News Stories

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

It's scary to think that it would have allowed for more (mostly Golani Druze) people to be massacred?

Oh right. Good point actually.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

And so....will nothing happen?

Russia, China reject UN move to rebuke Syrian president

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...rian-president


Of course that begs the question...is there another side to the story that make it make sense why Russia and China would veto action while the 13 other members voted for it?

They have been killing their own ordinary civilians with their soldiers/police in the last century, so they think it is perfectly okay for Assad to do the same.

Now China and Russia are part of the BRIC and colliqually termed "emerging economies to take over the American Century", they must have thought that suppression of dissent rather than conversation brought them to what they are today.

A rich bastard thinks he is successful because he is rich, but that doesn't change the fact that he is still a bastard.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

What I heard was that the police was around (which is normal at a soccer game), but didn't act to suppress the riot (which is less so). No idea if that's true, no idea if it's part of some kind of conspiracy.

I just remembered something interesting an instructor taught us in the army. As an army psychologist, he told us that in the face of pressure from an overwhelming crowd outnumbering them, a soldier/policeman definitely feels threatened and fears for his life. This put this in the "hair-trigger" mode where they would shoot at anyone they see threatening. At the sight of anyone within the rioting crowd who indirectly makes taunts, or starts waving around a weapon-like object, he sees it as a threat.

And once he fires, nobody will know who fired the first shot, as in any war scenario where the defenders fight off their enemy. All the other troopers will do the same as they are finally, but subconsciously, relieved that "the enemy has come". And usually, the scene becomes more chaotic, making the soldiers/policemen more threatened, resulting in a mass massacre as the soldiers/police start to hold-the-line; literally.

When the smoke clears, the only ones who feel relieved are the dead.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by konart

Because Russia and China are not interested in it. Destabilization there can easily result in destabilization in the whole region. Nobody gives a shit about syrians and Assad in particular

But is that really the case. If they don't care, they wouldn't veto, but just decline to vote (abstain) like they did for Libya. I am unsure if the region is already unstable as it is with ot without intervention.

But then that brings up questions about non-interference and the like. Also motives. Syria and Assad are allied with Iran. Iran is the enemy on some levels with the Arab League. They want Assad out. But they have not in the past been totally against him (that I am aware) as Syria is part of the Arab League with Damascus being an important city in the region for a very long time. The West has its own issues. Iran being one. relations with Israel potentially being another. Deaths of many people being another major button pusher if it gets broadcast my the media...otherwise most people never know about it. It pushes buttons because deaths of civilians tends to get the Western public angry and want the government(s) to do something about it.

[ganbaru]

Speaking of Russia ...
Russians stage rival protests over Putin
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...81309720120204

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

But is that really the case. If they don't care, they wouldn't veto, but just decline to vote (abstain) like they did for Libya. I am unsure if the region is already unstable as it is with ot without intervention.

But then that brings up questions about non-interference and the like. Also motives. Syria and Assad are allied with Iran. Iran is the enemy on some levels with the Arab League. They want Assad out. But they have not in the past been totally against him (that I am aware) as Syria is part of the Arab League with Damascus being an important city in the region for a very long time. The West has its own issues. Iran being one. relations with Israel potentially being another. Deaths of many people being another major button pusher if it gets broadcast my the media...otherwise most people never know about it. It pushes buttons because deaths of civilians tends to get the Western public angry and want the government(s) to do something about it.

Interestingly as put in Burmese Days by George Orwell, the Western public at that time seem to be only interested in manipulating and leeching off the assets the British East India Company had claimed with the help of the crown and armed forces; as long as they are fighting amongst themselves and not with the British, they have actually no problem at all.

[konart]

Originally Posted by solomon

Isn't this just due to Russia and China having big time economic investments in Syria and don't want that disrupted.

Chinese are understandable.

However, I don't really remember a large opposition by Russia against Libyian action.

Well, that might be because Gazprom Oil has 33% of Eni's part in Elephant project. Libya was devided long before the "revolution"

[FlavorOfLife]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Of course that begs the question...is there another side to the story that make it make sense why Russia and China would veto action while the 13 other members voted for it?

As i already predicted nearly a year ago, this is what happens when you screw people previously. You don't forget when a guy sells you a broken car as a new car and neither will you be willing to trust the car salesman again. Funny enough, note who is trying to hold themselves up on a pedestal of purity this time.

