US warships near Syrian waters

[ShadowFox89]

 That doesn't even make sense.

[Dashenka]

Pravda.ru is just a garbage magazine. What if they just pressed the article to get the Russian people who do actually read it against McCain? Don't forget that Putin is very popular in Russia and it takes a bit more than a few statements from a balding bitter man to change that. Pravda.ru knows that so why would they bring out an article like that? :)

[Kythia]

Yeah, Dashenka's right.  Look at some of their reply pieces on McCain's article (this one for example).  Pretty clear they've got McCain in just to laugh at him.

Honestly, I don't think McCain came out of this well at all.  While I'm not sold by Pravda's analysis of his remarks, the fact that he made them in a pro-government forum just kinda makes it look like the US has no idea what Russia is like (which in turn validates some of Russia's criticisms).  It's like he came storming over because he's John motherfucking McCain and through the mighty power of his words, etc etc etc.

I mean.  Pravda?  Seriously?

[mia h]

Putin is very popular in Russia and it takes a bit more than a few statements from a balding bitter man to change that.

By balding bitter man did you mean McCain or Putin?

[Dashenka]

I meant McCain but it could have been Putin as well I guess :)

[Imogen]

Yeah, Dashenka's right.  Look at some of their reply pieces on McCain's article (this one for example).  Pretty clear they've got McCain in just to laugh at him.

Honestly, I don't think McCain came out of this well at all.  While I'm not sold by Pravda's analysis of his remarks, the fact that he made them in a pro-government forum just kinda makes it look like the US has no idea what Russia is like (which in turn validates some of Russia's criticisms).  It's like he came storming over because he's John motherfucking McCain and through the mighty power of his words, etc etc etc.

I mean.  Pravda?  Seriously?

It's also a tad hard to maintain a statement such as 'they control your media!" when his own article filled with criticism and accusations is posted just fine.

If I read the Reuters article it comes across as if McCain's tone was accusing while Putin maintained a tone of welcoming dialogue. Putin's approach caters to an intelligent audience that enjoys being treated as equals. McCain treats his audience as dumbasses who need to be told the truth... I'm not sold on the integrity of either, but I'd give Putin's public relations writer an A+ and McCain's a B-.

[Kythia]

It's also a tad hard to maintain a statement such as 'they control your media!" when his own article filled with criticism and accusations is posted just fine.

If I read the Reuters article it comes across as if McCain's tone was accusing while Putin maintained a tone of welcoming dialogue. Putin's approach caters to an intelligent audience that enjoys being treated as equals. McCain treats his audience as dumbasses who need to be told the truth... I'm not sold on the integrity of either, but I'd give Putin's public relations writer an A+ and McCain's a B-.

Absolutely.  McCain comes across as trying to be the great hero bringing truth, justice and the American way to the world.  "Condescending jerkwad" is the technical term, IIRC.  "Listen to me people of Russia while I...well, I'm not certain what I'm trying to do.  Am I trying to incite a revolt against Putin?  It kinda sounds sometimes like I am."

Interested to hear how his article played to a domestic audience though.  Who are, after all, the only ones he actually needed to impress.

[Dashenka]

I'm pretty sure that many Russians will read nothing into it other than some warmongering and American arogance. If McCain achieved anything, it's done more harm than good to the US cause.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm pretty sure that many Russians will read nothing into it other than some warmongering and American arogance. If McCain achieved anything, it's done more harm than good to the US cause.

No offense but to me it was no more offensive than the attitude given in Putin's OP-ED in the New York Paper.

I find it very interesting that you're PERFECTLY willing to accept anything and everything put out by the Russian government at straight up face value but find it infinitely more easy to spin everything that an American politician says to the worst possible point, while refusing to admit that the Assad regime has committed atrocious acts on it's populace.

I really don't think you're going to admit that Putin isn't an opportunist and working to obfuscate matters in Syria. As a result I doubt I'll be responding (or reading closely) any of your posts.

[Neysha]

I'm not sure how McCain is coming out of this looking poorly. Hes only answerable to his own constituents, not Russia's. Harming Russian relations is a red herring considering the numerous disagreements the US has had with Russia as of late that its immaterial. Putin offered an editorial whose main focus was to troll the US public and its main effect is providing fuel for criticizing the current administration whether rightly or wrongly.McCain simply responded with what the NYT shouldve done concurrently when it posted Putins editorial like it does with other editorials in providing opposing viewpoints.

[Dashenka]

No offense but to me it was no more offensive than the attitude given in Putin's OP-ED in the New York Paper.

I find it very interesting that you're PERFECTLY willing to accept anything and everything put out by the Russian government at straight up face value but find it infinitely more easy to spin everything that an American politician says to the worst possible point, while refusing to admit that the Assad regime has committed atrocious acts on it's populace.

I really don't think you're going to admit that Putin isn't an opportunist and working to obfuscate matters in Syria. As a result I doubt I'll be responding (or reading closely) any of your posts.

I don't know where you got that from. The article about Putin in Time Magazine was probably not worth reading in the US so they changed the cover and even perhaps edited out the entire story. I don't know. The fact that McCain gets a page on Pravda.ru just shows to me that he knows nothing about Russia or Russian media. I haven't even read the article about McCain but being Russian, I know the way Russians think about McCain and other American politicians.

I didn't mean to offend anybody with that.

I also never said that Assad didn't commit crimes against his own people. If you read my earlier posts you'd see that I am actually supporting a military intervention by whoever comes up. What Assad has been doing are just war crimes. However I also realize that it's not the best solution to the whole situation. All of Syria's weapons come from Russia, there is no point in denying that but the contracts were signed long before this civil war began. And may I remind you that the US Army sold hand held RPG's to Afghan freedom fighters way back in the days?

