Putin's letter to the American people

Scroll to see replies

It's not hypocritical though, the US is not a person, it's a collection of people (both past and present). You can't blame Obama for things previous presidents did considering he had no authority to stop them.

It's not meaningless, there are rules of war, chemical weapons are indiscriminate. If we don't enforce these rules of war then what's to stop other dictators from using them? Nothing. War is always going to be ugly but if we can make it less uglier then surely that's a worthy goal?

I agree with you on rushing into war and so does Obama, that's why no one is rushing into anything.

And, you know, I -- you know, sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region. - Obama

Obama doesn't speak for himself, the Democrats or some brave new USA, he speaks for America without having drawn permanent lines between his administration from the rest. He often talks about America's role, illustrated with examples from the past in protecting freedom around the world, or more recently, of how these attempts have screwed up.

Sure chemical weapons are indiscriminate and vile, but so is firing random shells against an unarmed civilian population, a more meaningful resolution would be to have taken tougher measures from the outset when there was indiscriminate slaughter of people, i.e. before almost 100,000 people have died.

Reply 21

User414413

Original post by Pythononian

Those lines are obvious, he's mentioned faults of previous administrations many times. It's still not fair to call it hypocritical when he hasn't done anything hypocritical. A son shouldn't carry his fathers sins.

There's no evidence that Assad ordered firing random shells against unarmed civilians. If that happened, it probably happened based on foot soldiers own choices. What tougher measures could he take? There were multiple attempts but Russia/China stopped them. The use of chemical weapons gives US some leeway in acting accordance to international law.

Reply 22

Pythononian

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

It's hypocritical because Obama cites America's values of freedom and human rights etc. as something long held dear, when in fact the country has gone against this in its various wars. Again, this isn't to say that the US's recent record is comparable with that of Assad.

There are many reports of shelling in Homs, Damascus, even before the rebels have become militant. As for tougher measures: if strategic strikes are possible now, then they were possible two years back, the US went to war Iraq well enough in the face of Russian and Chinese opposition.

But I'm not saying that would have helped: simply to show that it's stupid of the whole situation (and the fact that chemical weapons have a special status) to draw the line at something as arbitrary.

I have no idea what would have, or even worse, what would now reduce the number of casualties, though decent humanitarian aid and incentives to help shelter refugees may well be a good start.

Reply 23

User414413

Original post by Pythononian

That's cherry picking not hypocrisy. You called current US administrations condemnation of Syria's use of chemical weapons hypocritical because previous administrations used them. That's by definition not hypocritical. I can't be bothered debating semantics longer. And the major difference was agent orange wasn't used for the purpose of harming civilians, it was used to destroy plants.

There have been reports of everything that doesn't mean they were reliable. there were reports of use of chemical weapons in 2012 but the only one that is reliable is 21st of August 2013.

What exactly would they be striking, with what objective in mind? Iraq wasn't a major ally of Russia or China, Syria is a major ally of Russia.

It's, by definition, not arbitrary. It's clear-cut, there are rules of warfare and part of this is the non-use of chemical weapons. The reason for this is they're indiscriminate. It's not stupid, there's a clear-objective (i.e. ensuring the non-use of chemical weapons).

Reply 24

geetar

I agree with his point that the Syrian conflict isn't the kind of manichean good vs evil battle the pro-intervenion lobby (Obama, Kerry, Hague, etc.) have been presenting it as in order to drum up support. The idea that the rebels are lovely individuals fighting for democracy and tolerance and justice, which some people on this website (not naming any names...) seem to hold, is laughable in the extreme. It's a grubby civil war between various factions, all of whom have committed atrocities, and all of whom have very little to recommend them. He is entirely correct to point out the links to Islamist paramilitary groups, and I think he is right to predict that intervention would make the wider region more unstable. He is wrong, though (I think),to say that the rebels committed the chemical attack.

Ultimately, though, it's pretty ridiculous that a man like Putin, who has committed and encouraged human rights violations himself, can attempt to take the moral high ground. I agree with most of the stuff in the letter, but not his reasons for saying them - Putin and everyone else (yes, including Saint Barack Obama) has their own selfish reasons for taking their stance with Syria, very little of it has anything to do with humanitarianism.

Reply 25

Marco1

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Actually Putin doesn't seem to realise that his own country is no different. It is profoundly hypocritical for him to claim that the US has been trying to play God in this and that he is acting to defend the UN and international law - the international legal situation is quite clear, Syria has used chemical weapons and that should be stopped. The international community should also have tried to stop the war there and it was RUSSIA that stopped the UN from stopping it, repeatedly.

The Russian government have behaved throughout like the dodgy gangsters and shysters that they are. Their ONLY interest in all this appears to be continuing with weapons sales to a wicked regime.

I don't think there is clear enough evidence to decide whether it was the Assad regime who used chemical weapons as there is evidence to suggest it was the rebels who used them to point the blame at Assad and thus get more military support for their jihadist cause.
It seems to me that the reason the US is supplying weapons to the rebels is to overthrow a Syria govt that would not cooperate with them in achieving their aims in the region. By destabilising the country they must see it as less of a threat. Just like they have destabilised, Iraq and Libya.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 26

Rovey

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Looked into libya lately? How's that going?

I would hate living in a city overran by islamists, guided by the Sharia.

EDIT: don't bother, here's what you're own gov has to say:

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/libya

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 27

Johnstun

Original post by Marco1

It seems to me that the reason the US is supplying weapons to the rebels is to overthrow a Syria govt that would not cooperate with them in achieving their aims in the region. By destabilising the country they must see it as less of a threat. Just like they have destabilised, Iraq and Libya.

I seriously doubt that the American aim is to destabilize Syria. The Obama administration is well aware that the Middle East can be a volatile and dangerous place, and prefers to avoid any conflicts that would upset the region or even worse potentially threaten Israel- that's why they were willing to support regimes like Mubarak for such a long time, as they were seen to provide stability. A rebel victory would certainly be preferable from the American point of view, but it wouldn't be worth prolonging the war for months or even years.

By the way the US largely stayed out of Llbya and it was the French and other European countries which took the lead.