*related=http://videosift.com/video/Man-Gobbles-at-Turkeys-Turkeys-Gobble-Back

Man Gobbles at Turkeys, Turkeys Gobble Back has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

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.

There's something wrong with all those pictures...all of those camps are almost completely empty. What's the story with that? There must be a reason...such as those staying there are not allowed to work, but must still pay for food and services, or something else untenable. People would not be paying thousands of dollars for a chance to take their familys on an overloaded rubber raft across dangerous waters and continuing on a dangerous voyage through hostile countries to unknown possible places of refuge if there was a reasonable, safe place for them on the border of Syria.
Also, to be sure, tent cities are less than ideal in Southern Turkey where the temperature is often deadly....but they are better than nothing.
I'm not sure, beyond the smugglers getting them to Greece and food on the trail, what the Syrians might pay for that helps them reach Europe. The train tickets they're buying don't cost much, do they? Certainly not the thousands they pay the smugglers....but perhaps paying the smugglers is what you mean.

I'm fine with your other points, but you really think there are not working, funded refugee camps in Turkey?

An_Aerial_View_of_the_Zaatri_Refugee_Camp.jpg

http://sheldonkirshner.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Turkish-refugee-camp-for-Syrians-e1413585834309.jpg

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-120411-syria-refugees-ps2.photoblog900.jpg

Are they amazing? No, but I've never stepped foot in a refugee camp that was (and, yes, for the record I have visited several). Compared to the 30-year-old jungle camps on the Thai-Burma border, these places look pretty well outfitted. They clearly have the infrastructure, support and funding to serve the populations that are there.

What they don't have is the economic infrastructure to allow for good, rewarding work for these refugees. Of course, that is generally the situation for every refugee population. The biggest difference here is that some Syrian refugees have the financial resources to reach Europe whereas most refugees in other parts of the world don't.

OK.
Point 1. I do agree, the inability of many migrants to assimilate to their new homeland, and to expect the new land to change to suit them, is an issue...one not limited to Muslims, but one they certainly share.
Point 2. I would say 'asylum' does not exist if one must wait 5 years to even APPLY for it, and during that time must not work. That's ridiculous, just like saying they're running from asylum to asylum. They are moving to where they believe they might be able to eat, and maybe live outside a small, overcrowded cage. If honest, working refugee camps were to be erected in Turkey on the borders, funded by the EU and others, most of the refugees would go no farther...but that hasn't happened...at least not in any working way for the numbers coming.
I won't assume there's much 'insertion' of non-refugee migrants in the masses, they would have to travel across numerous closed borders and through numerous wars just to join the group...I don't think that's happening. Maybe a few that crossed the Mediterranean to Greece, but that's not many if any.
Point 3. Yes, the numbers are overwhelming. That does seem to be a good incentive for the EU and America (and the other Arab nations), and eventually Russia to do more to stabilize Syria, however, and also a good incentive for them to create systems to deal with these people while treating them as people.
Obviously, though, the only permanent solution is to stop them from being forced out of their homeland. No?

3 things, I may have mixed them a bit.

1 - past experience specifically with muslim migrants (some may have been refugees) in Europe - overall not great, mostly they consider our social system and political correctness as signs of weakness. They consider themselves superior, the first generation may be grateful for a better life than back home but the second and third generations feel superior to non-muslims (especially jews and atheists, but also christians) and entitled to benefits while hating the secular state. Will the current and future waves accomodate better? This has nothing to do with our imperative to help those in need, it is a practical problem. Also not racist - although I do admit racism and xenophobia are a major problem in many parts of Europe and trouble me very much in my own country. More so than the Vietnamese or Ukrainians or people from the Balkans "these people" organize in clans and tribes and will try to impose their view of the world on us, who organise in tiny families and on facebook. Albanian thugs are well organised but they dont hold the view that everyone else should be an Albanian thug too.

