It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Paul Craig Roberts: 'There can be no cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria'

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   

There can be no cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria, because the two government’s goals are entirely different. Russia wants to defeat ISIS, and the US wants to use ISIS to overthrow Assad. This should be clear to the Russians. Yet they still enter into “agreements” that Washington has no intention of keeping. Washington breaks the agreements and blames Russia, thus creating more opportunities to paint Russia as untrustworthy. Without Russia’s cooperation in setting themselves up for blame, Russia’s portrait would not be so black.
Source


Can anyone make an argument that Paul Craig Roberts is wrong in his assertion that "there can be no cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria"?

I believe if you read between the lines of the contents in the threads linked below, the common theme appears to be that cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria seems impossible.

Syrian envoy to the UN: 'imposed terrorist war on the Syrians...is backed by western countries'

Syria war: Russia rejects US calls to halt bombing eastern Aleppo

‘Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags’: US to Moscow (over Syria)

Syria conflict: US and UK rhetoric 'unacceptable' - Russia

It looks to me like both sides have drawn red lines in the sand, and both sides won't let the other cross those lines.

I posted the video below already, but I think it bears repeating. The video shows an open discussion in the U.S. Congress about the possibility of WW3. I can't recall that happening in my lifetime.

One of the most astounding things about the video to me is General Joseph Dunford (The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) saying that the decision to go to war with Russia is "a pretty fundamental decision that [he] is not going to make." Isn't that an interesting choice of words? Who would be making that decision? If it were the decision of Obama the supposed "commander in chief", wouldn't Dunford have said that outright?


www.youtube.com...
edit on 30-9-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

There isn't going to be war with Russia and the US. The chest-puffing is strong with both countries.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

A 30 Sept. video which states what the fighters can do in Aleppo ... Hell of allot nicer than I would have been. youtu.be...


The USA and allies are now supplying MANPADS which will provide the rebel insurgents a means of shooting down aircraft youtu.be...


Peace is impossible with the current goals of the sponsored rebels youtu.be...



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Profusion

There isn't going to be war with Russia and the US. The chest-puffing is strong with both countries.


Hillary Clinton is looking more and more likely to be the next POTUS everyday. If Clinton is the next POTUS, there's an expert on the situation named General Joseph Dunford who doesn't seem to agree with you.


Instituting Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s no-fly zone in Syria would require going to war [with Russia], according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
LINK

edit on 30-9-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Oh I can agree shenanigans is going on and nothing is what it seems but I refuse to give Paul Craig Roberts of Alex Jone's Infowars any credit or acknowledgement.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
A President Trump would probably be an ally with Putin's Russia.

Not even China could stand against that alliance.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

The quote in the original post contains a syllogism:

Russia wants to defeat ISIS.
The US wants to use ISIS to overthrow Assad.
Therefore, there can be no cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria.

The source is irrelevant. If the propositions are true, then the conclusion must be true.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Change "US" to the Obama administration and the story becomes more accurate.

Worst foreign and domestic policies in history.

If we end up with a President Trump the Syrian situation will become a different story.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Profusion

There isn't going to be war with Russia and the US. The chest-puffing is strong with both countries.


You are like blind?

Russians are already dead by Us bombs.. USA directly bombed Assad's troops (Russians on the scene) and it looks like Syria interecepted radio transmission telling ISIS to wait and then US bombed the Syrians and then the ISIS fightres go in.. Seriously that was a mistake? RIIIGHT...

And I can't confirm this but it appears Russia then struck the people who sent the radio communications.. At least according to sources I can't really rely on, but of course which sources can I? Anyway it was right after this supposed missiles attack on western intelligence guiding ISIS, that US said "No More Talks With Russia!"

Paying attention yet?

And then the mofos are discussing a no fly zone..

Did you watch the Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff talk about the no fly zone? ? ? ?

Dude looked like he wanted to die , and said "this would be declaring war on Syria and Russia, I won't make that decision"


I was in the Army. I was told we were after Syria.. MAybe it's just more real to me, but gawd I don't understand how blind people are. The propaganda can't be working.. THe gas attacks came from alqueda types smuggled through Turkey with Turkeys blessing.. the UN even came to this conclusion the gas attacks were through turkey and had nothing to do with ASSAD.

eF me man.

