Syria

Pat494 said:
Surely better than 2 or more states jockeying for power and starting WW3 ?
If the US and Russian boats exchange fire in the Eastern Med- what then ? A lot more serious than a minor state having a civil war ? Let the do-gooders flock there if they insist, for all the good they will actually accomplish will be negligeable.
Click to expand...


In my view this is US waging proxy war on Russia and will continue to do so. From the period of USSR to now, Russia has been losing influence pretty much constantly. After Syria Iran will be next.

Putin has tried to stop the rut, but in fact walked right into the so called Arab spring or the accidental movement on democratization process and finds it self at the feet and mercy of the Pussy Cats.

So losing the Berlin, Caucasus and now influence in the ME and the Aegan sea with new found resources it must be feeling pretty pissed off and its new miniaturised international role.

So Syria I think is very important for Russia!

As to what Russia can do is very limited. They are well and truly outplayed and outmaneuvered in international politics imo.
 
If the US had even 1 active braincell between them they would encourage Russia to invade Syria. Then they would take a beating from the chaotic Arabs/Muslims not the West for a change.
 
Purple Brain said:
I think it takes more than just twitter and facebook to foment a region-wide uprising.
Click to expand...

I think it started off with a street seller dousing himself in petrol and setting light - Initially. Snow-balled into a full revolution.

As for the other countries in the domino like effect is debatable whether encouraged supported or not. Don't have a view but I do support democracy and would like to encourage it.

I'm not against the movements. Simply commenting on the wider implications and in some cases contradictory stance of the West. ie Egypt opens live fire on mass protest with 00s injured with deaths. Compare to that Egyptian who was shot twice for standing in front of a tank to that of students protests in Tianomen Sq. Difficult to argue for one or the other.
 
Last edited:
Atilla said:
In my view this is US waging proxy war on Russia and will continue to do so. From the period of USSR to now, Russia has been losing influence pretty much constantly. After Syria Iran will be next.

Putin has tried to stop the rut, but in fact walked right into the so called Arab spring or the accidental movement on democratization process and finds it self at the feet and mercy of the Pussy Cats.

So losing the Berlin, Caucasus and now influence in the ME and the Aegan sea with new found resources it must be feeling pretty pissed off and its new miniaturised international role.

So Syria I think is very important for Russia!

As to what Russia can do is very limited. They are well and truly outplayed and outmaneuvered in international politics imo.
Click to expand...

An interesting point. Maybe we are taking too much notice of Russia. Their problem is that they have an underhand method of exporting nasty products to terrorist groups and that they have some unsavoury characters left over from the communist era. Putin is one of those, of course. They., themselves, are not averse to popping a plutonium pill into a someone's teapot. The UK has some experience of those tactics.

That is why I do not believe that going into Syria will serve as a warning to any other nation. The genie is out of the bottle as far as chemical warfare is concerned, as it was in Hiroshima with the nuclear bomb and Vietnam with napalm.

The US started that, BTW, and they can't expect others to be any different.
 
Atilla said:
I think it started off with a street seller dousing himself in petrol and setting light - Initially. Snow-balled into a full revolution.

As for the other countries in the domino like effect is debatable whether encouraged supported or not. Don't have a view but I do support democracy and would like to encourage it.

I'm not against the movements. Simply commenting on the wider implications and in some cases contradictory stance of the West. ie Egypt opens live fire on mass protest with 00s injured with deaths. Compare to that Egypt who was shot twice for standing in front of a tank to that of students protests in Tianomen Sq. Difficult to argue for one or the other.
Click to expand...

Personally I think democracy is a nice idea. Doesn't work unfortunately as the US example shows. Can't trust the public to vote for the better candidate when he is the only one offering cuts etc.
Hypocritical of the West not to support Morsi when he was fairly elected as far as we know.
 
Pat494 said:
Personally I think democracy is a nice idea. Doesn't work unfortunately as the US example shows. Can't trust the public to vote for the better candidate when he is the only one offering cuts etc.
Hypocritical of the West not to support Morsi when he was fairly elected as far as we know.
Click to expand...

It has to be made to work. There is nothing else.
 
