My commentary follows the video below.
The Russian air campaign against ISIS has paved the way for another major push towards a political solution in Syria. And though the Obama administration has been raising its stake in the conflict while engaging in the Vienna talks, his critics back home argue it's too little too late. Could a deal be reached to satisfy the major stakeholders, and is it likely to be sustainable, considering the complex geopolitical factors at play? Oksana is joined by David Rothkopf, the CEO of FP Group and Editor of Foreign Policy magazine, to analyse these issues.
Assad's a bad guy because he knew that al Qaeda was right there waiting (and waiting to be funded by the Saudis and others). He knew that what happened in Libya would happen to Syria if he were to rollover and allow the US and NATO to do to Syria what it did to Libya.
The war there is not Assad's fault. It is the fault of those who started protesting against him without knowing how to handle obtaining reforms without ignoring Assad's correct concerns regarding the waiting Takfiris.
David Rothkopf either hasn't a clue about Vladimir Putin's intentions or he's deliberately spreading false propaganda about Putin. Vladimir Putin has no intention whatsoever of leaving IS at all in not only Syria but also Iraq. He also knows very well that if Russia and Russia's allies in Syria and Iraq prevail and force the US to join in against IS that, that will stop the refugee problem from getting worse in Europe and will allow millions to return to both Syria and Iraq, whereby Russia will get the credit in Europe for having done that and whereby the US will be completely unable to get Europeans to go along any longer with sanctions against Russia. The "Russia as boogieman" mantra will be dead and buried, and rightly so. Europeans will take, and are taking, a completely new look at what's really going on in Ukraine too because of all of it.
Rothkopf is seriously underestimating the innate intelligence of Assad. Assad knows full well that the deal will include a power-sharing arrangement where "moderates" (of which he is most assuredly now one and was becoming before the Arab Spring) will be a large part. He also knows that the Constitution, even though it has already been reworked during the war and been made vastly more internationally acceptable, will have to be reworked again. He is prepared to step down, as he placed himself under term limits anyway. What he won't accept, and neither will Russia, is an Islamic state (small-s or large). It will be a secular Syria, whether the Saudis or Turkey like it or not. The Iranians are on board with a secular Syria and have been all along. There will be no sharia government of Syria if Vladimir Putin has anything to say about it, and he does.
Rothkopf threw a bone with his anti-American exceptionalism statement, but he turned right around and undid the goodwill by accusing Russia of being the aggressor in Ukraine when, in very fact, the Ukrainian crisis was caused directly by US neocons working under Barack Obama, who has more than simply tolerated them. Nazi-types were both encouraged and supported in the unconstitutional overthrow of the Ukrainian government. Vladimir Putin has simply supported the Russian speakers in their desire not to come under fascist and/or neoliberal domination. The people of Crimea chose for themselves. The people in the Donbas region did likewise. It is Kiev that has been erring on the side of decidedly fascistic tendencies while Vladimir Putin has been far from a Bolshevik, the largest group in Russia opposing him.
Wow, David sure struggled there at the end to come up with anything he could say against Russia after he admitted that the US has been largely a rogue actor for many, many decades. The thing is, however, the US only makes allegations against Russia concerning cyber activities. It doesn't supply forensic evidence that would withstand independent analysis, nor can it.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)