worked for us so far and I for one would not trade these rights to live in any other country.

I don't think we will need to rebel against our government or that the world is going to come to an end tomorrow. I do think that having an armed citizenry does prepare us for any situation and also does provide another check and balance for our government, should it ever try to deprive us of our freedom.

In any case, as screwed up as we may be, we are still the shining light. Even if we are Rome in decline, we are still Rome until another country is willing to step up to the plate. People still flock to us for the freedoms and chances that they can't get anywhere else in the world.

Have you seen anything about the rise of Jeremy Corbyn (a long standing Labour party backbench rebel) in the UK party leadership election? There's quite an internet "buzz" around it. Almost a kind of British Syriza moment.

I've been saying for a long time that people could just be primed for an honest politician, with the modern social media apps/tech allowing for some real grass roots action.

@GenjiKilpatrick - Just to clarify, for me it's not a matter of treating police brutality as acceptable. It's a matter of being prepared and reacting the best possible way for self-preservation given the reality of the situation.

It's not that you should comply with unreasonable requests or brutal behavior because it's acceptable. It's unacceptable (morally) that so many officers act that way, but rebelling against such officers won't improve your situation and will likely end up with your face slammed into the floor or similar.

Cop apologist. As if being stupid is some justification for being beaten down like this. People are considered stupid for a reason. Doesn't mean they deserve this abhorrent type treatment from those who are suppose to serve and protect and be better then that. Shes an idiot and he deserves the most extreme vigilante justice for being a cunt of the worst kind. *angry*

We get all, you should have known better(sanctimonious) when its someone you don't know but if this was your child, there is no way you would be telling your kid, your disfigured crushed face is justice for your immature behavior.

-edit-
At what age is it appropriate to hit your/a child for disobeying or rebelling in some way against you as an elder, adult or parent.

Yep. One of the keys for me too. What good is He if the only thing He provides is salvation from the Hell He created to punish us for not loving Him to His satisfaction? What else have You done for me, or anyone else I know, in this present day life on Earth God? Nada, and sure some would say God saved so and so from an accident... then but then millions of good Christians die every year from accidents... it's almost like it's random who He helps or not... In fact, He indeed doesn't help any more than any other god does... He at one point had a better army, which allowed Him to spread around to Europe and force them to convert or integrate their holidays into His to make it seem better to those forced to convert.

Okay He created Hell for Lucifer and the angels who chose not to praise Him for a moment... which proves that angels do have free will... which goes against the teaching He created us to love Him of our own free will as the angels had no choice... so either He forced Lucifer and the third of all the angels to rebel, or they have free will. Then we get all those people in Asia, Africa and the Americas and all over the glove who are going to Hell before they heard about the gospel of Jesus as they never had a chance... but wait many Christians say, they won't go to Hell because they didn't know, they'll be judged on if they lived morally... which begs the question, if you are basically fully guaranteed of life in Heaven without the knowledge of Jesus, then why spread the message? Oh, the Great Commission... that command they apparently listen to, while the people like this ignore His command to Love and treat others as you'd have them treat you. How He hung around sinners and tax collectors and talked badly about those who were showing off how holy they were and prayed openly, trying to shame those who didn't do as they did. How He told the crowd who was about to stone a woman at the well "let those without sin toss the first stone" and then importantly doesn't toss any stones Himself, not because He's sinned, but because He's operating on a new covenant. Yet they love to toss stones of discrimination and hate towards those who sin differently than them. He commands us to heal the sick, and yet it is the Christians of this Nation that oppose guaranteeing everyone a minimum degree of universal health insurance, preferring only people with good jobs have affordable health care. And on and on...

And the Jesus is coming soon folks... Seriously I've head from family that even if Climate Change is real, the real damage doesn't come for hundred years or more, and Jesus will have come by then. Just look at the world, gay people can get married now. Clearly Jesus is coming soon. I had another family member note how after the election of Obama the first time that just means Jesus will come sooner now... as if the Bible doesn't say there's an appointed time, let alone that He appoints the leaders...

And then the whole help help we're being repressed attitude... when basically they are being denied special rights and privileges and just coming to equal legal ground with others. Basically they are coming into the situation that forced the Pilgrims to leave a Christian Nation to move to what would become America because they couldn't persecute others as they wanted to, as the theocracy that ruled that Nation didn't agree to go that far.

I could go on for ages. I covered the topic a billion times though... well not a billion...

I'm actually very liberal. So much so that I consider Democrats too conservative.

When the right wingers talk about 'the civil war not being about slavery', that's part of the rhetoric that 'the south was not racist'.

I'm not making that statement.





I am saying that :

- Both the south /and/ the north were racist.

- Neither cared about the fate of black people.

- The war started over secession (to which slavery was only a contributing factor, among many much more important [to the people in authority] factors).

- After the war was on, the north used the subject of slavery to their benefit.
A) Freeing slaves in only the rebelling states, in order to incite slave revolts and use that to military advantage. (if the northern authority wins, then the emancipation becomes southern law. If the confederate authority wins, then the emancipation is meaningless. So confederate slaves were given a personal incentive to help the northern authority win)
B) Paint the south internationally as 1 dimensional caricatures of evil (war propaganda), to cut off the south's supply of foreign made arms (because they didn't make their own).

- After the war was over, most of the slave owning states had been emancipated, and the north had claimed to be champions of liberty, so in order to save face they had to emancipate slaves in the remainder of the south (plus it was no skin off of their back, so it was easy to do).

(The southern states that had been allowed to keep their slaves could not then protest their emancipation, for they were few and weak - and would get no help from the other southern states that they themselves hadn't helped during the civil war (resentment/reciprocity)).

- When writing schoolbooks at that time, the rhetoric/propaganda was repeated, and generations of people grew up repeating it, perpetuating it for future generations (like religion).

-scheherazade

To take a less emotional counterpoint :

a) Internal attacks like this, when considering the massive population of people (1/3rd of a billion), are extremely rare. Lightning strikes compete very well with these in terms of lethality. So what exactly do you do? Turn the country inside out (do things legislatively/executively that affect everyone) because there's a chance that 1 in 300 million people will once every year or two do something like this?

Also) Southern generals fought over secession. Today, the civil war is taught as being largely over slavery - but that's heavily revisionist, since at the time of the civil war the war's implications on slavery weren't even mentioned outside of black newspapers. White people were fighting over who gets to run the south, the south, or the much richer and better politically connected north.

To illustrate, the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the states participating in the cesession, not elsewhere. The remainder were freed after the civil war. Reason dictates that it was done primarily to cause disruption in the rebelling south, and not for any particular racial sympathy. (Here's a map for those interested. States marked in blue got to keep their slaves : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emancipation_Proclamation.PNG).

In general, throughout human history, the defeated are usually historically revised to appear as bad as possible, so there are no questions about whether the right thing was done, and no sympathies linger for the defeated. So the south being turned into a ~1~dimensional~evil~enslaving~caricature~ of history is rather normal. Although, critical thinking people should probably know better than to fall for ancient propaganda.

-scheherazade

Really, sailing anarchy? Are they're bringing their own wind to show the system the can't be controlled by anyone? Rebels with flatulence?