6 ms·
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
by haberman 13y ago
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.
- rooshdi 13y agoThe same can be said about the United States. Every nation has an agenda in the region.
- chrischen 13y agoYou say that as if everyone's equal...
- foxhedgehog 13y agoI guess that I missed the Obama administration's op-ed opining about life in Russia.
- Phlarp 13y agoPresidents get much larger platforms from which to sell their opinions on foreign policy to Americans.
- foxhedgehog 13y agoYes and Russian presidents get much larger platforms from which to sell their opinions on foreign policy to Russians. What's your point?
- darkarmani 13y agoYou 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!
- gruseom 13y agoThis 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.)
- darkarmani 13y ago> Is it hypocritical to both refuse consent and cite the law? No, but it is circular reasoning to base your argument for refusing consent by saying it is illegal. It's much less compelling if he comes right out and says: "Don't do it, because I don't want you too." So he tries to make the logic convoluted.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- iSnow 13y agoYou are wrong, he states "you are not allowed do this if we don't consent, and we don't consent" which is according to international law.
- darkarmani 13y agoHe actually never says that. >> "The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope..." >> From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. Right there they mention that they are for peaceful dialog because they are trying to protect international law. If they were really concerned with international law, why would they veto? Obviously, because they don't want it to happen, not this nonsense about them being all of a sudden concerned about international law.
- carlob 13y agoSuppose someone is raping you: - Stop this! You're hurting me. Stop it! You'll go to jail. - I wouldn't go to jail if you just consented to sex.
- Sagat 13y agoReplace "Putin" with "Obama" is this sentence and there you have it, a perfect description of the United States. Waxing about freedom and human rights while manipulating and coercing the whole world according to their manifest destiny.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoIf Putin is publicly opposing our war effort, it goes without saying that he will veto a UN resolution to that effect.