Originally posted by Xcathdra
It matters a great deal as to what role we played. Trying to ingore it or water it down so you can lump everything together does not work.
Maybe as far as you are concerned it matters. To me it seems trivial, because NATO appears to be alive and well. As far as Russian foreign policy is
concerned, the lines between US and NATO and its constituents appear to be becoming more blurred in certain actions. It is much the same with the US
Anti-Ballistic Missiles being placed in Eastern Europe, and with the whole fiasco in Serbia and Kosovo. NATO members, be they acting individually or
as a group, appear to have a common agenda.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
You are lost I see and hell bent on comparing apples to zebras.. Please explain to everyone what grounds Russia has against the government of the UK
for a private business that operates out of the UK, which is required to comply with EU laws, for yanking insurance from a private Russian
company.
I'll counter that with "please explain what grounds NATO had to bomb Libya"? Anyone can make up "grounds" for anything they want, with an
intelligently worded justification. Russia may have no legal grounds, but it has political grounds - because those are what you make them. If you
think someone pissed in your cheerios, you can find excuses to piss in theirs. If I am comparing apples to zebras, it is only because both a moot
point here.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
While your at it please explaimn how that action has anything at all to do with Libya, I mean other than your attempt to confuse and obfuscate those
who arent paying attention?
The actions of US/NATO against Syria are an extention of their strategy against Libya. You may not see this, but I do.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Yet here you and others are, stating the company had no right to take that action, while at the same time using the term british instead of private
british company.
Alright - the British company is acting at the behest of the decisions made by the British government, which includes passing sanctions. If it were
not for those decisions, chances are the insurance would not have been revoked simply for business reasons (i.e. profit).
Originally posted by Xcathdra
again pay attention and quit trying to obfuscate. A private British company decided to end their business arrangement with a private Russian company.
The governments of each country have nothing to do with the decision.
The British government had nothing to do with passing sanctions, and pointing out to the said company that the given ship is carrying arms, after the
policy has already been issued? If it was solely left to the companies with no regulators or political influences getting in the way - the only
factor would be profits.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Since the Assad regime controls the media I dont have an answer for you. I know there are enough Syrians who are tired of his rule that they are
present in suffificent numbers to cause him serious issues.
There are enough people in Saudi Arabia who are tires of the Sheikh's rule. Will you or the US support them if they take the weapons that Russia or
China buys for them, and try to topple the regime, with everyone realizing that US's main source of its life-blood petrol is gone? Did the West
threaten Bahrain when it shop up the unarmed protesters?
To say that Assad is slaugheting the people of Syria is extremely biased. The armed factions in Syria are slaughetring each other and civilians.
Assad is fighting to maintain his power, just as most other similar regimes would do in a given situation.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
You are ignoring the fact Russia is ignoring the actions of the Assad regime towards the Syrian people based solely on use and access to the port and
the med.
I am not ignoring that, I am just saying that access to the port is not the sole purpose. Just as well US is ignoring the actions of the rebels that
result in the death of civilians and massive unrest, based on its intentions to bring about a more US-friendly regime in Syria.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
That wont sit well with the Syrian people, and based on information coming out of Syria, its a factor.
Again, neither will the actions and threats of the US. It depends on which Syrian people you are talking about.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
The days of a single person rule are coming to an end as well, especially in traditioonal dictatorial countries in the ME and Asia..
Boy, we have heard that one before. That is what many people think the case would be every time there is a revolution throughout history (Russia,
China, Iran, Georgia, Yemen, Laos, Pakistan, etc.).