Putin could (and perhaps should) have done a lot more to stop the fighting in Syria but as I've been trying to explain earlier, what Putin's doing now with Syria, the US has been doing for decades with Israel and that doesn't make it right but since it's politics, it makes sense on a political level. Unfortunately people are dying because of petty politics again.

So I have no idea where you based your accusations on really.

[Neysha]

Just stumbled upon a random statistic.

According to the general estimates such as by Iraq Body Count, the number of fatalities in the Iraq War from March 2003 to December of 2011, almost nine years of conflict or 105 monyhs, were about 100-110,000. According to the same sources, roughly half (or one third) might be of combatants, insurgents and soldiers etc and the other half (or two thirds) civilians. As of 2011, three million Iraqis were displaced abroad. (it shrunk from its peak likely)

Syrian Civil War meanwhile, hundred thousand dead plus another hundred thirty thousand missing according to Wikipedia. And two million million refugees displaced abroad, despite the fact Syria's population is smaller then Iraq's. Another three million internally displaced. All of this in the thirty months, two and half years, since the first protests started. Keep in mind the Civil War didn't truly flare up until literally months of Assad and his thugs suppressing murdering protestors and other supposed dissidents. The fact that these protests were so peaceful for so long despite this is a credit to the opposition then.

Either way, the Syrian conflict seems, on the face of it, to be several magnitudes more intense then even the Iraq War according to these admittedly narrow numbers. :(

[Oniya]

Are those numbers including all sides of the combat, or only the Iraqis in the first instance and the Syrians in the second?

Asking because I remember reading that the casualty numbers from the US Civil War rival (if they don't top) the US casualties in any other war through the modern age.  The reason, of course, is that you had US casualties on both sides of the US Civil War, just like you'll have Syrian casualties on both sides of the Syrian Civil War.

Civil wars in general tend to be more intense as well, just because the amount of tension that leads a person to take up arms against a neighbor or even a family member has to be so much greater to begin with.

[Neysha]

Are those numbers including all sides of the combat, or only the Iraqis in the first instance and the Syrians in the second?

Asking because I remember reading that the casualty numbers from the US Civil War rival (if they don't top) the US casualties in any other war through the modern age.  The reason, of course, is that you had US casualties on both sides of the US Civil War, just like you'll have Syrian casualties on both sides of the Syrian Civil War.

It counts all Coalition and Iraqi dead from both sides. Even taking it out, the Coalition "only" suffered 5-7000 dead if your including contractors. (at least off of wiki) So it's likely still mostly Iraqis.

[gaggedLouise]

Just stumbled upon a random statistic.

According to the general estimates such as by Iraq Body Count, the number of fatalities in the Iraq War from March 2003 to December of 2011, almost nine years of conflict or 105 monyhs, were about 100-110,000. According to the same sources, roughly half (or one third) might be of combatants, insurgents and soldiers etc and the other half (or two thirds) civilians. As of 2011, three million Iraqis were displaced abroad. (it shrunk from its peak likely)

Stats for the Iraq war are a notorious bone of contention, it depends a lot on whose figures you're citing, and it won't be easy for anyone to get to any kind of reliable figures.

And of course there are lots of political axes to be ground here. The Lancet famously estimated about 650.000 Iraqis (at least) had died from the outbreak of war up to June 2006. That figure was worked out from their own field research inside Iraq, it includes epidemics, fringe fighting and starvation - and those deaths were often caused by the war and breakdown of public order, destroyed or disfunded hospitals, lack of medical personnel because doctors and nurses had been killed or had emigrated, etc - but also lots of local faction fighting, terrorism and the work of local crime gangs and militias.

Syrian Civil War meanwhile, hundred thousand dead plus another hundred thirty thousand missing according to Wikipedia. And two million million refugees displaced abroad, despite the fact Syria's population is smaller then Iraq's. Another three million internally displaced. All of this in the thirty months, two and half years, since the first protests started. Keep in mind the Civil War didn't truly flare up until literally months of Assad and his thugs suppressing murdering protestors and other supposed dissidents. The fact that these protests were so peaceful for so long despite this is a credit to the opposition then.

Either way, the Syrian conflict seems, on the face of it, to be several magnitudes more intense then even the Iraq War according to these admittedly narrow numbers. :(

The Syrian armed forces, during this war, are likely better equipped than Saddam's main army and air force was in March 2003, and it's likely to be more loyal to him, have better morale. I don't think there are large numbers within the Syrian army that think Assad would be a spent guy as soon as some western nation/s fire off some missiles and air raids. I don't even think they'd view him that way if the assumption were that there would be boots on the ground. Assad's power is more solid than Saddam's was ten years ago, and he's also a bigger threat to the security of the whole region.

Both in the Gulf War and in the Iraq war, the west began by massive air bombing, Saddam's air force was destroyed within weeks of the beginning of Desert Storm, and his planes were inferior to the coalition's airplane models from the start (some people have referred to that phase as a turkey shoot). There hasn't been anything of the kind in Syria; Assad still has full control of his airspace.

[Dashenka]

I know how we can solve Syria! And every other dispute in the world!

Put one of these in the centre of Damascus and everybody will be awed by it's epicness and will stop fighting.

I cannot believe nobody else thought of that.... although it might be cheaper to go to war.

[Imogen]

I know how we can solve Syria! And every other dispute in the world!

Put one of these in the centre of Damascus and everybody will be awed by it's epicness and will stop fighting.

I cannot believe nobody else thought of that.... although it might be cheaper to go to war.

Until someone scratches the paint...-wince- I don't wanna be around when that happens!

[Dashenka]

I'd personally execute that person.