Yea lets pretend as well that the USA didn't just say to the Russians "stop blowing up Terrorists or your troops will be sent home in body bags, and even Russian cities could be attacked."

Like wtf? are you guys listening to this???

And by the way in case you guys havn't caught on to why russia is trying to have talks..
They are actually in a moral state where they can explain their actions in Syria. USA wants them to flip out by backstabbing them in every way possible behind the scenes.. Russia must stay playing dumb until this comes to light.. They cannot strike first.

So how do we prevent USA/NATO from supporting ISIS/FSA/every other terrorists?
Because if we can figure that out.
We can stop the madness.


USA has he best air power ever.
fights ISIS... ISIS grows and gets heavy weapons..
Russia comes in ISIS will end in the next 3 years probably as a highly organized focused group.
You do the math.
edit on 30-9-2016 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
A President Trump would probably be an ally with Putin's Russia.

Not even China could stand against that alliance.



Maybe, but it would never be an equal partnership, either Trump or Putin would have to be submissive to the other.

Putin would never back down like that, so I guess Trump would have to be Putin's bitch... if there was ever going to be an alliance like that.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Profusion

Change "US" to the Obama administration and the story becomes more accurate.

Worst foreign and domestic policies in history.

If we end up with a President Trump the Syrian situation will become a different story.


The best thing we can do at this point is help Russia and Assad clean up the mess that we made.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

If the source is irrelevant than its not a source to begin with.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I think the overall goal is for Syria to fragment so badly that it ends up with permanent separate states with ISIS and Al Nusra having a third of the country or more at which point Israel will take up arms against ISIS and boot them off the land and claim it for Israel.

I think the war is a massive land grab for Israel.....sounds far fetched but Israel a country that is maliciously brutal against it's enemies has it's own army treating wounded ISIS soldiers.....something ain't right there.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I listened to the entire 2+ hours of press release from the US.

The US is not bombing Russians, and the Russians are not bombing US terrorists. This was simply an implication (and yes i will admit a provocation) to the Russians to come to the table in dealing with the US in Syria.

BOTH have interests there, BOTH respect no bombing areas. NEITHER have an interest to start a direct conflict. BOTH sides have not met terms implied for a US/Russian coalition.

It's a cluster-fudge yes, WW3 it is not. Not even close.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Profusion

There isn't going to be war with Russia and the US. The chest-puffing is strong with both countries.


Don't get over confident with that thought to the point of blind passiveness of whats really going on.

It's looking like it's getting close to a hot stalemate that could smolder for a while then unexpectedly ignite into a big explosion of war that will move so quick it would be impossible to contain from either side.

Once the line is crossed there will be no going back, escalation to full scale war on a global scale is a very real possibility.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

It didn't happen over Crimea, it won't happen over Syria.

M.A.D. It's a term for a reason.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Alien Abduct

It didn't happen over Crimea, it won't happen over Syria.

M.A.D. It's a term for a reason.


M.A.D. doesn't ensure we won't go to war with Russia, it at best gives SOME assurance that if we did that nukes won't fly (at least not right away).

If you believe it can't happen and that it isn't a real possibility then you are very naive. Go back to sleep to the sound of the war drums that mesmerize you into your dazed, lobotomized view of reality.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I assume you base that off of history. History shows we are overdue. History shows our two spoiled cultures have allowed our say to be completely taken from this equation. You might be right, but you would be more by luck than substance.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Vector99

I assume you base that off of history. History shows we are overdue. History shows our two spoiled cultures have allowed our say to be completely taken from this equation. You might be right, but you would be more by luck than substance.

No, 2 world wars in such a short span based upon modern recorded civilization shows the opposite. Never in those histories was such a weapon involved that involved the literal extinction of both sides.

Putin would back down first in a MAD situation I guarantee it.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Isn't the US backing ISIS as a step in the process of controlling Russias oil markets? I'm sorry its very convoluted and I'm not very bright.
I just think more people should be alarmed that US TROOPS/ RUSSIANS ENGAGED IN SYRIA, that's a huge headline.
edit on 1-10-2016 by Mousygretchen because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join