Originally Posted by FlavorOfLife

This is what happens when you pull a Kyubei and start pulling out your word lawyers. By creating more of these moments that give the other nations in the UN "WTF, that was not what we agreed to" wall bangers, events like these are what makes the UN move at a snails pace.

Expect more vetoing from the other countries and more slow discussions due to this "lesson" learnt.

[solomon]

Those Russian protests are nice, but I am kinda meh at them.....

Until Putin and his cronies actually yet Yablinko and their leader run without any undue pressure, then I will see things change. I mean they can't even garner votes yet their leader is consistently jailed.

Also there are a lot of nationalists there they have a right to be heard but..............meh........not crazy about nationalists of any stripe.

The rich New Jersey Nets owner (forget his name) won't win. If he is smart he will continue a campaign against Putin (after he loses the election) and show Russians you can have stability with pluralistic government and that just cause you have money you are not evil.....(ironic coming from an American yea?)

[SeijiSensei]

On Russian ties to Syria:

http://www.economist.com/node/21546078

[konart]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

On Russian ties to Syria:

http://www.economist.com/node/21546078

Sure, US do not sell weapons and do not bomb other countries at first opportunity

Those double standarts...

[solomon]

While you are right to call out the US government on playing dirty pool like that, I certainly hope you dont think that all citizens condone such acts....

Less so that no one should say anything when Russia does such things.

Wrong is Wrong is Wrong weither D.C. does it or the Duma.

[konart]

Originally Posted by solomon

While you are right to call out the US government on playing dirty pool like that, I certainly hope you dont think that all citizens condone such acts....

Less so that no one should say anything when Russia does such things.

Wrong is Wrong is Wrong weither D.C. does it or the Duma.

True. Do guys in white house or UN really care about citizens' opinion? And does this opinion really mean anything great?

[solomon]

To put it in very simple nutshell terms; The first question would be answered by many as "No".

The second question is a bit tougher to answer. I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

[SaintessHeart]

Royal party and read-a-thon mark big day for Dickens

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by konart

True. Do guys in white house or UN really care about citizens' opinion?

In the US, the answer is, of course they do. Most Presidents have polling agencies at work throughout their administrations to determine public reactions.

However when it comes to foreign affairs, most US citizens grant the President enormous leeway, at least at the outset of a policy. In the case of war or similar military actions, public support has been shown to decline logarithmically with US casualty figures.

How come Vladimir Putin's approval ratings in polls continue to fall, yet few observers think he will lose the upcoming Presidential election?

[Ithekro]

Polls reflect the satifaction level of the population that was polled. However it does not show if they like the guy(s) running against Putin. Much like Obama's ratings are below 50%, but that doesn't mean he's going to lose the election in November. The public has to believe the alternative is better that what they have before they are willing to vote someone out.

That is of course before one takes into account any sorts of shenanigans at the polls on election day.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

How come Vladimir Putin's approval ratings in polls continue to fall, yet few observers think he will lose the upcoming Presidential election?

Not approving the quandidature of potential adversary, giving more money to the region than voted more for him and electoral fraud will probably help a bit .

[konart]

Originally Posted by solomon

To put it in very simple nutshell terms; The first question would be answered by many as "No".

The second question is a bit tougher to answer. I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

Most people do not know anything about politics, strategy or whatever, most people people do not think ahead of the present day, many people act based on their feelings, without trying to analyse and act accordingly etc. What I am trying to say is that many people have very vague understanding of what is really happening and things are done, even if they are given facts - than what's the value of their opinion?

[solomon]

In a democracy you cannot ignore those opinions.

[konart]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

In the US, the answer is, of course they do. Most Presidents have polling agencies at work throughout their administrations to determine public reactions.

However when it comes to foreign affairs, most US citizens grant the President enormous leeway, at least at the outset of a policy. In the case of war or similar military actions, public support has been shown to decline logarithmically with US casualty figures.

How come Vladimir Putin's approval ratings in polls continue to fall, yet few observers think he will lose the upcoming Presidential election?

No one to vote for. VVP is the only real candidate anyway. Prohorov being Kremlin's project can backfire though All other guys their are just for show, really.

Originally Posted by solomon

In a democracy you cannot ignore those opinions.

I find it utterly stupid. -_-