Purple Brain said:
Adhocracy.
Click to expand...

Just had to know that new one. Here is Wiki's definition.

Characteristics of an adhocracy[edit source]
highly organic[disambiguation needed] structure[3]
little formalization of behavior[1][3]
job specialization not necessarily based on formal training
a tendency to group the specialists in functional units for housekeeping purposes but to deploy them in small, market-based project teams to do their work[3]
a reliance on liaison devices to encourage mutual adjustment within and between these teams[3][1]
low or no standardization of procedures[1]
roles not clearly defined[1]
selective decentralization[1]
work organization rests on specialized teams[1]
power-shifts to specialized teams
horizontal job specialization[1]
high cost of communication[1] (dramatically reduced in the networked age)
culture based on non-bureaucratic work[1]

All members of an organization have the authority within their areas of specialization, and in coordination with other members, to make decisions and to take actions affecting the future of the organization. There is an absence of hierarchy.

According to Robert H. Waterman, Jr., "Teams should be big enough to represent all parts of the bureaucracy that will be affected by their work, yet small enough to get the job done efficiently."[2]




Sounds interesting to me
 
Pat494 said:
Just had to know that new one. Here is Wiki's definition.

Characteristics of an adhocracy[edit source]
highly organic[disambiguation needed] structure[3]
little formalization of behavior[1][3]
job specialization not necessarily based on formal training
a tendency to group the specialists in functional units for housekeeping purposes but to deploy them in small, market-based project teams to do their work[3]
a reliance on liaison devices to encourage mutual adjustment within and between these teams[3][1]
low or no standardization of procedures[1]
roles not clearly defined[1]
selective decentralization[1]
work organization rests on specialized teams[1]
power-shifts to specialized teams
horizontal job specialization[1]
high cost of communication[1] (dramatically reduced in the networked age)
culture based on non-bureaucratic work[1]

All members of an organization have the authority within their areas of specialization, and in coordination with other members, to make decisions and to take actions affecting the future of the organization. There is an absence of hierarchy.

According to Robert H. Waterman, Jr., "Teams should be big enough to represent all parts of the bureaucracy that will be affected by their work, yet small enough to get the job done efficiently."[2]




Sounds interesting to me
Click to expand...
I prefer "An organizational system designed to be flexible and responsive to the needs of the moment rather than excessively bureaucratic.".

After all, our (UK) government goes on holiday during the summer and everything still cranks along quite nicely without them. The civil service and public sector do their jobs. Most of politics is politicking and politicians fashioning their careers - not government.

If you had a government structured around running the country as a business or operational unit rather than along whatever currently suited party lines, nothing would need doing much of the time. Only when something out of the ordinary such as Syria comes along would those with an understanding and expertise in that specific field come together and become the primary task force for the country. A small team that can quickly take decisions and enact them without need for sanction, vote or recourse. With job done, they fall back into their day jobs.

“When nothing is done, nothing is left undone.” Lao Tzu.
 
Last edited:
As the delegates left the building, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”

With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Not a democracy, not a democratic republic. But “a republic, if you can keep it.”


If they were alive today the Founding fathers of the USA would be horrified to see the country they founded spreading the disease of "democracy", the very form of Government they wanted to protect the country from by writing a Constitution.
 
pboyles said:
Does anybody have any crackpot left wing conspiracy theories on why the west is supporting the Syrian uprising? Do we need more camels or something? Is Latakia going to be the new Benidorm?

Where's Atilla when you need him?
Click to expand...

Obama has great Logic
 

Attachments

  • Syria-killing-logic.jpg
    Syria-killing-logic.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 156
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Soc Gen - Inconsistancies?
Replies
7
Views
2K
arabianights
arabianights
O
Does anybody use
Replies
8
Views
3K
alexander
A
B
DOLLAR & Saadaam Hussein EXECUTION
Replies
11
Views
4K
Atilla
Atilla
Mr. Charts
Corbyn - not a nice man
2 3
Replies
44
Views
8K
sminicooper
sminicooper
S
3rd Party
Replies
8
Views
2K
Pat494
Pat494
Top