Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 264 posts

Re: Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia

#151

Post by trentmb »

pekk wrote: post #147
beloch wrote: post #92

Putin is certainly playing to his audience and is guilty of more than a little hypocrisy in this piece, but I tend to agree with his central argument. If the world has any duty to those inside Syria, it is to safeguard the lives of the innocent. How will rocket attacks accomplish this? The second U.S.-Iraq war and the subsequent occupation proved that state-of-the-art precision air and rocket strikes are still a very…

It's amazing that you managed not to mention the chemical weapons issue even one time.

An explosion isn't a chemical reaction?

Re: Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia

#152

Post by jlgreco »

sologoub wrote: post #104

Well, the biggest surprise in the article for me is Putin invoking God. Never figured him for a religious man.

Only he and perhaps a few close family members can know if he actually is, but his claimed religion is Russian Orthodox. I don't really see much reason to doubt it.

Re: Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia

#154

Post by waps »

akiselev wrote: post #87
mcphilip wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be helpful to remember that this is merely a well written op-ed with Putin's name attached to it. It's an international relations gambit to influence the American public to consider Russia's point of view. To get bogged down by the name attached to the editorial is to miss the importance of the content.

The content is nothing new, the author is the only interesting part of this article.

I doubt very much it's defending Russia's point of view. It's defending a point of view that has the outcome as Russia's and that Russia would like people to adopt, but I think we can be 100% certain it is not, in fact, Russia's point of view. Russia does not seem to have any big interests in the neighborhood (though it certainly has them nearby).

The problem here is that the same can be said about Obama. I do not know what his motivations are, I do think it's extremely likely he could care less about chemical weapons. But that is the whole point Obama's making. So what is his point ? Why does Obama want Assad out of the way ? America's interests lie the other way, the oilfields controlled by Saudi Arabia and others.

So what are these "nations"/presidents after ?

Re: Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia

#155

Post by waps »

baltcode wrote: post #101
venus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irony, you say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism I agree with you, of course - Putin is by all accounts a monster, and he has no moral standing whatsoever. That doesn't mean he's wrong.

He is wrong in the sense that something has to be done to stop the Assad regime that has lost the confidence of a majority of Syrians from continuing to murder and torture more civilians.

The same is trivially true for a dozen nations. Should we attack them all ?

Hell, one might even say it's true for America itself.

Re: Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia

#156

Post by zmmmmm »

alexhomer1 wrote: post #35

"There is every reason to believe [sarin gas] was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists." Obama asserted something quite different in last night's address. He stated that the Syrian army distributed gas masks to their soldiers before the attacks, that documents show Syrian generals reviewing the re…

> Obama asserted something quite different in last night's address.

The image of Colin Powell being sent with his slides full of incontrovertible "evidence", like a lamb to the slaughter to the UN to justify the Iraq invasion has left me scarred for life such that I can never trust again such so called "evidence" unless it comes from a multiplicity of neutral sources, most especially somewhere other than the US government.

I don't care what the President may have said. He was fed it by the same military-industrial establishment that stands to benefit to the tune of billions (or even hundreds of billions) of dollars every time a major war breaks out. Probably the same high level advisors that came up with the idea Iraq was a "slam dunk", and fed into the willing ears of the bush administration.

Re: Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia

#157

Post by darkarmani »

rooshdi wrote: post #113
haberman wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be, but Putin is making a case against intervention while omitting his huge conflict of interest. He is making self-serving arguments under the guise of caring about lofty ideals that his own actions demonstrate he has no regard for.

The same can be said about the United States. Every nation has an agenda in the region.

You are completely missing the point. Putin is stating that the reason no one should intervene in Syria, because we need to follow the law (the security council). When the truth is he could easily not veto and intervention would be lawful. That's why it is disingenuous. Vote for it and your dilemma is solved!

Re: Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia

#158

Post by waps »

waps wrote: post #155
baltcode wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is wrong in the sense that something has to be done to stop the Assad regime that has lost the confidence of a majority of Syrians from continuing to murder and torture more civilians.

The same is trivially true for a dozen nations. Should we attack them all ? Hell, one might even say it's true for America itself.

Maybe crude to answer my own question but this seems a pretty good answer :

http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_do...

Re: Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia

#159

Post by mrb »

akiselev wrote: post #66

"The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not." The irony of Putin saying this cannot be understated. This entire editorial is dripping with it. For those of you buying into his rhetoric, remember that Putin is the head of a "virtual mafia state" [1] and a government of thugs who are too busy stealing the wealth generated by Russia's natural resources to pursue the eternal dream of Russia…

"For those of you buying into his rhetoric, remember that Putin is the head of a 'virtual mafia state'"

If a criminal says that helping an old lady cross the street is the right thing to do, would you discard his statement because he is a criminal? No! For the same reason, Putin may be doing evil things in his country, but I still side with him: bombing Syria is a silly idea.

Re: Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia

#160

Post by gruseom »

darkarmani wrote: post #157
rooshdi wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same can be said about the United States. Every nation has an agenda in the region.

You are completely missing the point. Putin is stating that the reason no one should intervene in Syria, because we need to follow the law (the security council). When the truth is he could easily not veto and intervention would be lawful. That's why it is disingenuous. Vote for it and your dilemma is solved!

This is a bad argument. There are many illegal things a person can make legal by consenting to them. Is it hypocritical to both refuse consent and cite the law?

(It's also inapplicable, since even if Russia consented, China wouldn't.)

Post reply on HN