Obama & Putin at UN - full transcript of both speeches

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Woogs, Sep 28, 2015.

  1. Sly Lampost

    Sly Lampost New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,381
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The US put the Shah in power (HERE) and then when he no longer suited their agenda, they conspired to have him removed from power (HERE).
     
  2. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The first part is correct and I agree with it full ... but the second part I don't.

    Before we get now in next dispute and you spam me down with links as proof like this here: http://disquietreservations.blogspot.de/2011/11/british-and-us-governments-installed.html ... I read this too! But this is in many parts questionable and for me it sounds like Egypt issue later when Mubarak was removed ... but with difference that USA failed here totally and were not able to correct the mistake as done in Egypt.
     
  3. Sly Lampost

    Sly Lampost New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,381
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting mind-set you have, Mandelus. You consider presenting evidence to you as spamming you down. I'll have to remember that.

    One good source on the western backed overthrow of the Shah is a book written years ago by historian, William Engdahl, entitled "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order". I highly recommend it.

    This is what Engdahl wrote (in part):

    Source

    Engdahl is really a very knowledgeable academic with excellent access, and has first class insight into Bilderberg meetings, which he referenced above.
     
  4. Yazverg

    Yazverg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I would back Putin's initiative. But I really think that a possible coalition against ISIS will work. (although I do think it is possible). There are too many interests and different ambitions in the region. Obama's view doesn't have any sense. But one. War and strengthening of ISIS is extremely profitable for some military companies in the US. It could do good for US economy at a first glance.
     
  5. BestViewedWithCable

    BestViewedWithCable Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    48,288
    Likes Received:
    6,966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, Putin said he didnt want Syria to become like Libya or Iraq, with failed governments and failed government institutions.

    Chaos helps no one.
     
  6. Yazverg

    Yazverg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And Libya. And Syria. I guess everyone - ISIS. Except for the race of exceptionally democratic people of course. :)
     
  7. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obama is going to be forced to acquiesce to Russian insistence on the continuation of Assad despite Obama's prior demand that Assad abdicate. That's pretty humiliating for Obama.
     
  8. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Russia is also interested in replacing American influence in Iraq. The Russians, Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis have just agreed to share intelligence.
     
  9. Sly Lampost

    Sly Lampost New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,381
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep, but then where did Obama get his authority to regime change Assad? Who elected him the president of the entire world?
     
  10. fluer

    fluer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the answer is very simple:) the only one authority in this world is strength:) the only one superpower may do whatever it wants;)
     
  11. Yazverg

    Yazverg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And if you read both transcripts you will definetely find only one telling about the might of the army and figures of money which will be invested into this main instrument of power. The other transcript concentrates mainly on democracy, international law and other dull things.
     
  12. fluer

    fluer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think there are two types of people - idealists and realists;) and each type uses the transcript which fulfill to its visions. However, idealists are much dangerous than realists:))
     
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The speeches of the two leaders present 2 different pictures.

    Obama presents the picture where terrorists are the enemy and the US is fighting this enemy. He presents a picture where "International Law" should be respected and Assad as the one who is responsible for the civil war.

    Putin Paints a picture of the US as a violator of international law, that has been aiding rather than fighting terrorists and who is to blame for the current crisis in Syria. He also talks about the US/NATO as trying to undermine the UN.

    Putin talks about export of "so called" Democratic Revolutions (supporting revolutions in sovereign Nations in the name of Democracy)


    So which picture is correct ?

    Is it true as Putin claims that the US is in violation of International Law by arming extremists in Syria in hopes of using these these extremists to topple Assad ? Is it true that the US/Nato attempts at "nation building" through revolution/regime change in sovereign nations has resulted in power vacuums that have been filled by extremists ?

    Someone is telling lies and is guilty of gross and disingenuous mischaracterization.

    Is it Putin or Obama ?
     
  14. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    37,994
    Likes Received:
    7,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Russia will always be in Syria and the Middle East, whether ISIS is or isn't there. I recall the words of a Russian admiral when the fighting first started in Syria; 'it is a matter of our survival'.
     
  15. Yazverg

    Yazverg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I understand what you mean. But all the people are different. People driven by ideals can kill for them. But they are also able to die for it. The people relying on common sense will never die for someone, but they are sure to kill for survival... All the people have a right to live and do what they were designed for... If not there will never be a doomsday. :)
     
  16. fluer

    fluer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well agree with you:) idealists are driving this world:) but only the God knows in which direction:)))

    - - - Updated - - -

    :)agree
     
  17. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    37,994
    Likes Received:
    7,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    There is democracy in Syria. When people call Assad a dictator, it's because they are believing Washington's propaganda. An election was held in Syria about two years ago and I believe over ninety percent voted for Assad. The election was recognized as legitimate by all the international observers.

    Before the election was held, Stratfor (which has connections with the CIA) said that Assad was bound to win, so Kerry said the US would not recognize the election unless Assad did not run. When he did run, Kerry then made the flimsy excuse that it was not legitimate since a war was going on...Yet at the same time, the election was held in Ukraine, and Kerry did recognize it even though a war was going on and any candidate who represented the South and Eastern part of Ukraine were thrown in trash bins and under threat not to run.

