Best ventriloquist act evar!

Finally, a voice of reason...

Lets not forget who has skin in this game. China and Russia liked the stats quo. Much like the West, dictatorships in the middle east suite them as long as it maintains stability - and resources flowing out. They have their interests there the same as the West and arguably in this case they are more invested than the US+allies.

I'm not certain intervention is the right course. I question what exactly would be sufficient evidence and whether there is any reasonable expectation it could have been or will be obtained, given the degree to which inspectors have been blocked. I think Russia is banking that evidence won't be found and not because they don't believe Assad was to blame.

Once a middle eastern nation decides that they no longer want to sell oil in dollars - something which seriously shores up the US economy - they start the propaganda machine.

http://videosift.com/video/The-Road-to-World-War-3 is very enlightening, though if you don't like to hear the narrator's emotional view on the subject you might want to stop it half way through.

It's almost as if he doesn't have journalist killed that are critical of his rule.

Who wouldn't trust the word of a homophobic, misogynistic, megalomaniac, sociopath.

Isn't this the guy who used fake terror attacks to rise to power?

"Most analysts today tend to agree that the intervention in Iraq was a mistake. So, if you admit you have made a mistake in the past, what makes you think that you can't make a mistake today?"

Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.

With body dismorphic disorder. He had way too many plastic surgeries.

no no the US just gets corporate take over of journalists, and then intimidate anyone who doesn't tow the line, and anyone who dares to be show what the government is actually responsible for gets thrown into prison, or has their car conveniently wrap around a telephone pole... unless of course, it's the government themselves doing the "whistleblowing", then its fine, and not a hostile act against a nation that values openness and transparency... so much so that more documents have been declared SECRET since Obama came into power than ever before in US history...

let alone straight face lying about spying on their own citizens

let alone a President who decides he doesn't require congress's approval for declaring war/military action, and then decides to show what a humble president that he is, he'll let congress in on what he knows... unlike the NSA programs that most of Congress wouldn't have known about unless for guys like Snowden

and social issues, important as they are, are smokes screens to deflect people's attention from what the two party system's true goal is... serving big business needs and securing personal future wealth/comfort as payment... they really don't care about those issues as anything more as misdirection, unless they are wingnuts like alot of the tea party movement were (they were the reverse, social issues jaded with personal prejudices with no economic sense/ability)... they use social issues to turn people against each other so that they don't see that Democrat and Republican within the last 30yrs have really only accomplished the exact same goals... deregulation of banks/big business, reduction in personal liberties, establishment of a police/surveillance state, the destruction of the middle class, and the fortifying of corporations

I agree with you on many of your points, but the United State's misdeeds don't make Putin any better of a person or politician. Russia Today is certainly pro Putin and he does have a great deal at stake in Syria in terms of arms agreements and military bases. I wouldn't exactly be quoting him as a voice of reason in the world.

Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had valid points about US policy's when he visited the UN. Anyone can do that as you well pointed out. I just don't think Putin's motives are as altruistic as he would have us believe.

While I agree that Putin is an extremely distasteful character, your comment is an ad hominem attack.

I'd be interested to hear what you think of what he actually said, not who he is.

Heres a relevant ad hom.

Putin is a conma....I mean politician. also he is Russian.

I think given the emerging refugee crisis the best form of foreign intervention would be basic aid to those displaced. Sadly I think it might be the case that the US spends more on missiles than on clean water and medicine.

Putin is a very intelligent man, and his comments are carefully crafted to be the sane voice of reason when compared to the US rhetoric of violence and invasion.

But then that's my point, what we're hearing here is the voice of reason. It's coming from a very unreasonable source, but the words are valid.

There's no such thing as a relevant ad hom, but I agree completely with the rest of your post. What we're being sold by the US government and certain politicians in the UK is that there are two choices, go to war or do nothing.

I think the third choice is the best choice, how about we actually help people?

How do you propose we do that? I'm not being sarcastic, I would genuinely love to hear an option that wasn't
a) leaving Assad to murder his own citizens
b) aiding a bunch of unsavory religious fanatics by bombing Syria and essentially starting another Iraq situation.

Neither is particularly appealing to me.

Also interesting to note the co-operation in washington over this

Health care?
Fuck you
Make the rich pay a bit more tax?
Fuck you
Tiny bit of control on lethal firearms?
Fuck you
Blow some shit up?
Hell yeah, let's do this thing.

And then he has all the country's homosexuals arrested and executed. Go Putin!

I think the valid criticism against Putin being the one stating anything is CONTEXT. The charge is that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Putin is declaring the need for evidence and all manner of polite international discourse and patience that should be shown. The context is just where did Assad purchase nearly 90% of his military hardware, probably including his chemical weapon arsenal, and without a doubt the missiles and platforms used to deploy it? From none other than Putin, so of course Putin wants the burden of evidence to be set at beyond a shadow of a doubt, and wants it voted on unanimously by the UN security council, which he sits on and has reasonable confidence won't be having a unanimous vote he doesn't favor. I don't recall Putin demanding patience and a UN resolution on how to respond to Chechnya a few years back...

Never trust a lifelong politician no matter where they're from.