2 - current wave of migrants and refugees - lets assume we are talking only about real Syrians boarding boats in Turkey trying to reach Greek islands and not people from all over north africa trying to reach Italy or anyone else trying to reach the EU (possibly pretending to be Syrian). So we have this exemplary Syrian family which has run away from a war to Turkey. They are safe there, only they have to either stay for a couple of years in a refugee camp before they can try to find work or they have to survive in a grey economy sort of like Mexicans in the USA. They know that if they dont apply for asylum in Turkey and manage to set foot on EU soil they can ask for asylum there and be treated better than in Turkey. So these boat people are actually not running from war to asylum but rather from one asylum to another. They make sure not to stop in Greece or Croatia or Austria or Hungary but head for Germany or Sweden. Mostly I believe they have no idea of political geography but they have mobile phones and friends who have already made the journey and know how to milk the local system. So for purposes of compassion they are refugees and totally need our help but from a clinically economic (yes, materialistic) point of view they are very much migrants. Migrants we feel obliged to help because they are sort of refugees too.

3 - the mass and speed of the exodus means we are stretched to accomodate them and they will later start to passionately hate us because Europe will not be the heaven they expected it to be.
A few thousand refugees every year are no big deal even for a small EU state. Hundreds of thousands will be very difficult to take care of in the entire union. Inviting more is just irresponsible.

The good news is that the real Syrian refugees who make it to Europe will probably be the more resourceful, better educated part of the current wave of incoming people and will be able to take care of themselves fairly quickly by my estimate. Also they are mostly variants of Shia - the less orthodox branch of muslims. I am worried more about future waves than the current one.

Maybe we have messed up a bit but we need to learn from our mistakes, and even Germany is now guarding its borders. It would be better if we were able to guard the Shengen perimeter.
Then if we wanted to save more refugees we could send trains or planes to pick them up in Turkey or Jemen. You know, set up an EU consulate there so they could directly apply for asylum in the EU country of their picking. But we have to make a conscious decision first - how many people from the desolate and failing parts of the world do we want to save over a given time period so that we dont fail ourselves. Are we failing? Ask the jewish families who used to live in Malmo until recently.

For me, the primary thing was that I use vaping as a means to alleviate withdrawal and to break the routine of smoking cigarettes. Smoking was just an automatic thing I did at certain times (after a meal, after a cup of coffee, work breaks, etc.). I used to always carry a pack of cigarettes around with me, but now I leave my vaping equipment at home (unless I'm going to be gone more than eight hours or so). Really, I think getting over just the routine of pulling out a cigarette and smoking it is the biggest hurdle. It's always good to keep in mind that between emotional dependence and physical dependence on a drug, it's the emotional dependence that is by *far* the more powerful.

Granted, I could have painlessly weened myself off cigarettes in a couple weeks with vaping (or gum or whatever), but I think it's probably better to stretch it out a little longer, and the instant hit you don't get with inhalation is important. Six months was my goal, and I'm at about four now.

It's pretty great really. I can smell things again and food tastes better and generally breath easier. I quit smoking once before cold turkey, but that only lasted a year. When I finally put this down, if I do relapse (which seems much less likely), it will be back to vaping rather than smoking.

Actually, the Kurds are extremely different from most of the other races in that area. We've avoided arming or helping them, even when they were being gassed by Saddam for helping us, because of our ties with Turkey.

I really would not have a problem with arming them, assuming we can get Turkey to sign off on it.

Yeah, it's a bitch. I didn't know I was an alcoholic until I was running away from hard times. Then even after I had gained a marginal amount of success, the alcohol remained. Fucking alcohol. It really does make you a different person. Sometimes a very very excellent, if not womanizing person. But sometimes a monster. Best I avoid the stuff beyond what I think I need or can handle, one drink at parties. Parties can be bad if I violate this. Or good -- it's a gamble lol.

You know what though, it's addiction period. I stopped drinking, my life improved; but, I replace it with something else. I am addicted to video games. I do 80+ hour, no sleep binges playing a game I'm seeking to master. Addiction.