    What freaks me is that Obama stands in front of the UN and spits out his lies, and yet the delegates clap for him. Why? Are they paid? Are they threatened? Don't they care that they are being lied to...or can't they see through it? :confuse:

     
  18. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obama lives in a separate reality in which he is unacquainted with history and the limits of power. In his ignorance he is like a hurricane blowing through the lives of Americans leaving a trail of wreckage in his wake.
     
  19. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,667
    Likes Received:
    26,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's a degree of truth to your comments, but that one superpower is run by a president and since there are constraints on that president, there are constraints on that superpower and its projection of strength (military force).

    As you may recall, Obama was ready to conduct strikes against the Assad regime back in 2013 but the skepticism of Congress and the American people forced him to reconsider his decision. Another factor in Obama's decision to refrain from attacking Syria was the failure of the British government to obtain support for attacking Syria from its own parliament.
     
  20. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Beyond the speeches, Putin and Obama met privately for 90 minutes afterward. Not much was said publicly about that discussion, but today we are seeing some of the result.

    From Moon of Alabama:

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/0...ts-unified-secular-syrian-state.html#comments

    Secretary of State Kerry made a very new statement that amounts to a really significant change in policy:

    The United States and Russia agree on "some fundamental principles" for Syria, the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday, adding that he plans to meet again with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday.

    "There was agreement that Syria should be a unified country, united, that it needs to be secular, that ISIL (Islamic State) needs to be taken on, and that there needs to be a managed transition," Kerry told MSNBC, adding that differences remained on what the outcome of such a transition would be.

    Never before has the U.S. officially expressed a demand that the Syrian state should in future be "secular" as it is now. This is a rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood dominated Syrian exile coalition and of the GCC states' proxy fighters in Syria who demand a sectarian state based on Islamic law.
     
  21. Kiwi33

    Kiwi33 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,695
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At the same time, it didn't prevent to work for the USA with Assad. Some leaders from the U.S. Government even had friendship with Assad. (they had supper by families) And the USA didn't interfere in the country. (for example there was an act of terrorism on border with Turkey, and after one year, Assad found criminals and punished) But Assad still was the president, independent from the West, and it wasn't pleasant for Israel and the USA. So began Support of opposition against Assad (the different countries, ''vassals'' of the USA) After all for the USA necessary that everywhere there was a pro-American government. The conflict began to increase. Also, then when the West accused Assad allegedly in uses of the chemical weapon, the West recognized him as leader of Syria and conducted with Assad negotiations, on elimination of all chemical weapon which is available in Syria. (in the territory under control to Assad) Now all West shouts - Assad the dictator, killed thousands of citizens. There would be no strong support of opposition from out of, and such big war in Syria wouldn't be. Nobody knows that would be if Putin didn't support Assad. But if to look as the ISIS promptly extends, there are big fears at Russia that if the ISIS will take all Syria, it will come further... to borders of Afghanistan, Tajikistan (there are already ISIS groups) and there already Russian frontier guards. Russia can at war in the own territory... it is why Russia supports Assad...

    PS: Assad is ready to share the power. (about it he told recently)
     
  22. fluer

    fluer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    democracy is a myth like communism:) everybody has his own view for this word. And I do not believe that Assad has 90% support in Syria. His supporters are alawites, cristians and other minorities - 30-40% of population. I doubt that sunnis like him - they want a sunni government, dead alawites and cristians:) that is way he is a dictator - half of Syrians are against him in a radical form.

    About politicians - they are all liars;) it is their job to control the crowd:) it is not freaks me. It is a political game... The only one thing that frighten me in West politicians is inability to recognize a real threat and take responsibility for it. 14 years ago at 11 September States paid for this. It does not help. May be a mad man with nuclear bomb in New York will help or smth like this...
     
  23. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    37,994
    Likes Received:
    7,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Putin realized Washington couldn't be trusted, and that Russia had to build up its military after Clinton interfered in Serbia, and began bombing a sovereign nation under the pretense of genocide.
     
  24. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    37,994
    Likes Received:
    7,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Here is visual proof that Assad was elected by a majority of the Syrian people a year ago. If you believe otherwise, it's because of the brainwashing by the Western media.

    The man speaking in the video is an American who monitored the election in Syria with thirty other people. He said the Syrians went in droves to vote, because they wanted the world to know the truth and to stop believing the lies coming from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Washington.


    [video=youtube;7jqyOGdiAfQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jqyOGdiAfQ[/video]

    Now the truth. The minorities in Syria combined are more than the majority Sunnis...but the Syrian Sunnis also want Assad, because they do not want to live under Sharia law. Most of the terrorists are foreigners sent in by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia...Many are trained in Turkey and Jordan.
     
  25. fluer

    fluer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    US system is not based on president leadership. It is a complex system of lobbying. I.e. each huge business sector has its own lobby in Congress and US government. To become a president in such system requires strong lobby from one of such sectors. Thus almost all significant politicians in States provide aomeone business interests. Good point - it makes your policy very pragmatic. Bad point - business and humanity has nothing in common. If Obama shareholders need ruined Lybia and its oil fields they will get it. And do not doubt mass media will provide to you "right vision of this" and form needed level of support;) If you think that such constraints are reason for a deep sleep you are welcome. P.s. almost all world was against Iraq war:) do you think Bush took such decision due to support of UK?:))
     

Share This Page