Pretty soon I will have to go cold turkey even on things like marijuana, which make me mellow, happy, heightened senses, and artistic/creative focus/drive, and which my peers claim is not addicting. Nah, everything in my life is an addiction. Even creative endeavors or day to day work -- it commands my utter and impenetrable existence, allowing my world to fall to shambles, meanwhile I create art or engineer new false existence. A system of dice I throw forever for no real reason other than I am addicted forever to throwing dice. Boom. Boom. Cards. Mmm, yeah, gambling is fun and bad too, and consume entire weekends. Sex. Typing things. It's ALL addiction to me.

The only thing I get from typing my mind is the rush and addiction to the finality of saying the truth, regardless of the consequences. It just comes out and the fists raise my adrenaline and I'm fighting now. Haahhahahahahaha!!! Addiction! Adrenaline. Energy. I'll run for 4 hours straight to achieve a moment of elation and existence outside of the day to day shuffle. Addicted to life? I sit at my desk addicted to death? No, life. I am addicted to EVERYTHING.

Turkey disguised as an ostrich.

*promote "Turkey bacon" [and more views]

I have yet to hear a logical reason people crap on Carter...they invariably just say 'Carter, if you don't understand why he sucked, I just can't talk to you', never ' Carter, this is why he sucked'.
EDIT: If it's all about leadership, stability, and helping, you must be conflicted that Tricky Dick is republican, huh? The Bushes can't help either. It's a wonder you can stick with your party, I quit the republicans when they quit being republican, before I could vote, during Regan.
Carter provided leadership in a responsible direction, but idiots desired placation rather than leadership and didn't follow. Regan placated his base, and we nearly had a depression. Carter started us on a non-interventionist foreign policy, because he personally understood the short and long term repercussions of intervening, now we've shit in their pot so hard and long that we CAN'T just go hands off anymore, we've already created our enemy. That said, it's like a junkie going cold turkey, it hurts them, may kill them, but if they survive they have a chance of life, if they don't stop, they die soon anyway. If we could find a good foreign policy methadone, we should use it at every turn and start worrying about us, IMO. If we had not installed our leaders and otherwise interfered in the first place, everyone would be better off, but that ship has sailed (in many cases because we didn't follow Carter's suggestion to stay out, I might add).
OK, got me with Boston. Ft Hood is a lone gunman, and those stopped prove my point. I think you know I meant foreign spawned terrorist attacks, but I grant I did not say that. But then you have to admit there were other successful attacks under Bush AFTER 9/11, like the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building in Texas.
Agreed, the spread of religion is always terrible, no matter which religion, some are worse than others at times, none are good. I could support outlawing organized religion, but grant that most would not.
Obama did not create radical Islam. If anyone did, it's Regan, by arming them to the teeth against the red menace, then just walking away.
I also disagree that Obama's the 'my way or the highway' guy/side. Please recall, "You're either with us or against us" is a republican slogan. The republicans stated before Obama was inaugurated that he was already the worst president ever, and their plan for the next 4-8 years was 'just say no' to everything, even to plans they designed, but they have never come up with any alternatives, just "not Obama's way" over and over, that's real 'not leading' as opposed to the type they accuse Obama of.
4.5 years of shitty economy, but trending up, not down even then.
Where I live, jobs have been an issue since Regan/Bush 1, so I don't think you want to point that finger here.
Not true, stagnant over the last 14+ years. They certainly went up in the 90's.
Once again, Bush economics caused the recession, salaries went down during the recession/depression. Salaries are on the way up now...not fast enough, granted, but up.
Obama has NEVER been able to do whatever he thinks/wants. That is delusional. Even when the democrats had the votes to do so, they didn't, because they suck donkey dicks. Happy? ;-)
Times were better for a special few under Regan, not most. Times got better for most everyone under Clinton.
We agree on your final point, the Bushes sucked, lets build on that and not make that mistake again.

That's a lot of people on the streets in France.

But my favorite is still the meeting of world leaders, including Turkey's Davutoglu (highest # of journalists in prison), Bahrain's Sheikh Khalid (#2 on the list of journalists in prison), Polish PM Kopacz (raided newspaper for criticising the government), etc.

When these folks are presented as staunch defenders of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, you know someone spiked your beer with LSD.